Analysis and performance for football Essay Example

Analysis and performance for football Essay I feel that Fernando Torres is one of the best strikers currently playing, so I have decided to base my analysis of performance on him. One of the reasons why Torres is an extremely strong player is because he has very good agility. He is able to change direction and speed very quickly, enabling him to dodge players and get past them. Weaker players are not able to do this because they don’t have good enough agility. An interval or fartlek training session would be appropriate to help weaker players improve at changing speeds. Torres also is good at all aspects of the game and can show a variety of techniques; for example dribbling, passing, turning with the ball, tackling and shooting. He is at the autonomous stage of learning a skill, therefore performing the skill becomes natural and involves very little thought, unlike the stage intermediates would be at which is associative. Intermediates would need feedback to progress and to get to the autonomous stage, which only the best get to. Torres also shows he has motor skills by moving and controlling muscles effectively in order to sprint and get the ball. This is related to co-ordination – as soon as players with good motor skills see the ball, their body automatically repositions themselves to be in the right place. He shows he has cognitive skills by thinking about where other players are positioned in relation to him and deciding what to do with the ball. It also helps him to use space effectively, by running off the ball to create space and then to move into space later on. We will write a custom essay sample on Analysis and performance for football specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Analysis and performance for football specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Analysis and performance for football specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Torres has gross motor abilities of speed, stamina and explosive strength. Speed is important so he can beat players to the ball and then keep it. Someone playing in a less advanced team would not have a high enough level of skill to be able to dribble with the ball at speed and keeping it under control. A good practice session for this is to use a rope ladder, and to get the players to step both feet in and out of each section as quickly as possible. His stamina (including muscular and cardiovascular endurance) enables him to keep performing to the highest standard for the full 90 minutes. I think this is a weak aspect of my own game. To improve, I could go for regular long low intensity runs to improve my cardiovascular endurance. Finally, his explosive strength helps him to make sudden sprints for the ball. This also requires good fitness, and intermediate players may not have the required endurance to be able to do this for the full 90 minutes. A good practice to improve explosive strength in football is to use fartlek training, where you do a low intensity jog and then a short sprint continuously. Torres’ recovery time is also very important, as it must be quick so he is able to use his explosive strength to the highest level all the time. Psychomotor abilities are also very important for Torres, especially reaction time (in order to respond quickly to intercept the ball) and aiming (so the player can pass and shoot accurately). A good practice drill to improve reaction time is where two players stand by cones a few metres away from each other. The ball is placed in the middle, and when they hear the whistle they have to run towards the ball and the first person to get to it has to get past the other player. This not only improves reaction time, but also the first touch on the ball and explosive strength. Unlike intermediate players, Torres has the ability to make the skill he is performing more self-paced, which is something I am unable to do. For example, when trying to get past a defender, he can decide when to complete the skill because he has great control over the ball. For learners or intermediates, then the skill will be more externally paced, because they are not completely in control. Football includes lots of open skills. For example, before performing the skill, you have to take into consideration where the other players are positioned, what the surface you’re playing on is like and what is happening at the time, for example, if you’re in the attacking half or the defending half. You constantly need to adapt what you’re doing to suit the changing environment. It is best to learn these skills in a closed environment in order to get the basics right, then move onto an open environment so you can improve and get ready for a game situation. Football also involves interactive skills because you are constantly interacting and having contact with other players, and you need to work as a team in order to win the game.

