## 4 Discussion
Ideally, a marker would be placed directly on the unit; however, pilot data from the authors detected inaccuracies in horizontal and vertical displacement  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Phase**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Session 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Session 2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ICC**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SEM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SDD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hedges \(g\)**} \\  & & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD [95\% CI]** & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1 st pull} & v1 & \(1.06\pm 0.19\) [16.1–15.1] & \(1.07\pm 0.18\) [0.61–15.3] & 0.917 [0.727, 0.975] & 0.00 & 0.00 & \(-0.05\) [\(-0.86\), 0.76] \\  & x1 & \(2.1\pm 15.12\) [13.2–3] & \(1.77\pm 19.15\) [10.2–25.53] & 0.732 [0.115, 0.918] & 0.09 & 0.24 & 0.17 [0.64, 0.98] \\  & y1 & \(26.3\pm 4.98\) [15.06–37.55] & \(25.61\pm 4.01\) [14.66–36.56] & 0.881 [0.620, 0.963] & 0.12 & 0.33 & 0.15 [0.86, 0.96] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Transition} & vT & \(1.52\pm 0.16\) [0.87–27.1] & \(1.49\pm 0.18\) [0.88–23.13] & 0.942 [0.816, 0.982] & 0.00 & 0.01 & \(0.17\pm 0.64, 0.98] \\  & vT & \(5.52\pm 3.45\) [3.16–7.88] & \(5.08\pm 0.23\) [29.1–7.26] & 0.919 [0.741, 0.975] & 0.06 & 0.17 & 0.13 [0.68, 0.94] \\  & vT & \(50.6\pm 6.42\) [28.97–72.23] & \(50.06\pm 6.82\) [28.66–71.46] & 0.966 [0.890, 0.989] & 0.05 & 0.14 & 0.08 [0.73, 0.89] \\  & vLoss & \(0.46\pm 0.21\) [20.6–0.66] & \(0.42\pm 0.17\) [10.24–0.6] & 0.862 [0.865, 0.957] & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.20 [0.61, 1.01] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{2 nd Pull} & v2 & \(2.09\pm 0.16\) [10.2–99.8] & \(2.08\pm 0.17\) [11.9–29.7] & 0.954 [0.850, 0.986] & 0.00 & 0.00 & \(-0.75\), 0.877 \\  & v2 & \(-0.12\pm 5.05\) [0.07–0.16] & \(-1.13\pm 4.95\) [0.6–16.62] & 0.937 [0.797, 0.981] & 0.13 & 0.35 & 0.20 [0.62, 1.01] \\  & y2 & \(81.37\pm 6.25\) [16.58–116.15] & \(0.86\pm 6.77\) [46.29–115.43] & 0.943 [0.817, 0.983] & 0.06 & 0.17 & 0.08 [0.73, 0.89] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Turmorev} & vPHI & \(3.73\pm 6.07\) [21.35–35.32] & \(25.5\pm 5.88\) [14.43–35.57] & 0.834 [0.744, 0.949] & 0.25 & 0.69 & \(0.20\) [0.61, 1.01] \\  & vPHI & \(118.09\pm 0.35\) [67.6–168.58] & \(119.15\pm 10.42\) & 0.939 [0.777, 0.979] & 0.14 & 0.39 & \(-0.10\) [0.91, 0.71] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Receive} & xR & \(9.58\pm 7.5\) [48.13–67.6] & \(8.56\pm 7.44\) [44.9–12.22] & 0.818 [0.403, 0.945] & 0.22 & 0.60 & \(0.13\) [\(-0.68, 0.94] \\  & yR & \(107.44\pm 8.75\) & \(109.87\pm 9.93\) [62.9–156.85] & 0.785 [0.324, 0.933] & 0.56 & 1.56 & \(-0.25\) [\(-1.06, 0.56] \\  & [61:51–53.83] & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Catch} & D1 & \(10.63\  
of the marker due to the rotation of the barbell. As displacement measures were also assessed for validity and reliability, it was deemed appropriate to compare the Enode to the calculated barbell center of mass (CoM), taken as the average of the two barbell end markers. The present study placed the Enode between the grip of the athlete and their thigh during the set position, as close to the center of the barbell as physically possible. This was chosen so as to i) avoid sensor and athlete contact and ii) be in a position that was repeatable for each individual based on their preferred snatch grip. [PERSON] and colleagues [21] reported similar findings to ours, where the peak velocity standard error of estimate was 0.03 m/s when compared to that of barbell CoM velocity determined by each criterion. These findings collectively suggest that the placement of the Enode anywhere within the barbell collar would enable an accurate representation of barbell CoM peak velocity. This is an important finding to highlight given that the barbell will flex during heavy lifts and it is posited that the peak velocity of the barbell end relative to the center can display a 5-30% difference for the clean [40], although this may likely be less for the snatch due to the lower loads and wider grip, thus creating less barbell deformation.