Original Article

Proc IMechE Part P:

J Sports Engineering and Technology
1–10
Features of ball impact in straight, Ó IMechE 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
curve and knuckle kicks in soccer sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17543371221101234
journals.sagepub.com/home/pip

Kaoru Kimachi1 , Masaaki Koido2, Sungchan Hong2 ,

Shuji Shimonagata3, Masao Nakayama2 and Takeshi Asai2

Abstract
The quantitative relationship between kicking motion and ball behaviour can be easily explained by detecting the impact
point and foot posture. In previous studies, the impact point of a kicking foot was difficult to capture using visual tracking.
Thus, a virtual surface modelling technique was applied in this study to clarify the differences in the three-dimensional foot
speed, impact point and foot posture between straight, curve, and knuckle kicks in soccer, as well as the relationship
between the kick motion and ball rotation. An optical three-dimensional motion capture system (VICON) was used to
record the kicking motion. The impact points of the straight, curve, and knuckle kicks were found to be centrally located
in the instep area, at a lower (more downwards) inside area, and at the medial area between the instep and inside areas
of the kicking foot, respectively. Moreover, an impact with a greater ‘swing vector deviation angle (relative to the direction
from the impact point to the centre of gravity of the ball)’ is necessary for ball rotation. The impact point detection
method employed in this study can be applied to other ball impact estimations beyond soccer kicks.

Keywords
Soccer, impact point, foot posture, swing vector deviation angle, straight kick, curve kick, knuckle kick, football, ball
speed

Date received: 19 November 2020; accepted: 20 April 2022

Introduction The technical factors that affect ball-kicking include

the ‘foot speed’, ‘foot-to-ball speed ratio’ and ‘effective
The kicking skills required to control ball rotation and foot mass’.18,19 The impact point is an important vari-
trajectory are important in soccer. Studies on straight able related to the foot-to-ball speed ratio, coefficient
kicks to achieve higher ball speeds1–4 and curve kicks of restitution, and effective foot mass because some
for curving the ball trajectory using ball rotation5–9 mechanical factors (moment arm from foot joint, rigid-
have been conducted. In addition, knuckle kicks, which ity of the point, etc.) will be changed based on the loca-
can increase the possibility of scoring because they cre- tion of the impact point.1,3,20 The angle of attack
ate an unstable trajectory that is difficult for the goal-
(attacking angle) correlates with the production of
keeper to react to, have recently become the subject of
rotational forces.12 The attacking angle can be deter-
investigation.9–17 Straight kicks with greater ball speeds
mined by the foot posture at the moment when a ball
can increase the possibility of scoring a goal by shorten-
impact occurs. Research literature reporting the effects
ing the time available for goalkeepers to react. Straight
of foot posture in kicking motions is currently scarce.
kicks require considerably high ball speeds, frequently
with back spin. Curve kicks rely on sideways ball rota-
tion to generate curved trajectories that can take the 1
Doctoral Program in Coaching Science, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba,
ball away from the goalkeeper’s reach. Knuckle kicks Japan
are characterised by their unstable trajectories.11 Asai 2
Faculty of Health and Sports Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba,
et al. reported that the unstable trajectory of a knuckle Japan
3
kick is caused by the floating (knuckling) effect induced Faculty of Education, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
by small ball rotation.7 To determine the technical fea-
Corresponding author:
tures of a knuckle kick performed with low rotation, it Kaoru Kimachi, Doctoral Program in Coaching Science, University of
is necessary to clarify the impact point and its contribu- Tsukuba, 1-1-1, Tennodai, Tsukuba 3058577, Japan.
tion to ball rotation. Email: [email protected]
2 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

