Laterality, Shot Direction and Spatial Asymmetry in Decisive Penalty Kicks: Evidence from Elite Men’s Football

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the Manuscript on T-pattern Analysis in Decisive Penalty Shootouts

Congratulations on addressing such a relevant and timely topic in sports performance analysis. The investigation of decision-making and behavioral patterns during high-pressure penalty shootouts not only offers valuable insights into elite football dynamics, but also contributes meaningfully to the broader understanding of motor behavior, psychological resilience, and strategic interaction in competitive sports.

The application of T-pattern analysis represents a particularly robust and innovative methodological choice, allowing the detection of hidden temporal structures that would otherwise remain unnoticed through conventional statistical techniques. Its use significantly enhances the depth and precision of behavioral pattern identification in complex sports scenarios such as penalty shootouts.

Notwithstanding the methodological strengths and the commendable integration of T-pattern analysis, there remain certain aspects of the manuscript that may benefit from further refinement in order to enhance its clarity, methodological transparency, and scholarly impact.

 

1. Introduction

• Please provide a formal definition of “decisive penalty”. Is it limited to the last kick in the shootout that determines the result, or does it include all penalties within a decisive shootout? Clarifying this concept will help delimit the scope of the sample and ensure interpretive consistency.
• Avoid lexical redundancies and repetitive sentence starters. For example:
• Consecutive paragraphs begin with “These penalty kicks...” and “This does not usually differ...”, which affects fluency (lines 29, 33, 35, 38, 41).
• Consider revising “decisive penalties in penalty shootouts” to avoid redundancy. Alternatives such as “decisive penalty kicks” or “decisive kicks from shootouts” are more concise.
• Adjust grammatical usage:
• “the performance prediction and behavioral analysis in sport” should be corrected to “performance prediction and behavioral analysis in sports”. The article “the” before “performance prediction” is unnecessary and should be removed (line 33).
• Correct punctuation where needed. For instance, in “depending on the category analyzed. [2]”, the period should follow the reference, not precede it (line 44).

 

2. Materials and Methods

• Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicitly stated. Were penalties excluded due to poor video quality, ambiguous outcomes, duplicate footage, or annulled decisions? Clarifying the selection process enhances methodological transparency (line 90).
• It would strengthen the manuscript to reference validation studies for the observational tools used, particularly LINCE PLUS and THEME v6.0. While [22] and [25] are cited, a brief addition such as the following could enhance credibility:

“LINCE PLUS and THEME have been previously validated and widely used in systematic observational research in sport settings [ref].”

This addition would be appropriate around lines 101 and 145.

 

3. Results

• Punctuation corrections are needed at the end of certain sentences:
• Line 277: Replace the final comma with a period to mark the end of the sentence.
• Line 278: Also replace the comma with a period and remove the conjunction “and”, as it is unnecessary and affects grammatical flow.

 

4. Discussion

• One of the core contributions of the paper—the idea that players intentionally break spatial symmetry under pressure—is highly compelling. To strengthen this point, it would be beneficial to explicitly relate it to existing theories of motor control, decision-making under stress, or ecological dynamics in sports.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for their engaging research, which will be useful for sports professionals and scientists.

I would like to offer the following comments:

Introduction:

1. Aim. Simply stating this is not enough; you also need to justify why it is necessary: „analyze and detect spatial and sequential patterns in decisive penalty kicks from shootouts in elite international football competitions between 2010 and 2023.“
2. Examine the application of the T-model detection within the sport science problem under review.

Materials and Methods

Design:

1. I recommend describing the observation method employed, as the source is in Spanish: 21. Anguera, M.T.; Blanco-Villaseñor, A.; Losada, J.L.; Portell, M. Guidelines for Designing and Conducting a Study 565 That Applies Observational Methodology. The UB Journal of Psychology 2018, 48, 9–17, 566 doi:10.1016/j.anpsic.2018.02.001.

Instruments

2. I suggest including the rationale for the nine criteria (Table 1) used in the research instrument.

Results

1. Please move lines 147-156 to the Materials and Methods section.

Discussion:

1. It is unnecessary to restate the goal in the discussion (lines 297-299).
2. Much of the discussion focuses on describing the research data. There is insufficient emphasis on interpreting the data and engaging with other researchers. I recommend relocating some discussion points to the results section and concentrating on dialogue with other authors.

Sincerely.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strengths
The study addresses an original and practically valuable topic: spatial and behavioral asymmetries in decisive penalty kicks in elite football. A meaningful dataset of 212 decisive penalties collected over a long period (2010–2023) and across multiple competitions. A dual methodological approach combining traditional statistical analysis with T-pattern (temporal structure) analysis. Results are interpretable both academically and practically, with direct implications for training design and performance optimization. 

Areas for Improvement
Sample imbalance: The small number of left-footed players limits the statistical power of some comparisons. Goalkeeper behavior is not included in the analysis, which could affect the interpretation of spatial targeting decisions. Some tables, particularly T-pattern results in the supplementary materials, are not sufficiently visualized in the main text, reducing accessibility for the reader. Minor repetition between the Results and Discussion sections, where the same statistics are restated in slightly different forms.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved.

Author Response

Comment 1

Strengths
The study addresses an original and practically valuable topic: spatial and behavioral asymmetries in decisive penalty kicks in elite football. A meaningful dataset of 212 decisive penalties collected over a long period (2010–2023) and across multiple competitions. A dual methodological approach combining traditional statistical analysis with T-pattern (temporal structure) analysis. Results are interpretable both academically and practically, with direct implications for training design and performance optimization. 

Answer Comment 1

We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting these strengths. Our intention was precisely to combine a robust dataset with complementary analytical approaches in order to provide both theoretical and applied insights. We are pleased that the originality of the topic, the scope of the dataset, and the dual methodology were recognized, as these aspects were designed to ensure that the findings could contribute not only to the academic understanding of motor behavior under pressure but also to practical applications in elite football training and performance optimization.

 

Comment 2

Areas for Improvement

Sample imbalance: The small number of left-footed players limits the statistical power of some comparisons. Goalkeeper behavior is not included in the analysis, which could affect the interpretation of spatial targeting decisions. Some tables, particularly T-pattern results in the supplementary materials, are not sufficiently visualized in the main text, reducing accessibility for the reader. Minor repetition between the Results and Discussion sections, where the same statistics are restated in slightly different forms.

Answer Comment 2

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive observations. The points regarding sample imbalance (limited number of left-footed players) and the absence of goalkeeper behavior have been explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations section. With respect to the visualization of T-pattern results, we opted to retain the detailed tables in the Supplementary Materials to ensure readability of the main text, while summarizing their key implications in the Results and Discussion sections. Finally, we revised the Discussion to minimize repetition of statistical results, focusing instead on interpretation and theoretical integration. A detailed account of these modifications is also provided in the attached PDF with point-by-point responses.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' revisions to the manuscript are much appreciated. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published in the form provided. Sincerely.