In the light of the facts given in literature it is evident that players in the game of netball need to meet specific anthropometric (body length, body mass, percentage body fat and percentage muscle mass), physical (pliancy, abdominal power, aerobic endurance and anaerobic endurance) and motor (speed over 5 m and 10 m, agility and explosive power) requirements. This consequently necessitates specific attention to be given to the mentioned requirements. In spite of the fact that a few studies do exist that enter into the requirements of the profile of netball players in different positions, as well as into what the effect of a periodization programme is on anthropometric, physical and motor requirements, voids do exist regarding the positional profile of 15 to 17 year old netball players and as to what the effect is of a sport specific periodization programme in the course of a season on 15 to 17 year old netball players. In the light of the above–mentioned, this study was undertaken with the aim to: 1) Determine the requirements for 15 to 17 year old netball players; 2) Compile positional profile scales of netball specific requirement for 15 to 17 year old players in the Tlokwe region; 3) Establish the effect of a sport specific periodization programme on anthropometric, physical and motor requirements for 15 to 17 year old female netball players, of a specific school in the Tlokwe region, in the course of a season. 96 players (28 goalkeepers, 44 centre court players and 24 defenders) between ages 15 and 17 years from two high schools in the North–West Province were used in the study to determine positional differences. A group of only 22 player of one school was exposed to a sport specific periodization programme for purposes of the study, since the coach and players from only one school’s teams were prepared to participate in the sport scientific intervention programme for the full duration of the netball season. The afore–mentioned group was evaluated over a period of two years, namely prior to the start of the season (T1), after conclusion of the season once the sport specific periodization programme was completed (T2), prior to the start of the season in the subsequent year (T3) and after conclusion of the season without the sport specific being followed. The data is processed on the basis of descriptive statistics. Furthermore, the practical significance of test result changes between the respective groups and different test sessions were compared using Cohen’s effect size. Literature was consulted to determine whether specific requirements exist for netball players and whether differences occur in the three positional groups. However, no literature could be traced in which only netball specific requirements for 15 to 17 year old players were focused on. The literature did indeed point out clear anthropometric differences between the three positional groups, namely attacking, centre court and defence players in club and elite netball players. The goalkeeper and defence players are, according to literature, considerably taller and heavier than the centre court players. Literature also indicated that differences do indeed occur regarding physical and motor requirements. Centre court players are significantly faster and more agile than the goalkeeper and defenders. However, there were components of which the differences were not prominent concerning the three positional groups. Where a specific positional profile of anthropometric, physical and motor requirements for 15 to 17 year old female netball players was composed from available data of players in the North–West Province, Tlokwe region, the results of the anthropometric requirements indicated that body length showed a large significant difference between the three positional groups, with defenders being the tallest, followed by goalkeepers, and the centre court players being the shortest. Body mass also showed a medium significant difference between goalkeepers and centre court players as well as between centre court players and defence players. Goalkeepers were heavier than centre court players, and defenders also showed a higher body mass than centre court players. The other two variables, namely percentage fat and percentage muscle mass, only showed small practically significant differences, in this group of netball players, between the test sessions. With the physical and motor requirements, results indicated that large practically significant differences occurred in vertical jumping, 5 m speed, 10 m speed and agility between the groups. The general trend observed in the profiles was that the largest significant differences occurred between goalkeepers and defence players on the one hand and centre court players on the other. Vertical jump and speed showed a large significant difference between goalkeepers and centre court players as well as between centre court players and defenders, although the goalkeepers and defenders’ results corresponded considerably. Other large significant differences occurred in the 10 m speed as well as in 505–agility to the left between centre court players and defenders. In summary it can be mentioned that the most and the largest significant differences occurred between goalkeepers and centre court players as well as between defenders and centre court players. Only one medium significant difference occurred between the goalkeepers and defenders, which is ankle dorsiflexion and which can be ascribed to injuries. From this it can be inferred that a positional profile can indeed be compiled for the different positional groups in netball, but that the requirements of positional variables between goalkeepers and defenders correspond largely and that the large difference between the last–mentioned two groups occur when compared with those of the centre court players of this specific group. The results of the group of twenty–two players that were evaluated twice during the course of both netball seasons indicate that the variable that showed a large significant difference between T1 and T2, following the sport specific periodization program, was body mass (inverted difference). Although there was no large significant difference, it can clearly be deduced from the graphs presented in the study that a visible difference (improvement) was observed in most of the variables. The variables that showed a large practically significant difference with the training of the coach’s general programme, were ankle dorsiflexion on the left, abdominal power and 5 m speed (inverted effect). A number of variables indeed existed that also showed medium and small significant differences during the course of both seasons, but it will not be mentioned here. A number of shortcomings and recommendations did indeed come to the fore during and after the course of the study. It should, however, be borne in mind that such a structured periodization programme is very important for the development of netball potential. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Human Movement Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