The impact point is an index that indicates the start- provided informed consent. The participants wore the
ing point of the interaction of the forces acting between same type of indoor shoes (Umbro) of suitable sizes.
the foot and the ball. Detecting the three-dimensional They performed three types of kicks (straight, curve
impact point is an important step in explaining the and knuckle) five times each at maximum effort to
quantitative relationship between the kicking motion obtain high ball speeds and the required ball rotation.
and ball behaviour, not only in terms of ball speed, but One best trial in the five attempted shots was identified
also ball rotation. Ishii et al. calculated the distance verbally by the participants to choose a successful
between the centres of gravity of the foot and ball trial for analysis. The VICON (2000 Hz: Oxford
impact to determine the impact point in only the sagit- Metrics Ltd., Oxford, England) optical motion capture
tal plane; the closer the impact point was to the centre system with ten cameras was used in the experiment
of gravity of the foot, the greater the resulting ball (Figure 1(a)). The global coordinate system was estab-
speed.3 Peacock and Ball represented the impact point lished in terms of the lateral (X-axis: right (+), left
as a two-dimensional coordinate (medial-lateral and (2)), horizontal (Y-axis: forward (+), backward (2)),
proximal-distal) on a curved plane set on the surface of and vertical (Z-axis: upward (+), downward (2))
the instep area of a mechanical foot.4 In that study, a directions from the origin, which was set on the floor
sweet spot was found at which an impact produced the (Figure 1(a)). In this coordinate system, the horizontal
greatest ball speed. The foot-to-ball speed ratio, coeffi- plane and sagittal plane were the X–Y planes and Y–Z
cient of restitution and effective foot mass were used to planes, respectively. A total of 41 reflective 15 mm
indicate the relationship between the ball behaviour spherical markers were placed on across the entire
(mainly represented by the ball speed) and the impact kicker body according to the preinstalled plug-in gait
point. There have been some reports on impact points model in the NEXUS analysis software (Oxford
in projected coordinate values (two-dimension) and Metrics Ltd., Oxford, England). The first and fifth
calculated distance (one-dimension), but not the three- metatarsal head markers were placed on the kicking
dimensional detection of the impact point in ball kick- foot together with a heel marker in the plug-in gait
ing. A few optical high-speed measurements (2000 Hz) model to compose the foot segment. The centre of
of impact points in kicking motions have been gravity of the foot (CGF) was set at the midpoint
reported.21 Kimachi et al. mentioned that a surface within the heel and metatarsal head markers, based on
model composed of virtual markers enabled the detec- the definition of the plug-in gait model. Four reflective
tion of three-dimensional impact points.21 This virtual markers were also placed on the top, front, right, and
modelling technique calculated the impact points by left of the intersection points between the ball surface
generating a rigid-body virtual surface for each seg- and the three axes originating from the centre of grav-
ment until just prior to impact, rather than directly and ity of the ball (CGB) to compose the ball segment.
visually estimating it as in previous studies. This
approach enabled the impact surface detection of the Impact point detection
foot and the ball to be observed in three-dimension in
invisible space. Detailed analysis of the ball impact pro- The impact points were detected using the NEXUS
cess could serve as a useful resource for players seeking (Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, England) analysis soft-
to improve their kicking motion. ware. The impact point in this study was defined as the
The present study clarified the features of ball initial contact location between the foot (POF) and ball
impact and foot posture in straight, curve, and knuckle (POB). The impact surface, which could not be visually
kicks by identifying impact points using an optical captured easily, was determined by a group of virtual
three-dimensional motion capture system and a virtual markers that have coordinate values in the analysis
modelling technique. The differences between the three software. That virtual impact surface denoted by the
types of kicks on impact-point trajectory and ball rota- virtual markers was constructed using the captured real
tion in the ball impact process were investigated. It was markers placed in a regular grid pattern on the real
hypothesised that the differences in impact points and model shoe (Umbro) and the ball. The surface model
ball rotation according to kick types are quantified as was then created by spreading virtual markers between
three-dimensional coordinate value. the captured real markers on the surface of the model
shoe (Figure 1(d)) and the ball. These virtual markers
represented the surface of the shoe and the ball as coor-
Methods dinate values in the local coordinate systems of the foot
and ball segments,21 and the group of virtual markers
Participants was called the virtual model in this study.
The participants in this study were 15 right-footed male The foot segment was set on the right kicking foot
collegiate soccer players with height: 1.70 6 0.06 m; using the following axes: the horizontal (Yf) direction
body mass: 65.6 6 5.1 kg; and soccer experience: from the heel (origin) to the midpoint of the metatarsal
14.3 6 1.8 years. The study design was approved by the heads, the vertical (Zf) direction orthogonal to the
appropriate ethics review board (P.E. 28-23: committee plane composed of the three-foot segment markers, and
of the University of Tsukuba), and all participants the lateral (Xf) direction orthogonal to the y and z axes
Kimachi et al. 3

