Which of the following would not be considered a limitation of the intervention study of Wallis et al. (2002) into fast bowling injuries in cricket?
A) The harness bowlers did not retain any desirable technique changes after the harness was removed.
B) The harness increased the shoulder separation angle at front foot strike.
C) The harness did not affect lateral flexion to the left.
D) They used a bowling harness
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q11: Which of the following provided the best
Q12: In the study of Mononen et al.
Q13: In the study of Guadagnoli et al.
Q14: Which of the following best describe the
Q15: Which of the following would be best
Q16: What is spondylolysis, an injury prevalent among
Q17: Which of the following might confound the
Q18: Which of the following is considered to
Q19: Which of the following is considered to
Q21: Which of the following would be considered
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents