Rugby coaches’ perceptions of their in-competition role

ABSTRACT

This study examined rugby coaches’ perceptions concerning their in-competition role, when observing the game and managing player substitutions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven coaches of French national teams. The data were analysed with a thematic qualitative analysis. The results revealed some similarities concerning the observation strategies, the significant cues for deciding substitutions, and shared procedures for player substitution management. There was evidence of a coaching “genre” shared by the coaches, which revealed a strong influence of the social and cultural context of French rugby. Nevertheless, the results also demonstrated important differences and the absence of a clear or common conceptual framework. This variety of statements revealed individual “coaching styles”, adaptation to specific contexts, personal points of view and the importance of previous experiences in match coaching situations. The implications for the development of coaches are considered, with the potential for creating coaches’ communities of practice and the use of reflection on subjective in-match experiences.

KEYWORDS:

• Coaches’ conceptions
• in-match coaching
• rugby
• communities of practice
• coaches’ competences

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In the European Sport Coaching Framework (Lara-Bercial et al., 2017), where the authors specify six primary functions for guiding athlete development and improvement, including “Conduct practices and prepare and manage competitions”.

2. https://www.ffr.fr/Au-coeur-du-jeu/Entrainer-Encadrer/Formations-d-Etat/Formation, accessed on 14 September 2017.

3. The term discourse is used in this case to differentiate between evidence-based research (of which there is little) and to identify scholarly writing combining “ways of thinking” and “believing” about coaching (of which there is a great deal).

4. All participants were assigned a pseudonym to maintain confidentiality.

5. This term does not have a precise translation in English when considering different scientific papers. It means the “balance of power” or “state of opposition” between the two teams during a game, with possibility of equilibrium or disequilibrium. One team can dominate the rapport de force’ regarding criteria such as score, ball possession, opponent territory occupation… This concept relates to a systemic analysis of the opposition in team sports (see Gréhaigne, Bouthier, & David, 1997).

6. Conquest phases, in French rugby terminology, concern for example scrum and line-out, so that means set plays.

7. Deleplace (1979) defined the “general movement of the game” as phases of play where players and the ball are in movement, in contrast for example with “static phases” (e.g. scrum) and “fixation phases” (e.g. ruck).

8. A “maquignon” in French is someone who has a lot of experience and who can evaluate quickly just with the eyes. In this case, the coach is intuitively reading the field and making decisions in a naturalistic way. The phenomenon of “oeil de maquignon” is drawn from the traditional French term for “horse trader”.

9. E.g. backs, forwards.

10. This theoretical approach “clinic of activity” is based on French tradition psychology of work and on Russian school of psychology with Vygotski Leontiev and Bakhtine concerning the theory of activity.

11. He was ex international player for France, ex-coach in Toulouse, then wis the French national team. Pierre Villepreux is also a great rugby author in France and in Europe, and he was member of International Rugby Board. It is ethical to mention his name because he encouraged this research and his rugby thinking is very important, in the same spirit than Deleplace, a theorician whiw was previoulsly mentioned.

12. Habitus is interesting to understand how coaches develop their practice, rooted in particular field (i.e. sociocultural contexts) and past experiences. This author also suggests that these experiences are significant in developing a practical sense, constitutive of dominant discourses and ideologies.