Figure 1. (a) Illustration of the global coordinate system used in this study with lined detector reflective markers of ball and whole
body of participant. (b) 39 markers of whole body in the plug-in gait model. (c) Four markers on the ball and the local coordinate
system on the ball segment. (d) Markers on the shoe to make foot segment and virtual surface of the virtual foot model and the local
coordinate system.

in the direction of the fifth metatarsal head. The coordi- Virtual ‘rigid’ surface models displayed on the analysis
nate values of the virtual markers describing the foot software showed the timing of the impact by their collision.
segment were saved to apply to the captured motion. In each foot and ball virtual model, the paired markers
The size of the real shoe used for modelling was showing the minimum distance at the impact timing were
265 mm. Therefore, virtual foot models of each trial recorded as the impact points of each segment. Coordinate
constructed for each participant were stretched along values were recorded in millimetres on each axis.
the y-axis because the length (Yf) showed approxi-
mately twice the value of the standard deviation of the
breadth (Xf) and height (Zf) in Japanese foot measure- Data collection and statistical analysis
ment22 to fit the size of the foot of each participant. The mean speed of the CGB was recorded 0.005 after
The origin of the local coordinate system of the ball the ball left the kicking foot as the ball speed. The
was placed at the midpoint of the left and right markers mean speed of the POF was recorded 0.005 s before the
(the centre of gravity of the ball). The axes were set as ball impact as the foot speed. Foot-to-ball speed ratio
the horizontal (Yb) direction from the origin to the was measured from the foot (POF) speed and ball
front marker; vertical (Zb) direction orthogonal to the speed. The extrapolation method was not used to avoid
plane composed by the front, left, and right markers; the loss of the peak value in the trend, though the
and lateral (Xb) direction orthogonal and right to the extrapolated data differed from the mean speed by only
Yb-axis and Zb-axis. The coordinate values of the vir- 0.1 m/s on average. Ball rotation was calculated as side-
tual markers of the virtual ball model were calculated ways rotation (AVA = around vertical axis, counter-
from the fixed value of the ball radius. clockwise (+), clockwise (–)) and vertical rotation
4 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Figure 2. (a) Detected impact point of foot in the virtual model. (b) The face vector as a normal unit vector (red) was calculated
as the cross-product vector of two vectors (black) from the POF (impact point on foot) to adjacent markers. (c) The swing vector
was displacement between coordinate values of POF trajectory.

