倫敦奧運會中國與荷蘭女子曲棍球隊犯規(guī)特點的比較研究.pdf

1、倫敦奧運會中國與荷蘭女子曲棍球隊犯規(guī)特點的比較研究論文隨機驗證編號：BT5112017262053IV 摘要 摘要 隨著現(xiàn)代女子曲棍球運動技、戰(zhàn)術(shù)的不斷創(chuàng)新，整體水平顯著提升，比賽節(jié)奏加快，對抗更加激烈，使得不同隊伍之間的競爭更加激烈并趨于白熱化，犯規(guī)明顯增加。對于球隊而言，盡量控制或減少因犯規(guī)造成的失分，同時根據(jù)比賽的實際情況巧妙的利用犯規(guī)，是一支球隊技戰(zhàn)術(shù)意識、能力及整體經(jīng)驗成熟的表現(xiàn)，也是現(xiàn)代比賽中取得最終勝利的關(guān)鍵之所在。 本文

2、對 2012 年倫敦奧運會中國與荷蘭隊比賽中犯規(guī)特點進行系統(tǒng)的比較分析，得出現(xiàn)代女子曲棍球比賽中犯規(guī)現(xiàn)象的一般規(guī)律與特征，發(fā)現(xiàn)我們的不足與差距，分析其背后的原因及犯規(guī)現(xiàn)象所反映的問題，找出中國隊與荷蘭隊之間的差距，從而使球隊能夠更加清晰的認識和利用犯規(guī)。 通過研究，得到如下基本結(jié)論： 1.中國隊犯規(guī)的次數(shù)尤其是防守的犯規(guī)次數(shù)明顯多于比荷蘭隊，反映出中國隊在技術(shù)動作方面的不成熟。相比之下，荷蘭隊對于規(guī)則的掌握程度更好，她們的技術(shù)動作更加符

3、合競賽規(guī)則的要求，因而犯規(guī)次數(shù)較少。主要反映在搶斷時，身體位置不正確，當對方球員變向后，重心不能及時的跟上，所以造成犯規(guī)。 2.中國隊與荷蘭隊犯規(guī)類型的數(shù)據(jù)分布基本相同，在進攻中的犯規(guī)皆以腳球犯規(guī)為最多，以 5 米犯規(guī)為最少，兩隊在進攻中都有大量腳碰球的犯規(guī)現(xiàn)象；兩隊的防守犯規(guī)皆以球棍犯規(guī)為最多，其次是腳球犯規(guī)、身體犯規(guī)，而危險球犯規(guī)、5 米犯規(guī)及動球犯規(guī)三種犯規(guī)類型的次數(shù)都比較少。但也反應出中國隊隊員的基礎(chǔ)技術(shù)有待提高，在高強度對抗下

4、擊起高球，在前場失去了一次進攻機會，在后場則給對手一次進攻機會。 3.中國隊在中后場犯規(guī)次數(shù)明顯多于荷蘭隊，說明中國隊在前場的逼搶不夠兇猛，讓對手輕松的通過第一道防線，后場犯規(guī)次數(shù)的增加給后衛(wèi)線造成巨大的壓力，形成被動的局面。 4.中國隊與荷蘭隊在攻、防犯規(guī)的時間特征方面有很大差異，荷蘭隊進攻犯規(guī)在下半場明顯比上半場多，而中國隊進攻犯規(guī)上下半場比較均衡，上半場的進攻犯規(guī)次數(shù)略高于下半場；在防守犯規(guī)方面，荷蘭隊上半場的防守犯規(guī)次數(shù)比下半場

5、多，而中國隊防守犯規(guī)的次數(shù)上半場比下半場少。防守犯規(guī)次數(shù)在上下半場的差異，體現(xiàn)了荷蘭隊作為強隊，在下半場對比賽的控制力在不斷加強。 倫敦奧運會中國與荷蘭女子曲棍球隊犯規(guī)特點的比較研究論文隨機驗證編號：BT5112017262053VI ABSTRACT Then number of foul times, especailly the Defensive Foul times, of Chinese team wa

6、s signifincantly higher than that of Netherlands team, which reflected their immaturity in the technic skills. On the contrast, the Netherlands team for a better mastery of the rules, they were more in line with the re

7、quirements of the competition, and thus committed fewer fouls. Most of the fouls of Netherlands team happened in the time of steals. While their body was not in the right place,so they were not

8、able to adjust in time when the opponents turned direction. The data distribution of the types of fouls shows similarity in the two teams. In which foot foul during attacking counted for the most, while 5 meters foul

9、shared the least part. Both teams had lots of foot fouls when attacking. Tackle fouls during defending took a great part of the total fouls, followed by foot foul and body foul. The dangerous ball, five meters foul and m

10、ove the ball after whistle foul are the 3 least happened types. The data also reflects the needs of basic technic improvement of Chinese team. Striking a high ball under high strength would lose a chance to attack in fr

11、ont area, which also gave a chance to the opponent to attack. The number of fouls in the back area of Chinese team was significantly higher than that of the Netherlands team, which shows that the weak defense of Chinese

12、 team in the frontcourt made the opponents easily went through the first defending line. The increase of foul times on the back area led to the enormous pressure on the back players, forming passive situation. The char

13、acrestics of foul time in attack and defence of both teams shows significantly differences. The foul times in second half of attack from Netherlands team were significantly higher than the first half, while the Chinese