In the light of the facts given in literature it is evident that players in the game of netball need to meet specific anthropometric (body length, body mass, percentage body fat and percentage muscle mass), physical (pliancy, abdominal power, aerobic endurance and anaerobic endurance) and motor (speed over 5 m and 10 m, agility and explosive power) requirements. This consequently necessitates specific attention to be given to the mentioned requirements. In spite of the fact that a few studies do exist that enter into the requirements of the profile of netball players in different positions, as well as into what the effect of a periodization programme is on anthropometric, physical and motor requirements, voids do exist regarding the positional profile of 15 to 17 year old netball players and as to what the effect is of a sport specific periodization programme in the course of a season on 15 to 17 year old netball players. In the light of the above–mentioned, this study was undertaken with the aim to: 1) Determine the requirements for 15 to 17 year old netball players; 2) Compile positional profile scales of netball specific requirement for 15 to 17 year old players in the Tlokwe region; 3) Establish the effect of a sport specific periodization programme on anthropometric, physical and motor requirements for 15 to 17 year old female netball players, of a specific school in the Tlokwe region, in the course of a season. 96 players (28 goalkeepers, 44 centre court players and 24 defenders) between ages 15 and 17 years from two high schools in the North–West Province were used in the study to determine positional differences. A group of only 22 player of one school was exposed to a sport specific periodization programme for purposes of the study, since the coach and players from only one school’s teams were prepared to participate in the sport scientific intervention programme for the full duration of the netball season. The afore–mentioned group was evaluated over a period of two years, namely prior to the start of the season (T1), after conclusion of the season once the sport specific periodization programme was completed (T2), prior to the start of the season in the subsequent year (T3) and after conclusion of the season without the sport specific being followed. The data is processed on the basis of descriptive statistics. Furthermore, the practical significance of test result changes between the respective groups and different test sessions were compared using Cohen’s effect size. Literature was consulted to determine whether specific requirements exist for netball players and whether differences occur in the three positional groups. However, no literature could be traced in which only netball specific requirements for 15 to 17 year old players were focused on. The literature did indeed point out clear anthropometric differences between the three positional groups, namely attacking, centre court and defence players in club and elite netball players. The goalkeeper and defence players are, according to literature, considerably taller and heavier than the centre court players. Literature also indicated that differences do indeed occur regarding physical and motor requirements. Centre court players are significantly faster and more agile than the goalkeeper and defenders. However, there were components of which the differences were not prominent concerning the three positional groups. Where a specific positional profile of anthropometric, physical and motor requirements for 15 to 17 year old female netball players was composed from available data of players in the North–West Province, Tlokwe region, the results of the anthropometric requirements indicated that body length showed a large significant difference between the three positional groups, with defenders being the tallest, followed by goalkeepers, and the centre court players being the shortest. Body mass also showed a medium significant difference between goalkeepers and centre court players as well as between centre court players and defence players. Goalkeepers were heavier than centre court players, and defenders also showed a higher body mass than centre court players. The other two variables, namely percentage fat and percentage muscle mass, only showed small practically significant differences, in this group of netball players, between the test sessions. With the physical and motor requirements, results indicated that large practically significant differences occurred in vertical jumping, 5 m speed, 10 m speed and agility between the groups. The general trend observed in the profiles was that the largest significant differences occurred between goalkeepers and defence players on the one hand and centre court players on the other. Vertical jump and speed showed a large significant difference between goalkeepers and centre court players as well as between centre court players and defenders, although the goalkeepers and defenders’ results corresponded considerably. Other large significant differences occurred in the 10 m speed as well as in 505–agility to the left between centre court players and defenders. In summary it can be mentioned that the most and the largest significant differences occurred between goalkeepers and centre court players as well as between defenders and centre court players. Only one medium significant difference occurred between the goalkeepers and defenders, which is ankle dorsiflexion and which can be ascribed to injuries. From this it can be inferred that a positional profile can indeed be compiled for the different positional groups in netball, but that the requirements of positional variables between goalkeepers and defenders correspond largely and that the large difference between the last–mentioned two groups occur when compared with those of the centre court players of this specific group. The results of the group of twenty–two players that were evaluated twice during the course of both netball seasons indicate that the variable that showed a large significant difference between T1 and T2, following the sport specific periodization program, was body mass (inverted difference). Although there was no large significant difference, it can clearly be deduced from the graphs presented in the study that a visible difference (improvement) was observed in most of the variables. The variables that showed a large practically significant difference with the training of the coach’s general programme, were ankle dorsiflexion on the left, abdominal power and 5 m speed (inverted effect). A number of variables indeed existed that also showed medium and small significant differences during the course of both seasons, but it will not be mentioned here. A number of shortcomings and recommendations did indeed come to the fore during and after the course of the study. It should, however, be borne in mind that such a structured periodization programme is very important for the development of netball potential. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Human Movement Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (TA Act), which was promulgated on 4 July 2012 and came into effect on 1 October 2012, was enacted with the purpose of aligning all the administrative provisions dealt with under the various sections of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) (IT Act) and the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991) (VAT Act) under one piece of legislation. The TA Act (28 of 2011) provides guidance on various matters of tax administration, including a very controversial penalty levying regime. Prior to the TA Act (28 of 2011), section 76 of the IT Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 the VAT Act (89 of 1991) (hereafter referred to as the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions) dealt with the levying of additional taxes in cases of understated tax returns. Sections 76 and 60 of the respective acts unfortunately did not provide proper guidelines on the assessment and calculation of these additional taxes or on how the levying of these additional taxes could conform to matters of administrative justice. These matters have been included under sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011) (hereafter referred to as the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011)) and have been welcomed by most taxpayers. This research study focused on the critical evaluation of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) as well as the provisions which were repealed and replaced by the TA Act (28 of 2011) and which were previously applied in terms of the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. A comparison between the latter provisions, the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and foreign legislation is made with the purpose of addressing how effective and fair the TA Act (28 of 2011) will prove to be. The study also includes brief advice on any possible improvements or practical approaches regarding the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011). It is also seen as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations promulgated in terms of sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011), and to identify possible problems with the application and interpretation of the relevant understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) by the Commissioner. A literature review was used to critically analyse and compare various pieces of legislation and precedents, including South African and foreign laws and legislation, with possible practical illustrative examples. The objective with the literature review was to clarify issues such as the fairness of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. The findings of the research study revealed that the enactment of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) on 1 October 2012 partially achieves the objective of providing taxpayers with a penalty levying system that is more reasonable and fair in comparison with the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. Despite a more favourable outcome achieved by the TA Act (28 of 2011), the research concludes that proper guidance and measures for levying a penalty are still lacking and that the legislation is unfortunately still failing in this regard. Harsh penalty percentages based on certain behavioural criteria that are not defined create the need for obvious improvements. That said, the TA Act (28 of 2011) is still young and creates a basis on which further amendments and improvements can take place. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (TA Act), which was promulgated on 4 July 2012 and came into effect on 1 October 2012, was enacted with the purpose of aligning all the administrative provisions dealt with under the various sections of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) (IT Act) and the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991) (VAT Act) under one piece of legislation. The TA Act (28 of 2011) provides guidance on various matters of tax administration, including a very controversial penalty levying regime. Prior to the TA Act (28 of 2011), section 76 of the IT Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 the VAT Act (89 of 1991) (hereafter referred to as the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions) dealt with the levying of additional taxes in cases of understated tax returns. Sections 76 and 60 of the respective acts unfortunately did not provide proper guidelines on the assessment and calculation of these additional taxes or on how the levying of these additional taxes could conform to matters of administrative justice. These matters have been included under sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011) (hereafter referred to as the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011)) and have been welcomed by most taxpayers. This research study focused on the critical evaluation of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) as well as the provisions which were repealed and replaced by the TA Act (28 of 2011) and which were previously applied in terms of the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. A comparison between the latter provisions, the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and foreign legislation is made with the purpose of addressing how effective and fair the TA Act (28 of 2011) will prove to be. The study also includes brief advice on any possible improvements or practical approaches regarding the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011). It is also seen as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations promulgated in terms of sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011), and to identify possible problems with the application and interpretation of the relevant understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) by the Commissioner. A literature review was used to critically analyse and compare various pieces of legislation and precedents, including South African and foreign laws and legislation, with possible practical illustrative examples. The objective with the literature review was to clarify issues such as the fairness of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. The findings of the research study revealed that the enactment of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) on 1 October 2012 partially achieves the objective of providing taxpayers with a penalty levying system that is more reasonable and fair in comparison with the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. Despite a more favourable outcome achieved by the TA Act (28 of 2011), the research concludes that proper guidance and measures for levying a penalty are still lacking and that the legislation is unfortunately still failing in this regard. Harsh penalty percentages based on certain behavioural criteria that are not defined create the need for obvious improvements. That said, the TA Act (28 of 2011) is still young and creates a basis on which further amendments and improvements can take place. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014