(ALA = around lateral axis, back (+), top (–)) of the

ball segment in the global coordinate system in revolu- Ball speed and rotation with validation
tions per second (rps). The distance from the CGF to The ball speed, foot speed and ball rotations for
the POF was calculated. The foot posture at the impact the straight, curve, and knuckle kicks are shown in
moment was recorded as a set of Euler angles (roll, Table 1. No significant differences in the ball speed
pitch, and yaw). The ball deformation was estimated were observed. The foot speed of the knuckle kick was
from contact time and minimum distance between POF significantly smaller than that of the straight kick
and CGB during the impact. The POF trajectory (dis- (p \ 0.017, d = 1.25). There was no significant differ-
placement of POF during the impact) was represented ence between the ball rotations of the straight and
in three-dimensional coordinates (XYZ global coordi- knuckle kicks in terms of AVA, but all other possible
nate system) with the origin slide to the initial CGB pairs showed significant differences.
starting from 0.005 s before impact to 0.01 s after The ball speed of the straight kick was the greatest
impact (almost when the foot and ball parted) and for all kick types in this study; however, it was in the
visualised on each plane. The face vector was con- intermediate of the values reported in previous studies
structed by calculating the cross product of vectors at 21.9 and 32.1 m/s.23 The curve kick showed a
from the POF to the adjacent markers (Figure 2(b)) greater ball rotation around the vertical axis. Asai
and represented as the angle from the resulting axis to et al. reported that the ball rotation of curve kicks
the horizontal and vertical planes in each frame. The ranged from 3.0 rps to more than 10.0 rps, depending
swing vectors were defined as displacement between on factors such as impact location and ball speed,
each frame of the POF trajectory (Figure 2(c)). Both which showed a maximum value of 26.0 m/s.5 The ball
the face and swing vectors during ball impact were rotation around the lateral axis of the knuckle kick
shown as mean angles on the horizontal and sagittal was significantly smaller than that of the straight
planes. In addition, the attacking angle between the kick. A previous report showed unpredictable trajec-
face and swing vectors was calculated as angle differ- tories with ball rotation values of 20–40 rpm (0.33–
ences on the horizontal and sagittal planes. The swing 0.67 rps) at ball speed greater than 15.0 m/s.25 The
vector deviation angle was calculated as the deviation results of every type of kick obtained in this study can
angle of the swing vector relative to the direction from thus be considered comparable to those obtained in
the POF to the CGB during ball impact, and the corre- previous studies.
lation with ball rotation was examined.
The data for all participants were reported as mean 6
standard deviation. A paired t-test and Cohen’s effect size Point on ball, foot posture and point on foot
(d)23,24 were calculated to compare the various kick types.
The POB of the straight, curve, and knuckle kicks
The level of significance was set at 0.05 in a three-group,
are provided in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3. The
one-way analysis of variance and modified by Bonferroni
straight kick had significantly smaller horizontal
correction (0.05/3 = 0.017) in each pair.
(p \ 0.017; vs. curve (d = 1.32), knuckle (d = 1.67))
and larger vertical (p \ 0.017; vs. curve (d = 1.36),
knuckle (d = 1.43)) POB values than the other kick
Results and discussion types. The curve kick had a significantly smaller lateral
The results of this study are presented in Table 1 and POB value than the knuckle kick (p \ 0.017; vs
discussed in detail in this section. straight (d = 0.94), knuckle (d = 1.15)).
Kimachi et al. 5

Table 1. Summary of variables and resultant foot posture and kick motion (mean 6 standard deviation) with notation of significance
and d-effect size for three types of kicks (Straight (d: versus Curve), Curve (d: versus Knuckle), Knuckle (d: versus Straight)).

