## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Static Drive Shot** & **Static Slap Shot** & **Dynamic Drive Shot** \\ \hline Static slap shot & **0.84**\(\ast\) (0.58–0.95) & & \\ Dynamic drive shot & **0.60**\(\ast\) (0.12–0.85) & **0.73**\(\ast\) (0.35–0.91) & \\ Dynamic slap shot & 0.38 (\(-\)0.17–0.75) & **0.71**\(\ast\) (0.32–0–90) & **0.62**\(\ast\) (0.15–0.86) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Pearson r correlations (r) between the different shooting velocities according to the techniques used. metrics than others has also been observed in ice hockey. [PERSON] et al. [PERSON] _et al._ (2018) found a significant relationship between sweep shot puck speed and 1 RM bench press performance (r = 0.64), but no significant correlation between slap shot puck speed and bench press 1 RM (r = 0.46). The authors suggest that sweep shot speed in skilled players depends primarily on their strength and power abilities, whereas slap shot speed is influenced more by shooting technique. Although rink hockey and ice hockey share similar shot techniques, differences in stick materials, stick size, and the contrast between a rink hockey ball and an ice hockey puck may explain the discrepancies between [PERSON] et al. 's findings and the results of our study. The comparative analysis of shooting velocities according to the techniques used demonstrated differences in shot velocity. Not surprisingly, the slap shot technique showed higher velocities compared to the drive shot. This finding can be explained because the slap shot is the dominant side for most rink hockey players. Furthermore, the dynamic shots showed higher velocities than the static shots due to the inertia of the approach run (110 \(\pm\) 8.58 km/h vs. 97.4 \(\pm\) 8.51 km/h for the slap shots and 94.1 \(\pm\) 7.10 km/h vs. 84.4 \(\pm\) 8.78 km/h for the drive shots). These results are in line with those of [PERSON] et al. [PERSON] _et al._ (2018) who reported similar values (115.4 \(\pm\) 7.2 km/h vs. 102 \(\pm\) 4.6 km/h) with a sample of top elite rink hockey athletes. Finally, the positive correlations between shooting velocities across the various techniques suggest a consistent relationship between the different types of shots. This finding implies that players who excel in one type of shot are also likely to perform well in other shot techniques. Therefore, training interventions that target specific shooting techniques are likely to have a positive impact on overall shooting performance in rink hockey players. Despite the utility of these findings, it is important to acknowledge some limitations of the present study. Firstly, the sample size was relatively small, and the study focused exclusively on elite youth male rink hockey players from a specific club. Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalizing these results to other player populations or to different standards. Future research should seek to replicate these findings with players of different age groups and competitive levels to better understand how these factors may influence performance. It is also important to include female players in future studies, as there is currently a significant gap in the literature regarding rink hockey in women (2018). Investigating female athletes could provide valuable insights, especially given the increasing participation of women in the sport and the potential differences in physical and technical demands between male and female players. Secondly, this study utilized a cross-sectional design, which did not allow for the establishment of causal relationships. As such, the results of the present research represent only the point in time that the measurements occurred (end-season). The results may vary depending on season timing. Given the potential influence of season timing (2018), particularly in youth athletes (2018), longitudinal studies would be beneficial. Such studies could include a control group to compare training effects and track changes in muscle power and shooting performance over time.