Advance Cues in Soccer Penalty Kicks by Ian Cervantes A Thesis

Advance Cues

in Soccer Penalty Kicks

Ian Cervantes

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

Approved November 2019 by the

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Nancy Cooke

Russell Branaghan

Robert Gray, Chair

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

December 2019

ABSTRACT

The study at hand investigated the effects of guidance and type of occlusion on

the prediction of shot direction during a soccer penalty kick. Seventy participants took an

online survey where they had to guess the direction of a penalty kick from the perspective

of a goalkeeper. Half the participants were placed in a group where they had access to

tips on what to look for, while the other group had no tips provided. Participants were

shown videos in which the penalty shooter had their upper body covered or their lower

body covered. Participants had 30 seconds to decide what side the ball was going to, right

or left. Results showed that there is no significant between the two groups in terms of

judgment accuracy. The group that received no guidance and had the kicker's lower body

covered was the group with the highest average score, 50.44%. The findings may help

future studies that focus on what material is taught to goalkeepers in a classroom setting

and the role of occlusion during free kicks outside the 18-yard box.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... iv

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

Overview...................................................................................................1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 3

3 METHODS ......................................................................................................... 8

Participants................................................................................................8

Video Production .....................................................................................9

Survey Structure ........................................................................................9

Procedure ................................................................................................10

Survey Instructions..................................................................................10

4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 11

5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 13

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................15

APPENDIX

1 BAR GRAPH DISPLAYING AVERAGE CORRECT DECISION

PERCENTAGE FOR GUIDANCE GROUP – LOWER BODY OCCLUDED

VS GUIDANCE GROUP – UPPER BODY OCCLUDED VS NO GUIDANCE

GROUP – LOWER BODY VS NO GUIDANCE – UPPER BODY................. 15

2 BAR GRAPH DISPLAYING AVERAGE CORRECT DECISION

PERCENTAGE FOR GUIDANCE GROUP VS NO GUIDANCE GROUP .... 15

iii

Page

3 BAR GRAPH DISPLAYING AVERAGE CORRECT DECISION

PERCENTAGE FOR LOWER BODY OCCLUDED GROUP VS UPPER

BODY OCCLUDED GROUP........................................................................... 15

4 IRB APPROVED ON OCTOBER 15, 2019 ..................................................... 15

5 TIPS................................................................................................................... 15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Average Correct Decision Score for 4 Groups .................................................. 12

2 Average Correct Decision Score for Guidance and No Guidance Groups ......... 12

3 Average Correct Decision Score for Lower Body Occluded and Upper Body

Occluded............................................................................................................ 13

Introduction

Soccer is one of the most watched sports in the world. It brings millions of people

together and creates bonds that spread over oceans. In soccer, there are several instances

in which a split second can change the game. A penalty kick is one of these moments.

According to FIFA, in the 2014 World Cup, penalty kick averaged 70 mph (Gaines,

2014). The ball reaches the goal in less than 400 milliseconds. For a goalkeeper to fully

extend to one side, it takes about 500 milliseconds (Insider, 2018). That means that a fast

ball near the post is mathematically impossible to reach unless the goalkeeper guesses

correctly and starts moving before the ball is kicked. So how does the goalkeeper know

what side to move before the ball is kicked? Is it just luck or is there a specific strategy a

goalkeeper uses?

Overview

The study at hand is to answer the following question: What is the role that

advance cues play on the decision-making of a goalkeeper during a penalty kick,

specifically upper vs lower body cues. The first step is to define what a penalty kick is. A

penalty kick is given when a player commits a foul (direct free kick) inside his or her 18-

yard box. The opponent’s goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing the kicker,

until the ball is kicked. The kicker must score from 12 yards away from goal (Law 14:

The Penalty Kick, n.d.). The kicker and the goalkeeper are the only players allowed in the

penalty area. The other players must be outside the penalty area. The keeper’s decision

consists of several factors, one of them being advance cues. Professional goalkeepers

initiate their response/decision before the impact of the ball. Advance cues refer to the

goalkeeper’s ability to make accurate predictions based on the contextual information

available before the player kicks the ball. Advance cues are a significant component

when anticipating what will happen. They are visual information that allows players to

predict what will happen before the action begins. Advance cues are often essential to a

successful performance because the action happens so fast. With this extra information

available, athletes still need to make a decision. The following studies help frame the

approach for the current study.