Straight Curve Knuckle

Ball speed [m/s] 25.8 6 1.5 24.9 6 1.0 24.8 6 1.9

d 0.69 0.08 0.57
Foot speed [m/s] 19.6 6 0.7 z 19.1 6 0.8 18.2 6 1.6 z
d 0.55 0.92 1.25
Foot-to-ball speed ratio 1.32 6 0.1 z 1.31 6 0.1y 1.38 6 0.1 zy
d 0.33 1.37 0.95
Ball Rotation [rps]
AVA 20.3 6 1.0* 5.2 6 1.0*y 20.04 6 0.7y
ALA 2.1 6 0.7*z 21.8 6 1.4*y 0.7 6 1.2zy
d 5.58 5.90 0.29
3.56 1.87 1.44
Impact point on ball [mm]
Lateral 1.5 6 4.9 23.8 6 6.4y 5.9 6 10.1y
Horizontal 2107.7 6 1.1*z 2105.3 6 2.3* 2105.1 6 1.8z
Vertical 220.0 6 6.6*z 229.4 6 7.2 *y 228.9 6 5.9 zy
d 0.94 1.15 0.56
1.32 0.08 1.67
1.36 0.07 1.43
Euler angle [degree]
Roll 237.8 6 4.9*z 226.9 6 6.0* 230.7 6 9.2z
Pitch 236.0 6 7.4*z 25.1 6 6.2*y 220.0 6 12.6zy
Yaw 235.9 6 10.4*z 271.0 6 8.4*y 255.9 6 14.4zy
d 1.99 0.48 0.97
4.51 1.49 1.55
3.71 1.29 1.58
Impact point on foot [mm]
Lateral 226.8 6 4.6 *z 237.1 6 2.2 * 235.3 6 6.7 z
Horizontal 155.0 6 5.1z 151.3 6 13.0y 143.3 6 11.0zy
Vertical 50.6 6 1.7* 46.8 6 3.9*y 50.0 6 2.5y
d 2.84 0.37 1.47
0.37 0.66 1.36
1.26 0.96 0.29
Euler angle displacement [degree]
Roll 5.4 6 3.6*z 13.2 6 4.4* 11.6 6 3.7z
Pitch 8.5 6 3.8 9.4 6 2.4 8.4 6 4.6
Yaw 27.7 6 4.5 25.2 6 4.2 27.0 6 5.7
d 1.95 0.41 1.70
0.28 0.25 0.01
0.59 0.36 0.15
Distance from POF to CGF [mm] 86.4 6 2.4 85.9 6 7.5 81.6 6 4.5
d 0.08 0.69 1.31
Face vector angle [degree]
Horizontal 22.2 6 4.4 20.9 6 6.6 24.8 6 10.0
Sagittal 10.7 6 6.3* 24.4 6 5.9*y 12.9 6 13.7y
d 0.22 0.46 0.34
2.25 1.10 0.20
Swing vector angle [degree]
Horizontal 20.3 6 2.4* 21.3 6 3.6*y 2.0 6 3.0y
Sagittal 0.0 6 2.5*z 16.0 6 5.6*y 5.5 6 3.1zy
d 7.07 5.84 0.84
3.65 2.31 1.92
Attacking angle [degree]
Horizontal 1.8 6 4.1* 22.3 6 7.0*y 6.8 6 10.4y
Sagittal 210.6 6 5.7 28.5 6 7.7 27.4 6 14.9
d 3.56 1.75 0.62
0.32 0.09 0.29

Significant differences (p \ 0.017) between pairs are indicated as follows; straight vs. curve (*), curve vs. knuckle (y), straight vs. knuckle (z). AVA
means revolution around vertical axis, and ALA means revolution around lateral axis.

The Euler angles at the impact moment, which kick, are also given in Table 1. Significant differences
describe the foot posture in terms of the displacement can be observed between all pairs of angle components,
angle components 0.01 s after the impact of the straight except between the roll components of the curve and
6 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Figure 3. POB (impact point on ball) location of the straight

(blue), curve (green), and knuckle (red) kicks on the frontal plane
expressed by ellipses scaled to 1.5 times the standard deviation
of the lateral and vertical axes.

Figure 4. Foot posture for straight (a), curve (b), and knuckle
(c) kicks.