Establishing a Claim in Negligence The WritePass Journal

Establishing a Claim in Negligence Introduction Establishing a Claim in Negligence Jennifer Hallam parked her car opposite the knight’s plaza building where on return to her car she noticed damage to the car. On enquiring from shop owners she was informed that this was due to light reflecting from the building. Jennifer returned the next day and investigated and established this is the case. T Knight Group (TKG) owe a duty of care to Jennifer as the neighbour principle clearly applies to her on the basis that the Jennifer would have been so closely affected by the actions of TKG that they ought reasonably to have had her in their contemplation. TKG would thus have been under a duty to ensure that reasonable care was being taken in order to avoid any harm or damage to third partied caused by their actions. Nevertheless, this could be disputed by TKG as they may be able to demonstrate that the breach of duty did not occur as a result of their own actions. This is because the architects or the structural engineers could instead be held responsible for the desi gn fault. This situation has been seen around the world and also in the UK. Under section 79 of the environmental protection act 1990 the local authority may take action to ensure the nuisance is stopped. There is no reported case in England and Wales in which a Court has been required to determine reflection of sunlight. However in New Zealand this was the case and was seen in Bank of New Zealand v greenwood[11]. This would amount to an actionable tort of nuisance. Here the high Court of New Zealand held that reflected light can constitute an actionable nuisance. In Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd[12] the Lords considered the New Zealand case and although they said that it was most unusual they did in fact regard the decision as ‘eminently sensible’ and ‘admirable’. In light of this, it could therefore be said that Jennifer’s actions is likely to be successful if the Courts in the UK follow suit. If the Courts do find that there has been a breach, it is likely that they will then be able to establish that the breach caused the harm and was not too remote so as to prevent an action in negligence. This is because, if TKG successful argue that they the architects or the structural engineers are to blame for the damage, then the standard of care will be that based upon their ex pertise; Wilsher v Essex[13]. And, architects and structural engineers will be required to have a reasonable expectation of the risks involved with this type of project and ought to have known of the dangers. Rahim Rahim Khan has stated that he has suffered a financial loss due to the dazzling sun and high temperatures that are created when the sun reflects off the Knights Plaza Building and onto the pavement outside his shop. There is generally no duty of care owed to individuals to avoid causing others to suffer an economic loss. The economic loss must not relate to personal injury or damage to property as in Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin[14]. Nevertheless, in Hedley Byrne co v Heller[15] the House of Lords held that economic loss could be caused by negligence misstatement rather than a negligent act, although it is unlikely to apply here. In Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine[16], however, it was noted by the Court that; â€Å"It may well be arguable in the case of complex structures that one element of the structure should be regarded for the purpose of the application and the principles [regarding economic loss] as distinct from another element, so that damage to one part of the structure caused by a hidden defect in another part may qualify to be treated as damage to other property.† It will depend entirely upon the facts of the case as to whether a claim by Rahim will prove to be a success although it is questionable whether this will be established given the complexity of establishing pure economic loss. Thus, Rahim will have to demonstrate that the relationship between Rahim and TKG was sufficiently close for a claim to be ascertained for economic loss. This is unlikely to be established given that Rahim merely owns a nearby sandwich shop and so the requirements are unlikely to be satisfied here. In addition, Rahim also stated that his business has just reopened after health inspector closed it down after allegations of food poisoning. This could be significant as the loss could have been caused by the closure of the shop for 6 months. The chain of causation (novus actus interveniens) could have been broken by the fact the shop was closed. In certain cases, the chain of causation is capable of being broken by an intervening act. Therefore, the defendant may not be liable if the chain is broken by the intervening act even if there exists a duty of care as in Kirkham v Chief[17]. Thus, as put by Finch and Fafinski  Ã¢â‚¬Å"if the novus actus interveniens is sufficient to break the ch ain, then the defendant may not be liable despite being in breach of the duty of care.†[18] Accordingly, it is therefore unlikely that TKG will be found liable in tort for the loss that was suffered by Rahim since it is likely that the loss would have occurred regardless; The Oropesa[19]. Rahim is also being prosecuted having been caught on CCTV cameras throwing stones and subsequently causing damage to the Knights Plaza Building costing  £75,000. In common law Rahim would be found criminally liable for criminal damage under section 1 (1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 for destroying property that belonged to another with the intention or recklessness as to whether damage was caused. The fact that Rahim was caught on CCTV throwing stones at the building is sufficient enough to find him liable under this section. Accordingly, it is clear that Rahim had the intention to damage the property by throwing the stones as he was angry at TKG for the loss of profits in which he claims to have suffered. In addition, for criminal damage to be established, it does not have to be shown that the property is no longer usable. The fact that some damage was caused will be sufficient as in Roper v Knott[20]. Accordingly, Rahim will thus be found criminally liable for damaging the pro perty and causing  £75,000 worth of damage. Andy Pandy, Mandy Pandy and Muz Ahmed In deciding whether Darren is liable for the death of Andy Pandy and the injuries sustained by Mandy Pandy and Muz Ahmed, it will need to be considered whether Darran owed them a duty of care. Applying the Caparo test, it is evident that a duty of care was owed to Andy, Mandy and Muz. This is because all three of them can be considered to have a relationship of proximity to Darran that he ought to have had them in his contemplation. Hence, drivers owe a duty of care to pedestrians so it is evident that this part of the test will have been satisfied. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether Darran failed to take care given that the gust of wind is likely to have been unforeseeable and as such it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care on him. In addition, although Darran caused the accident to occur it can be said that there was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation. This is because the accident would not have happened had it not been for the struc ture of the building and because these defects were known to the TKG since May 2013, they could have alleviated these problems by taking the necessary steps. In view of this, the TKG should be found liable for the death of Andy since they ought to have taken reasonable precautions to prevent the problem from occurring. Essentially, because they had not taken any steps to prevent the problem from occurring it is clear that they should be found liable as they would have owed Andy a duty of care, they were in breach of that duty and the breached caused the harm. The same will apply in relation to Mandy and Muz since it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on Darran for the psychiatric harm that was caused and so TKG ought to be held liable for this also. In order to establish a claim in negligence for psychiatric injury, all of the negligence requirements must first be satisfied. However, further difficulties will arise since Mandy and Muz will not be awarded compensation unless three additional requirements are satisfied; a) there was a close tie of love and affection between the parties; b) that the victim was close to the accident at the time, and c) that the accident was directly perceived.[21] It is likely that Mandy will be able to establish all three given that Andy was her brother, although it will be more difficult for Muz to demonstrate that there was a close tie of love and affection. In addition, it will also have to be shown that the harm or damage caused was reasonably foreseeable, which again will be like ly to prove complex; Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire[22]. In Page v Smith[23], nonetheless, the defendant was found liable even though the claimant was not physically hurt the car crash that was caused by the defendant. Therefore, it is possible that both Mandy and Muz will be able to establish a claim against TKG as shown in Dulieu v White[24]. If it is shown that the harm is too remote, however, they will not be able to establish a claim. Conclusion Overall, it is likely that TKG will be found liable for the damage that has been caused to Jennifer’s car, the death of Andy and the psychiatric injury caused to Mandy and Muz, unless they can demonstrate that the architects and structural engineers are to blame. It is unlikely that Rahim’s claim will succeed and instead he will be found criminally liable for the damage caused to the building. Damages fall into two categories, pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Pecuniary losses are calculated into monetary terms whereas non-pecuniary losses are not. However, whether or not damages will be awarded will be dependent upon the remoteness of the harm or damage that was caused Bibliography Finch, E. and Fafinski, S. (2010) Law Express: Tort Law, 3rd Edition, Longman. Kidner, R. (2010) Casebook on Torts, 11th Edition. The Law Commission., ‘Liability for Psychiatric Illness’ (1998) Law Com No 249, 2. Cases Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 Bank of New Zealand v greenwood [1984] 1 NZLR 525 Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990 1 All ER 568 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004 Glasgow Corp v Muir [1943] AC 448 Hedley Byrne co v Heller [1963] 3 WLR 101 Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] 2 WLR 684 Kirkham v Chief [1990] 2 KB 283 Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine [2010] EWHC 1145 (TCC) Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868 R v White (1910) 2 KB 124 Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin [1972] 3 WLR 502 The Oropesa [1943] 1 All ER 211 Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074

Hillside School Case Study Require Document Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Hillside School Require Document - Case Study Example Even with the after care system, fees that pupils pay in the drop-in basis vary depending on the length of time a student will stay and the level of stage a student is. For instance for preschoolers, time blocks exists from noon to 1:30 p.m., noon to 3:30 p.m. and noon to5:30 p.m. For kindergarten students, time blocks exist from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. and 1:30 for 5:30 p.m. For primary school students, the time is from 3:30–5:30 p.m. Even more complications exist in the sense that for pre-registered students not registered for the entire afternoon, the 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. blocks and 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. blocks can be utilized on a drop-in basis. The payment and for that matter billing system does not end with the above discussion. With the payment system, there are different payment options whereby parents who pay the entire amount by August 1 prior to the start of the school year enjoy a 5 percent discount on the total fee. Parents who pay over a 10-month period, starting July 1 prior to the start of the school year do not enjoy such discount. Discount also exists for parents who have more than one child enrolled at Hillside School. Because the payment system is generally cumbersome, the billing system is also very cumbersome and complicated. Presently, monthly bills for fees and â€Å"drop-in† care are due on the first of the month, and are distributed to parents one week prior to their being due. Parents with more than one child receive separate bills. The billing is done by the vice principal who is Susan. Susan does the billing using Microsoft Excel whereby she sets up a new workbook for each academic year. With in the workbook, she creates monthly worksheets to contain payment records. The Excel worksheet contains one line per student and looks somewhat like the diagram below. Manual entry is made for each student as and when payment is done. The entry for each student is updated twice each month, once to prepare the bills and once to record payment.