An initial analysis was done prior to this study where penalties from the English

Premier League from 2014-2018 were examined. Bleacher Report described the English

Premier League as the top football league in the world. The league has 1.33 goals per

game, 0.06 red cards per game, 26 continental wins, and 31 point differential (Tansey,

2014). From the 360 penalties taken 274 were scored, 19 were missed, and 67 were

saved from the keeper. In the 2016-2017 season, goalkeepers guessed the correct side 42

times from the 106 penalties taken. That is only 39% (Maurya, 2017). The statistics show

that expert goalkeepers need to improve their penalty kick performance. They must look

for reliable information that can help them guide their decision to the correct side. One of

the goals of this study is to help develop a goalkeeper training program to improve their

penalty kick performance.

Literature Review

Many studies have focused on penalty kicks in soccer and have specially looked

at the rational and thought process of a goalkeeper. For example, Ona, Raya, and Bilbao

(2010) investigated the effects of providing advance cues during a penalty kick and

measured the kicker’s rate of success. The point of the study is the effect of explicitly

providing goalkeeper’s movement advanced cue to the kicker during a real penalty kick

task was assessed. Providing an advance cue significantly improved the player's rate of

success relative to players without the advance cue. The cue in this study was the

direction the goalkeeper was going to move to. This shows that providing advance

movement cues helped the experimental group to increase its decision time significantly,

suggesting cognitive adaption to the detection of a cue and making a decision.

Williams and David’s (1998) study investigated the relationship between visual

search strategy, selective attention, and expertise in soccer. Participants recruited

consisted of 12 experienced and 12 less experienced male soccer players. They were

asked to anticipate pass destination as quickly and accurately as possible. Although there

were no differences in search strategy in 3v3 situations, in 1v1 situations, experienced

players had a higher search rate, involving more fixations of shooter duration, and fixated

longer on the hip region (Williams & Davids, 1998). The article indicated the hip region

to be an area of importance in anticipating an opponent’s movement. It also mentions the

advantage of using eye movements with more direct measures.

Johnston and Morrison (2010) looked at the application of naturalistic decision-

making technique to explore cues in rugby players. The purpose of this study was to see

the types of meaning of cues and how it varied between the skill level of the player. It

was also anticipated that experts would practice greater cue discrimination than novices.

Participants consisted of three players from a semi-professional club and seven players

from a professional club. Participants were put into four categories. Category one is

representing the highest level of ability and Category 4 the lowest. Also, participants

were part of a cognitive task analysis. They were asked sixteen questions framed around

a specific event that was recalled from memory by the individual. Following the

cognitive task analysis, the participants were shown a picture stimulus depicting a scene

from a professional rugby league game (Johnston & Morrison, 2016). They were asked to

describe what they would do if they were part of the scene. Findings demonstrated

differences in the number of cues used across player categories, with the highest category

player reporting a reliance on fewer cues that the other players. Cues in rugby helped

players make predictions of their opponent in the field.

Savelsbergh, Williams, Van Der Kamp, and Ward (2002) conducted a study in the

Netherlands, where they investigated the effects of visual search, anticipation, and

expertise in goalkeepers. Fourteen players participated where seven had played ten plus

years in a semi-professional league and the other seven players less frequently, for fun.

Participants were placed in two groups, the expert, and novice group, based on their

experience. Experts and novices were then asked to move a joystick in response to

penalty kicks presented on film. Visual search behavior was assessed using an eye

movement registration system. Expert goalkeepers were more accurate in predicting the

direction of the penalty kick than novice goalkeepers (Savelsbergh, 2002). A critical

piece of information from this study is that the novice group fixated more on the trunk,

arms, and hips (upper body), whereas the expert group paid attention to the kick and non-

kicking leg (lower body) and ball. The findings in this study are interesting in that

participants separated cues into the categories.

Morris and Colenso’s (1996) work looked at the anticipation of goalkeepers when

facing right and left-footed penalty kicks, similar findings to the previous study were

found. Participants were shown a film with ten right-left footed penalty kicks and ten left-

footed penalty kicks (McMorris & Colenso, 1996). A 2-way ANOVA indicated that

anticipation of right footed-kicks was significantly better than left-footed kicks. Where

this study connects with the previous one is that post hoc interviews were conducted and

revealed that participants used the angle of approach of the ball, foot position at contact,

and hip position at the time of contact as their main cues (lower body). From these

previous studies, we see how there is a reliance among these two types of cues, upper and

lower.