knuckle kicks. It appears to indicate the similarity of

the curve and the knuckle kick. Significant differences
in displacement were found in the roll components of
the straight versus curve and knuckle kicks. Foot pos-
ture images before and after the impact and transition Figure 5. Transitions of the Euler angles (pitch is given by the
of the Euler angles for the three kick types are shown short-dashed blue line, roll by the long-dashed green line, and
yaw by the solid red line) from 0.005 s before the impact to
in Figures 4 and 5.
0.01 s after the impact for straight (a), curve (b), and knuckle (c)
The foot posture of the straight kick at impact
kicks with pictures of bones as foot posture of start and end
resulted in a kick with an impact point similar to that timing viewed from the front.
identified by Peacock et al.20 as the ‘sweet spot’ to pro-
duce the best result. The minimal inhibition of the front
swing of the leg caused by the small roll angle led to an CGF to decrease ball rotation and can be attributed to
increase in foot speed. The foot posture of the curve the posture of the foot at the impact moment of a
kick at impact showed a slightly smaller negative pitch knuckle kick, which was opened to the right, in con-
value than the other kicks and the greatest negative trast to a straight kick. The sagittal face vector angle
yaw value of all kicks. Impact with a horizontal sur- value order of the three types of kicks indicated the
face, such as the inside of the kicking foot, can cause order of ball rotation around the lateral axis.
sideways ball rotation because of the increase in the The POF values of the straight, curve, and knuckle
face vector that may widen the attacking angle. The kicks are given in Table 1 and shown in Figure 6. The
knuckle kick showed smaller negative pitch and roll lateral POF of the straight kick was significantly larger
values than the straight kick. These smaller values are than that of the other kick types (p \ 0.017; vs. curve
among the ways of creating an impact closer to the (d = 2.84), knuckle (d = 1.47)). The vertical POF of
Kimachi et al. 7

those of the other kick types (p \ 0.017; vs. straight

(d = 2.25), knuckle (d = 1.10)). The mean sagittal
swing vector angle of the knuckle kick was significantly
larger than that of the straight kick (p \ 0.017,
d = 1.92) but was smaller than that of the curve kick (p
\ 0.017, d = 2.31).
The mean values of the attacking angle transition
during the ball impact of the straight, curve, and
knuckle kicks are also shown in Table 1. A significant
difference was only observed between the curve kick
and the others in the horizontal direction (p \ 0.017;
vs straight (d = 3.56), knuckle (d = 1.75).
On the horizontal plane, the POF trajectories of
both the straight and knuckle kicks appear to be linear
(Figure 7(g) and (i)). However, the POF trajectory of
the knuckle kick, which has a lower POB, showed a
greater sagittal swing vector angle and a greater sagittal
face vector angle than that of the straight kick. On the
horizontal plane, curve kicks showed significantly wider
attacking angles than the other kick types. This result
supports those of Hong et al., who compared straight,
curve, and knuckle kicks.12
The transition of the swing vector deviation angle
during ball impact is shown in Figure 8. The correla-
Figure 6. POF (impact point on foot) location of straight,
curve, and knuckle kicks on the horizontal plane, expressed by
tion coefficient between the mean swing vector devia-
ellipses scaled to 1.5 times the standard deviation along the tion angle and the ball rotation was horizontal = 0.93
lateral and horizontal axes. and sagittal = 0.83, as shown in Figure 9. From those
high correlation coefficients between the mean swing
vector deviation angle and ball rotation (Figure 9), the
the curve kick was significantly smaller than those of foot swing direction against the CGB can make the ball
the other kick types (p \ 0.017; vs. straight (d = 1.26), rotate in each plane during ball impact.
knuckle (d = 0.96)), and the horizontal POF of the Capturing the three-dimensional location of the
knuckle kick was significantly smaller than those of the impact point and foot posture enabled the calculation
other kick types (p \ 0.017; vs. straight (d = 1.36), of the swing and face vectors at every impact. This in
curve (d = 0.66)). The distances from the CGF to the turn enabled the verification of the correlation between
POF for the straight, curved, and knuckle kicks are kicking motion and ball rotation during ball impact.
provided in Table 1 as well, and the POF trajectories By calculating the impact point and foot posture, it
are shown in Figure 7. was deduced that the straight kick is conducted by
The POF of all kick types was concentrated in a rel- striking the ball with the instep area of the foot, where
atively rigid area (Figure 6) close to the medial cunei- a larger pitch angle (plantar flexion) and smaller foot
form.1,3,20 The POF of the knuckle kick was closer to trajectory can cause backside ball rotation. The curve
the CGF than that of the curve kick to decrease ball kick is executed by striking the ball with the inside area
rotation (regardless of differences in foot thickness). of the foot, where a greater negative yaw angle can
Based on this observation, it was found that knuckle cause a sideways ball rotation. Finally, the knuckle
kicks decrease ball rotation with a closer impact point kick is executed by striking the ball with the medial
to the CGF. area of the foot between the instep and inside areas
with a foot posture that faces the CGB. A foot trajec-
tory that passes through an area close to the CGB can
Foot behaviour during ball impact decrease ball rotation in the knuckle kick.
The ball deformation estimated from contact time
(approximately 21 frame, 10.5 ms) and minimum dis-
tance (approximately 35.2 mm) between POF and CGB
Limitations and implications
during the impact was not different between types of In this study, the impact point was measured using a
kicks. virtual foot model and significant differences in impact
The mean face and sagittal vector angles during the point coordinates were observed according to kick type.
ball impact of the straight, curve, and knuckle kicks Note that the proposed method has a risk of coordinate
are given in Table 1. The mean sagittal face vector value error of less than 2.9 mm because the maximum
angle of the curve kick was significantly larger than distance between the virtual markers used in the
8 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Figure 7. 3D perspectives of POF (impact point on foot) trajectories against the ball for the straight (a), curve (b), and knuckle
kicks (c); top views of the straight (d), curve (e) and knuckle (f) kicks; side views of the straight (g), curve (h), and knuckle (i) kicks;
and rear views of the straight (j), curve (k), and knuckle (l) kicks. The arrow indicates the direction of ball movement in the trials.

