A comparison between traditional children's rugby union games and modified small-sided games aimed at enhancing opportunity for physical activity and enjoyment

IF 1.5 4区 教育学 Q3 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Liz Tang, Carly J. Brade, Daniel J. Hiscock, Jacob A. Shaw, Sarah R. Henley-Martin, Angela Jacques, Kagan J. Ducker
{"title":"A comparison between traditional children's rugby union games and modified small-sided games aimed at enhancing opportunity for physical activity and enjoyment","authors":"Liz Tang, Carly J. Brade, Daniel J. Hiscock, Jacob A. Shaw, Sarah R. Henley-Martin, Angela Jacques, Kagan J. Ducker","doi":"10.1177/17479541241281017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compared traditional rugby union (RU) games to a modified small-sided game (SSG) aimed at improving opportunity for physical activity and enjoyment in children. Twenty-six school rugby players (aged 10 y) played 10 RU matches. Five traditional games on a full-sized field with 10–12 players per team and five SSG on a modified field with seven players per team. Movement patterns, enjoyment, involvements (e.g., possessions, passes, tackles, rucks and tries), and heart rate (HR) were recorded. Session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) was measured at the end of each game and used to calculate game load (sRPE x duration). Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Individuals covered greater distances (total, low and high speed) overall and relatively (per min) and had higher HR whilst playing traditional format RU. Despite covering greater distances, perceived exertion and game load were similar and importantly, enjoyment was high for both game formats. Individual player match involvements (overall and relative possessions and passes, and relative tackles) were higher in SSG. Given that players enjoyed both game formats, movement pattern and physiological data suggest traditional games may be more suitable for improving physical activity and fitness, while individual involvement data suggest SSG may be more suitable for improving opportunities for participation and skill development.","PeriodicalId":47767,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541241281017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared traditional rugby union (RU) games to a modified small-sided game (SSG) aimed at improving opportunity for physical activity and enjoyment in children. Twenty-six school rugby players (aged 10 y) played 10 RU matches. Five traditional games on a full-sized field with 10–12 players per team and five SSG on a modified field with seven players per team. Movement patterns, enjoyment, involvements (e.g., possessions, passes, tackles, rucks and tries), and heart rate (HR) were recorded. Session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) was measured at the end of each game and used to calculate game load (sRPE x duration). Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Individuals covered greater distances (total, low and high speed) overall and relatively (per min) and had higher HR whilst playing traditional format RU. Despite covering greater distances, perceived exertion and game load were similar and importantly, enjoyment was high for both game formats. Individual player match involvements (overall and relative possessions and passes, and relative tackles) were higher in SSG. Given that players enjoyed both game formats, movement pattern and physiological data suggest traditional games may be more suitable for improving physical activity and fitness, while individual involvement data suggest SSG may be more suitable for improving opportunities for participation and skill development.
传统儿童橄榄球比赛与旨在增加体育活动机会和乐趣的改良小型比赛的比较
本研究将传统的橄榄球联盟(RU)比赛与改良的小场比赛(SSG)进行了比较,旨在提高儿童体育锻炼的机会和乐趣。26 名学校橄榄球运动员(10 岁)参加了 10 场橄榄球比赛。其中五场是在全尺寸场地上进行的传统比赛,每队 10-12 人;五场是在改良场地上进行的小型比赛,每队 7 人。对运动模式、乐趣、参与度(如控球、传球、拦截、抢断和达阵)和心率(HR)进行了记录。在每场比赛结束时测量感知消耗量(session rating of perceived exertion,sRPE),用于计算比赛负荷(sRPE x 持续时间)。显著性设定为 p≤ 0.05。在进行传统形式的 RU 时,个人的总距离(总距离、低速距离和高速距离)和相对距离(每分钟)更长,心率更高。尽管距离更远,但感觉到的消耗和比赛负荷相似,重要的是,两种比赛形式的乐趣都很高。在 SSG 比赛中,球员的个人比赛参与度(总体和相对控球和传球以及相对拦截)更高。鉴于球员们对这两种比赛形式都很喜欢,运动模式和生理数据表明,传统比赛可能更适合提高身体活动和体能,而个人参与数据表明,SSG 可能更适合提高参与机会和技能发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
15.80%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching is a peer-reviewed, international, academic/professional journal, which aims to bridge the gap between coaching and sports science. The journal will integrate theory and practice in sports science, promote critical reflection of coaching practice, and evaluate commonly accepted beliefs about coaching effectiveness and performance enhancement. Open learning systems will be promoted in which: (a) sports science is made accessible to coaches, translating knowledge into working practice; and (b) the challenges faced by coaches are communicated to sports scientists. The vision of the journal is to support the development of a community in which: (i) sports scientists and coaches respect and learn from each other as they assist athletes to acquire skills by training safely and effectively, thereby enhancing their performance, maximizing their enjoyment of the sporting experience and facilitating character development; and (ii) scientific research is embraced in the quest to uncover, understand and develop the processes involved in sports coaching and elite performance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信