Causer, Smeeton, and Williams (2017) looked at the effects of having penalties

both spatially and temporally occluded on the ability for skilled and less skilled

goalkeepers to predict their direction. Twenty-four goalkeepers were asked to look at a

video on a projector, and they had to dive to the side the goalkeepers believed to ball was

traveling to. Participants were required to verbalize the side they were diving to. The

clips the participants saw where either showing the full body of the kicker or only the hip

section. The videos were also stopped at -240 ms before the kick or at 80ms before the

kick. Findings showed how skilled goalkeepers used to hip region to accurately predict

the direction of the penalty kick. Later temporal occlusions times were also associated

with increased performance in the correction response and direction of the analyses

(Causer, Smeeton, & William, 2017).

Hunter, Murphy, Angilletta Jr, and Wilson (2018) study focused on the effects of

speed and technique of the kick on predicting the direction of penalty kick. More than

seven hundred participants were part of an online survey where they matched penalty

shots from the point of view of a goalkeeper. Participants watched 60 videos penalty

kicks at different occlusion times (-0.4s to 0.0s) before the ball was kicked and needed to

predict the direction of the kick. The kickers in the video were asked to kick in four

different way, left and side-foot; right and side-foot; left and instep; right and instep

(Hunter, Murphy, Angilletta Jr, & Wilson, 2018). Results showed that side-foot kicks

were easier to predict when they were fast. Instep kicks were harder to predict slow or

fast. It was also found the accuracy increased on videos were the occlusion time was

closer to ball contact.

Dicks, Button, and Davids (2010) investigated the behaviors of goalkeepers in

three situ conditions and two video simulation conditions. The three situ conditions were

categorized into verbal, simplified body movement, and interceptive response followed

by verbal and joystick movement response video simulations. Goalkeepers were asked to

verbally judge the direction of the penalty kick without making any movements for the

video simulation verbal and the in-situ verbal condition. In the video conditions,

goalkeepers were asked to move to actually try to save the penalty kick. Findings showed

that goalkeepers focus more on the penalty kick taker’s movement compared to the ball

location (Dicks, Button, & Davids, 2010). In the situ interception, goalkeepers spend the

same amount of time looking at the penalty kicks movements and the ball location. The

article mentioned that depending on the limitations of the experimental task, the gaze and

movement behaviors function differently. From the findings, what is useful for the

current study is how goalkeepers spend more time fixating on information from the

kicker.

Smeeton and Williams (2012) looked at how human movement that has deception

about the outcome is thought to be different from non-deceptive movement. Skilled and

less skilled soccer players were asked to look at temporally occluded deceptive, non-

deceptive, and non-deceptive exaggerated penalty kicks (Smeeton & Williams, 2012).

Participants looked at the penalty kick videos and were asked to judge the direction of the

penalty kick and write down what their level of confidence was. Participants were

overconfident when guessing the depictive kicks compared to the non-deceptive kicks.

Memmert, Hüttermann, Hagemann, Loffing, and Strauss (2013) developed a

five-step process for goalkeepers to anticipate the direction of a kick in a penalty

situation. The first step is to look at the orientation of the non-kicking foot. The second

step is to look at the orientation or turning of the torso of the kicker. The third step is to

look at the position of the support/non-kicking leg in relation to the ball. The last step is

to look at oblique run-up of the kicker. Collectively the movement features observed can

be used by goalkeepers to anticipate the kick (Memmert, Hüttermann, Hagemann,

Loffing, & Strauss, 2013). Looking at the technique, cues from the hip up and down are

used to determine the direction of the kick. From this information, there is a combination

of upper and lower body cues used to establish a successful performance during a penalty

kick as a goalkeeper.

From this research, two concepts have been presented. The first is that advance

cues are critical when it comes to making a decision. The CTA from Johnston and

Morrison (2016) study we saw that higher skilled players do use anticipation skills when

judging a play. From the last two studies, it is noted that advances cues are broken down

in two areas, upper and lower body. Upper body consisting of, trunk, arms, head and

lower of legs and feet. Lower body was shown effective in Savelsbergh, Williams, Van

Der Kamp, & Ward (2002) and McMorris and Colenso (1996), it is hypothesized that

lower body cues will be more effective in deciding the kick of a penalty than upper body

cues. For the structure of this study, a combination of Hunter et al. (2018) and Causer,

Smeeton, and Williams (2017) will be used. The survey approached similar to Hunter’s

work and the procedure of producing the test film from Causer, Smeeton, and Williams

(2017).

The goal of the present study was to extend previous work by combining two

manipulations that have been used in the past: spatial occlusion and instructions about

which part of the body to look at. Specifically, participants viewed videos of a shooter in

which either the top or low half of the body was occluded. Participants were randomly

placed in one of four groups, guidance group with occluded lower body, guidance group

with occluded upper body, no guidance provided group with occluded lower body and no

guidance group with occluded upper body. It was predicted that the group with guidance

provided and upper body occluded was going to have the highest correct direction

guesses among the groups. Based on the previous studies, the legs and lower hip areas

were areas to focus on.

