## 1 Introduction  
Agility is an important skill for both attackers and defenders in invasion sports [1]. It is generally accepted that agility has both movement and reactive elements, whereas predetermined change of direction (COD) tasks without a requirement to react to a stimulus are described by COD ability [2]. Some authors use the term \"reactive agility\" to make a clear distinction from agility including only change of direction speed (CODS) [3, 4]. It is necessary to deconstruct this skill into smaller and more manageable components to better understand agility. The first deterministic model in this context was published in 2002 [5], which indicated that agility includes two subcomponents, i.e., the CODS component and perception and decision-making component, which are determined by many other factors. The assessment of reactive agility is more complex because of the requirement to react to a stimulus in contrast with only pre-planned COD movements. As a result, some researchers have used a flashing light device to direct athletes to new locations [6, 7, 8, 9]. Researchers have identified reactive agility as one of the most important determinants of performance in team sports [3, 6, 10, 11]. Handball, as a team sport, involves many multidirectional changes of direction that occur mostly in response to unpredictable stimuli (e.g., the ball or an opponent, etc.) in a 40-m-long and 20-m-wide court [12]. Reactiveagility is assessed by both stop-and-go and non-stop running scenarios in handball [9; 13]. Similar to COD assessments, there are a few key characteristics that can be used to compare results. The first is the time to complete the test and the second is the number of directional changes the test requires, as well as the degrees of these direction changes [2]. For example, a change in direction in the range of 0\({}^{\circ}\) to 90\({}^{\circ}\) is velocity-oriented, whereas a change in direction in the range of 90\({}^{\circ}\) to 180\({}^{\circ}\) is force-oriented [14]. In addition, reactive agility tests including a perception and decision-making component may differ in terms of the number of possible responses. For instance, a reaction to one stimulus may be recorded as 279 ms, with the response to two stimuli as 511 ms and four stimuli as 804 ms. Notably, a reaction time of \(\sim\)0.5 s (reaction time to two stimuli) may be important in everyday situations, as well as in sports [15]. Although the structures of reactive agility components and their subcomponents in invasion sports are well known, there is no evidence as to what extent perceptual and decision-making processes and motor components contribute to reactive agility in a different sport types. Most of these studies concern only soccer/football, whereas, for example, handball or tennis have been investigated to a lesser extent. From a practical point of view, it would be interesting to know whether the contribution of sensory and motor components depends on the given structure of reactive agility testing. The most used reactive agility tests include Y-shaped agility testing and sport-specific reactive agility testing. As such, the first test considered in this study was a Y-shaped agility test, which is considered valid and reliable for measuring reactive agility performance [8]. This test included forward running (5 m) and reaction to one visual stimulus which then determined a directional change to the right or left in a 45\({}^{\circ}\) angle that was then followed by another sprint for 5 m. The second test, which considered a reactive agility test (RAT) modified from [PERSON] et al. [10], included 20 movement reactions to 4 visual stimuli placed in a semicircle at a distance of 2 m. This indicates that a Y-shaped agility test can be considered as a velocity-oriented test with non-stop running, whereas a RAT is a force-oriented test rather than a velocity-oriented stop-and-go test.