analysis was 5.8 mm. This error risk is smaller than the
differences of each component in the POF. point differences as a first attempt. Second, the impact
This study had several limitations. First, the form behaviour was analysed during the impact moment in
resolution of the virtual foot model in this study was this study; however, the ball deformation process was
relatively simple. Thus, the authors suggest that the not considered. Deformations of the foot joint and ball
model be further developed to better reflect the foot or other interactions, such as stress distributions, need
shape, thereby increasing the resolution of detection. to be analysed and measured in future studies. Finally,
The model applied in this study could detect impact the whole-body motion or joint torque that generated
Kimachi et al. 9

Figure 8. Transition of the mean swing vector deviation angle during ball impact in the horizontal plane (a) and sagittal plane (b) with
each dashed standard deviation range.

Figure 9. Correlation between the mean swing vector deviation angle and the ball rotation for all three types of kicks in the
horizontal plane (a) and sagittal plane (b).

the analysed impact point behaviours was not clarified American football, as the ball surface model can easily
in this study and should be investigated in future be deformed to suit an elliptical sphere. Additional
research. analysis considering the different objectives of kicking
in different sports will be enabled by impact-point
detection using virtual-modelling techniques.
Conclusion
The impact points of straight, curve, and knuckle kicks Authors’ Note
were obtained from observations of participant kicks.
Sungchan Hong is now affiliated to Institute for Liberal
Capturing the three-dimensional location of the impact
Arts, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
point and foot posture then allowed the face, swing vec-
Shuji Shimonagata is now affiliated to Faculty of
tors and attacking angle to be calculated in this study.
Education, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
The results indicate that the ball rotation was led by the
swing vector calculated from the impact point trajec-
tory relative to the centre of gravity of the ball. Acknowledgements
The virtual modelling technique used to detect the The authors would like to thank Editage (www.edita-
impact points can reveal the relationship of impact phe- ge.com) for English language editing.
nomenon and ball behaviour when kicking. The use of
this three-dimensional technique made the estimation
of kicking motion more accurate than previous studies Declaration of conflicting interests
and useful for players to improve their skill. The virtual The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
modelling technique can also be adapted to other with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
sports involving kicking motions, such as rugby or cation of this article.
10 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Funding 12. Hong S, Kazama Y, Nakayama M, et al. Ball impact