Methods

Participants

A total of 70 participants were part of this study. A survey was used to serve a

convenient sample online. The link to the survey was emailed to ASU Sports Clubs,

Grand Canyon University Division 1 Soccer Mens’ Team, Polytechnic Group, SDFC’

patrons, and Youth Arizona Sports Clubs. Participants were not required to have previous

experience with soccer to participate in this study. On the other hand, they needed to be

18 years or older to participate.

Materials

Video Production

Two soccer players from the Arizona State University Men’s Soccer Club were

recruited to take penalty kicks and be recorded. Video were recorded using Sony -

Handycam AX53 4K Flash Memory Premium Camcorder. The players were asked to use

the same technique they would use in a game to execute the penalty kicks. Players were

also asked to kick six penalties to each of the four corners of a goal. A regular 7.32 m by

2.44 m goal will be used for the shoot. The camera was placed in the middle of the

goalpost to record from the perspective of a goalkeeper. The location of the filming was

at the Polytechnic Campus’ soccer fields. Videos were edited to stop before ball contact.

This was done to prevent ball trajectory from influencing the decision of the participants.

Half of the videos were occluded from the waist up and half included from the waist

down. The video software Adobe Premiere Pro was be used to edit the videos powered by

a Dell XPS desktop. A total of twenty-one videos were used from each kicker. Shots

missed were not taken into consideration.

Survey Structure

The survey was created and distributed using Qualtrics. The edited videos

uploaded to YouTube using a 1920 x 1080 60 fps format and were listed as unlisted. An

unlisted YouTube video can be viewed by people who have the video link. It will not

appear in public places, such as search results, your channel, or subscriber feeds

(McCabe, 2018). Videos played once and the options, right or left, appeared at the

bottom, along with a timer. Video and options share a page. The first two pages had

information about the study and the instructions. It was followed by two practice videos,

and then the testing stage began.

Procedure

Survey Instructions

Participants watched forty videos of players taking penalty kicks from the

perspective of the goalkeeper. Participants had to guess the direction of the kick (right or

left) after the video ends. Instructions were provided at the start of the survey and had

two practice videos before the testing videos began.

Participants were randomly placed in one of four groups, guidance group with

occluded lower body, guidance group with occluded upper body, no guidance provided

group with occluded lower body and no guidance group with occluded upper body. The

guidance provided group received 5 tips before the testing phase. The tips provided

information on what other studies have found successful when it comes to predicting the

direction of a soccer kick (Figure 5). The no guidance group will not have a message

section and will go straight into the testing section. This was done using Qualtrics,

Randomizer tool.

Results

A two-way ANOVA, 2 Group (guidance, no guidance) x 2 (lower body occluded,

upper body occluded) was conducted that examined the effects of providing guidance and

types of occlusion on direction prediction of a soccer penalty kick. The alpha level for

significance was set at 0.05. A correct response was measured as such if participants

guessed the correct side the ball was traveling to, right or left.

The 2 way ANOVA performed on these data revealed no significant main effect

of guidance (p=.21) and no significant effect of type of occlusion (p=.79). In addition,

there was no statistically significant interaction between the effects of providing guidance

and types of occlusion, (p = .44).

Figure 1 shows that the group of Guidance/LowerOccluded had an average score

of 47.32% and group Guidance/UpperOccluded had an average score of 48.33%.

It was predicted that the group with the upper body occluded was going to perform better

than the group with the lower body occluded. That was only true for group who received

guidance. The NoGuidance/LowerOccluded group had an average score of 51.47% and

NoGuidance/UpperOccluded had an average score of 49.35%.

Figure 1 Average Correct Decision Score for 4 Groups

Figure 2 shows the group that received no tips was the group with the highest score with

50.44%.

Figure 2 Average Correct Decision Score for Guidance and No Guidance Groups

Figure 3 shows that the occluded lower body group performed better than the

occluded upper body group with 49.45% to 48.83%.

Figure 3 Average Correct Decision Score for Lower Body Occluded and Upper Body Occluded

Discussion

The role of a goalkeeper during a penalty kick is a very difficult one. From the

predictions made guidance and type of occlusion had no effect on the prediction of

direction for a penalty kick. It was hypothesized that the group with the upper body

occluded was the group that was going to perform best. Based on past studies, it appeared

lower body cues were more useful. As mentioned before, the groups will guidance

provided shared that finding, but the group with no tips did not. One possibility for this

could be the tips provided were confusing. Both groups that were not provided tips

performed better, 51.47% LBO and 49.36% UBO. A question at the end asking about the

tips’ clarity would have been beneficial.

