Balancing deceit and disguise: How to successfully fool the defender in a 1 vs. 1 situation in rugby

Suddenly changing direction requires a whole body reorientation strategy. In sporting duels such as an attacker vs. a defender in rugby, successful body orientation/reorientation strategies are essential for successful performance. The aim of this study is to examine which biomechanical factors, while taking into account biomechanical constraints, are used by an attacker in a 1 vs. 1 duel in rugby. More specifically we wanted to examine how an attacker tries to deceive the defender yet disguise his intentions by comparing effective deceptive movements (DM+), ineffective deceptive movements (DM-), and non-deceptive movements (NDM). Eight French amateur expert rugby union players were asked to perform DMs and NDMs in a real 1 vs. 1 duel. For each type of movement (DM+, DM-, NDM) different relevant orientation/reorientation parameters, medio-lateral displacement of the center of mass (COM), foot, head, upper trunk, and lower trunk yaw; and upper trunk roll were analyzed and compared. Results showed that COM displacement and lower trunk yaw were minimized during DMs while foot displacement along with head and upper trunk yaw were exaggerated during DMs (DM+ and DM-). This would suggest that the player is using exaggerated body-related information to consciously deceive the defender into thinking he will run in a given direction while minimizing other postural control parameters to disguise a sudden change in posture necessary to modify final running direction. Further analysis of the efficacy of deceptive movements showed how the disguise and deceit strategies needed to be carefully balanced to successfully fool the defender. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Bending It Like Beckham: How to Visually Fool the Goalkeeper

Background: As bending free-kicks becomes the norm in modern day soccer, implications for goalkeepers have largely been ignored. Although it has been reported that poor sensitivity to visual acceleration makes it harder for expert goalkeepers to perceptually judge where the curved free-kicks will cross the goal line, it is unknown how this affects the goalkeeper's actual movements.

Methodology/Principal Findings: Here, an in-depth analysis of goalkeepers' hand movements in immersive, interactive virtual reality shows that they do not fully account for spin-induced lateral ball acceleration. Hand movements were found to be biased in the direction of initial ball heading, and for curved free-kicks this resulted in biases in a direction opposite to those necessary to save the free-kick. These movement errors result in less time to cover a now greater distance to stop the ball entering the goal. These and other details of the interceptive behaviour are explained using a simple mathematical model which shows how the goalkeeper controls his movements online with respect to the ball's current heading direction. Furthermore our results and model suggest how visual landmarks, such as the goalposts in this instance, may constrain the extent of the movement biases.

Conclusions: While it has previously been shown that humans can internalize the effects of gravitational acceleration, these results show that it is much more difficult for goalkeepers to account for spin-induced visual acceleration, which varies from situation to situation. The limited sensitivity of the human visual system for detecting acceleration, suggests that curved free-kicks are an important goal-scoring opportunity in the game of soccer.

Lighthouse; Migraine; Fool's Gold

Three original poems

Improving E-Assessment Systems With A focus On Adaptive Feedback And Marking

Institutions involved in the provision of tertiary education across Europe are feeling the pinch. European universities, and other higher education (HE) institutions, must operate in a climate where the pressure of government spending cuts (Garben, 2012) is in stark juxtaposition to the EU’s strategy to drive forward and maintain a growth of student numbers in the sector (eurostat, 2015).

In order to remain competitive, universities and HE institutions are making ever-greater use of electronic assessment (E-Assessment) systems (Chatzigavriil et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012). These systems are attractive primarily because they offer a cost-effect and scalable approach for assessment. In addition to scalability, they also offer reliability, consistency and impartiality; furthermore, from the perspective of a student they are most popular because they can offer instant feedback (Walet, 2012).

There are disadvantages, though.

First, feedback is often returned to a student immediately on competition of their assessment. While it is possible to disable the instant feedback option (this is often the case during an end of semester exam period when assessment scores must be can be ratified before release), however, this option tends to be a global ‘all on’ or ‘all off’ configuration option which is controlled centrally rather than configurable on a per-assessment basis.

If a formative in-term assessment is to be taken by multiple groups of
students, each at different times, this restriction means that answers to each question will be disclosed to the first group of students undertaking the assessment. As soon as the answers are released “into the wild” the academic integrity of the assessment is lost for subsequent student groups.

Second, the style of feedback provided to a student for each question is often limited to a simple ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ indicator. While this type of feedback has its place, it often does not provide a student with enough insight to improve their understanding of a topic that they did not answer correctly.

Most E-Assessment systems boast a wide range of question types including Multiple Choice, Multiple Response, Free Text Entry/Text Matching and Numerical questions. The design of these types of questions is often quite restrictive and formulaic, which has a knock-on effect on the quality of feedback that can be provided in each case.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) are most prevalent as they are the most prescriptive and therefore most the straightforward to mark consistently. They are also the most amenable question types, which allow easy provision of meaningful, relevant feedback to each possible outcome chosen.
Text matching questions tend to be more problematic due to their free text entry nature. Common misspellings or case-sensitivity errors can often be accounted for by the software but they are by no means fool proof, as it is very difficult to predict in advance the range of possible variations on an answer that would be considered worthy of marks by a manual marker of a paper based equivalent of the same question.

Numerical questions are similarly restricted. An answer can be checked for accuracy or whether it is within a certain range of the correct answer, but unless it is a special purpose-built mathematical E-Assessment system the system is unlikely to have computational capability and so cannot, for example, account for “method marks” which are commonly awarded in paper-based marking.

From a pedagogical perspective, the importance of providing useful formative feedback to students at a point in their learning when they can benefit from the feedback and put it to use must not be understated (Grieve et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012).

In this work, we propose a number of software-based solutions, which will overcome the limitations and inflexibilities of existing E-Assessment systems.