dynamics of knuckling shot in soccer. Procedia Eng 2012;
The author(s) received no financial support for the
34:200–205.
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
13. Goff JE, Hobson CM, Asai T, et al. Wind-tunnel experi-
ments and trajectory analyses for five nonspinning soccer
ORCID iDs balls. Procedia Eng 2016; 147(2016): 32–37.
14. Asai T, Hong S, Kimachi K, et al. Flow visualisation
Kaoru Kimachi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7249-
around spinning and non-spinning soccer balls using
209X the lattice Boltzmann method. Proceedings 2018;
Sungchan Hong https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0149- 2(6): 237.
5028 15. Asai T, Seo K, Kobayashi O, et al. Flow visualization on
a real flight non-spinning and spinning soccer ball. In:
References Moritz EF and Haake S (eds) The Engineering of Sport 6.
New York: Springer, 2006, pp.327–332.
1. Asami T. Analysis of powerful ball kicking. Biomechanics 16. Asai T, Seo K, Sakurai Y, et al. A study of knuckling
VIII-B 1983;695–700. effect of soccer ball (P106). Eng Sport 2008; 1:555–562.
2. Nunome H, IkegamI Y, Kozakai R, et al. Segmental 17. Hong S, Chung C, Nakayama M, et al. Unsteady aero-
dynamics of soccer instep kicking with the preferred and dynamic force on a knuckleball in soccer. Procedia Eng
non-preferred leg. J Sports Sci 2006; 24(5): 529–541. 2010; 2(2): 2455–2460.
3. Ishii H, Yanagiya T, Naito H, et al. Theoretical study of 18. Lees A and Nolan L. The biomechanics of soccer: a
factors affecting ball velocity in instep soccer kicking. J review. J Sports Sci 1998; 16(3): 211–234.
Appl Biomech 2012; 28(3): 258–270. 19. Lees A, Asai T, Andersen TB, et al. The biomechanics
4. Peacock JCA and Ball K. The relationship between foot- of kicking in soccer: a review. J Sports Sci 2010; 28(8):
ball impact and flight characteristics in punt kicking. 805–817.
Sports Eng 2017; 20(3): 221–230. 20. Peacock J and Ball K. Is there a sweet spot on the foot in
5. Asai T, Carre MJ, Akatsuka T, et al. The curve kick of a Australian football drop punt kicking? J Sports Sci 2019;
football I: Impact with the foot. Sports Eng 2002; 5(4): 37(4): 467–476.
183–192. 21. Kimachi K, Hong S, Shimonagata S, et al. Impact points
6. Asai T, Takano S, Carré MJ, et al. A fundamental study
and their effect on Trajectory in soccer. Proceedings 2018;
of an in front curve kick in football. Proceedings, 2004;
2(6): 235.
2: 183–192.
22. Kouchi M. Inter-generation differences in foot morphol-
7. Asai T, Seo K, Kobayashi O, et al. Fundamental aerody-
ogy: aging or secular change? J Hum Ergol 2003; 32(1):
namics of the soccer ball. Sports Eng 2007; 10(2): 101–109.
23–48.
8. Carre MJ, Asai T, Akatsuka T, et al. The curve kick of a
23. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
football II: flight through the air. Sports Eng 2002; 5(4):
sciences. New York, NY: Academic, 1988, pp.54.
193–200.
24. Rosenthal R. Parametric measures of effect size. In:
9. Bray K and Kerwin D. Modelling the flight of a soccer
Cooper H, Hedges LV and Valentine JC (eds) The hand-
ball in a direct free kick. J Sports Sci 2003; 21(2): 75–85.
book of research synthesis. New York: Russell SAGE
10. Murakami M, Kondoh M, Iwai Y, et al. Measurement of
Foundation, 1994, pp.231–244.
aerodynamic forces and flow field of a soccer ball in a wind
25. Passmore MA, Tuplin S and Stawski A. The real-time
tunnel for knuckle effect. Procedia Eng 2010; 2(2): 2467–2472.
measurement of football aerodynamic loads under spin-
11. Hong S, Chung C, Sakamoto K, et al. Analysis of the
ning conditions. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineer-
swing motion on knuckling shot in soccer. Procedia Eng
ing and Technology 2017; 231(4): 262–274.
2011; 13:176–181.