Some limitations encountered are the amount of people who participated. The

sample size was very small and choosing a particular type of participants would have

worked best. Participants who had more experience with soccer may have affected the

results differently. The way participants received the study is also another limitation. A

survey online works best when one is trying to recruit several participants but the

environment they are in is not controlled at all. Having participants come into a computer

lab is a great option. Another possibility for the future is to have participants wear eye

tracking eyewear as they watch a video of a kicker taking a penalty kick. That type of

approach could also incorporate semiprofessional to professional goalkeepers and start

from there.

This study does bring up some gaps in soccer goalkeeping research. Studies on

how goalkeepers are being trained are few and how does occlusion work in other soccer

scenarios such as free kicks and corners, is another area that might benefit from this. In

soccer, goalkeeping is one of the most overlooked positions and many assume it is that

way because it is the simplest position. It could be that it is the most overlooked, because

it is the hardest to understand or breakdown.

REFERENCES

Causer, J., Smeeton, N. J., & William, M. A. (2017). Expertise differences in

anticipatory judgements during a temporally and spatially occluded task. PLoS ONE, 1-

12.

Dicks, M., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2010). Examination of gaze behaviors under

in situ. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 706-720.

Gaines, C. (2014, June 17). Why It's So Hard To Stop A Penalty Kick. Retrieved

from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/penalty-kick-world-cup-2014-6

Geert J.P. Savelsbergh, A. M. (2002). Visual search, anticipation and expertise in

soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 279-287.

Hunter, A. H., Murphy, S. C., Angilletta Jr, M. J., & Wilson, R. S. (2018).

Anticipating the Direction of Soccer Penalty Shots Depends on the Speed and Technique

of the Kick. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Sports, 1-15.

Insider, B. (2018, July 6). Why Penalty Kicks Are Unfair To The Goalie.

Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJpZ1EEnlpk

Law 14: The Penalty Kick. (n.d.). Retrieved from The FA:

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-

14---the-penalty-kick

Maurya, S. (2017, October 03). English Premier League Penalty Dataset,

2016/17. Retrieved from Kaggle: https://www.kaggle.com/mauryashubham/english-

premier-league-penalty-dataset-201617/metadata

McCabe, K. (2018, November 29). What Does Unlisted Mean on YouTube?

(Private vs Unlisted: Who REALLY Sees Your YouTube Video). Retrieved from Learn G2

Crowd: https://learn.g2crowd.com/what-does-unlisted-mean-on-youtube

McMorris, T., & Colenso, S. (1996). Anticipation of Professional Soccer

Goalkeepers When Facing Right-and Left-Footed Penalty Kicks. Perceptual and Motor

Skills.

Memmert, D., Hüttermann, S., Hagemann, N., Loffing, F., & Strauss, B. (2013).

Dueling in the penalty box: evidence-based recommendations on how shooters and

goalkeepers can win penalty shootouts in soccer. International Review of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 209-229.

Smeeton, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of movement exaggeration in

the anticipation of deceptive soccer penalty kicks. British Journal of Psychology, 539-

555.

Tansey, J. (2014, 14 January). Statistically Ranking the World's Top 10 Football

Leagues. Retrieved from Bleacher Report: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1922780-

statistically-ranking-the-worlds-top-10-football-leagues#slide9

Williams, A. M., & Davids, K. (1998). Visual Search Strategy, Selective

Attention, and. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 111-128.

APPENDIX A

BAR GRAPH DISPLAYING AVERAGE CORRECT DECISION PERCENTAGE FOR

GUIDANCE GROUP – LOWER BODY OCCLUDED VS GUIDANCE GROUP –

UPPER BODY OCCLUDED VS NO GUIDANCE GROUP – LOWER BODY VS NO

GUIDANCE – UPPER BODY

APPENDIX B

BAR GRAPH DISPLAYING AVERAGE CORRECT DECISION PERCENTAGE FOR

GUIDANCE GROUP VS NO GUIDANCE GROUP

APPENDIX C

BAR GRAPH DISPLAYING AVERAGE CORRECT DECISION PERCENTAGE FOR

LOWER BODY OCCLUDED GROUP VS UPPER BODY OCCLUDED GROUP

APPENDIX D

IRB APPROVED ON OCTOBER 15, 2019

APPENDIX E

TIPS

Look at the hip area of the kicker to predict direction of the shot

Look at the foot position at time of contact with the ball

Focus on lower body area