## 4 Results  
Analyzing the results for individual groups, it was revealed that in group A the percentage of head errors increased with the increase in speed, being statistically significant between tests 1 and 3 for the IFT test and for FFT between tests 1 and 3, and 2 and 3 (Table 1). In group B for head error, an increase in error percentage only between test 1 and 2 for the FFT test is demonstrated. However, these changes are not statistically significant. The percentage of errors committed is definitely lower than in group A (Table 2). For the IFT, there are no head errors at all, as well as in tests 1 and 3 in the FFT. In Table 3, the one-tailed test was used because the null hypothesis of equality of the IFT and FFT in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the FFT leads to a lower error rate than the IFT method was to be refuted. It was found that in group A for the same speeds the percentage of errors made was always lower in the FFT test compared to the IFT. Significant differences occurred for speed 1. In group B, in study 1 and 3, there were no errors, while for the speed of 2, the percentage was higher in study F compared to I. There were no significant statistical differences between the IFT and FFT (Table 3) in group B. Based on Table 4, it can be concluded that in group B there was a lower percentage of head errors for the same speed in the same type of IFT and FFT test compared to group A. The differences between the results obtained in the groups were statistically significant. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Number of Mistakes**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\%**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Probabilities**} \\ \hline
**Velocities** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **1 z 2** & **1 z 3** & **2 z 3** \\ \hline IFT & 12 & 19 & 25 & 37.5 & 59.4 & 78.1 & 0.1 & 0.0010 & 0.1056 \\ FFT & 6 & 13 & 21 & 18.8 & 40.6 & 65.6 & 0.1 & 0.0001 & 0.0451 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison with t-Student’s test of error percentages between speeds for group A (\(n=32\)) and for each immediate fall test (IFT) and forced fall test (FFT), separately for ’head’ mistake. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**A \(n=32\)** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Mistakes**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Probabilities**} \\ \hline
**Velocities** & **IFT** & **FFT** & **\(p\)** \\ \hline
1 & 37.5 & 18.8 & 0.0476 \\
2 & 59.4 & 40.6 & 0.0668 \\
3 & 78.1 & 65.6 & 0.1331 \\ \hline
**B \(n=25\)** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Mistakes**} \\ \hline
**Velocities** & **IFT** & **FFT** & **\(p\)** \\ \hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
2 & 0 & 4.0 & 0.1562 \\
3 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of groups A with B using Student’s t-test (1-A, 2-A, 3-A—error percentages for group A for the respective velocities V1, V2, V3. The same designation was adopted for group B). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Number of Mistakes** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\%**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Probabilities**} \\ \hline
**Velocities** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **1 z 2** & **1 z 3** & **2 z 3** \\ \hline IFT & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ FFT & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0.0 & 4.0 & 0.0 & 0.3124 & 1 & 0.3124 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison with t-Student’s test of error percentages between speeds for group B (\(n=25\)) and for each IFT and FFT, separately for ’head’ mistake. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**A \(n=32\)** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Mistakes**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Probabilities**} \\ \hline
**Velocities** & **IFT** & **FFT** & **\(p\)** \\ \hline
1 & 37.5 & 18.8 & 0.0476 \\
2 & 59.4 & 40.6 & 0.0668 \\
3 & 78.1 & 65.6 & 0.1331 \\ \hline
**B \(n=25\)** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\% Mistakes**} \\ \hline
**Velocities** & **IFT** & **FFT** & **\(p\)** \\ \hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
2 & 0 & 4.0 & 0.1562 \\
3 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}