Comments on: What Can Coaches Use Besides Punishment?

By: Erika @ Dr.TriRunner

Erika @ Dr.TriRunner — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:34:08 +0000

I think part of it depends on the age and maturity of the athletes you’re coaching. This last summer I worked with a team of 16-21 year olds, and a team of <15. For the older athletes, getting off track was pretty rare… so this was only one particular situation. I stopped everything and asked the individual what they wanted to get out of this practice. Asked them if they thought they were working towards that goal with the way they were acting, and reminded them that if they didn't want to be here, they didn't need to waste their time or the rest of the teams.

Haha writing that makes me sound mean. But it did remind the athlete that practice time is to work, and that was all it took!

By: KAM

KAM — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:26:36 +0000

I would say with young athletes you must keep them active to keep them engaged & focused so the responsibility is with the coach to be prepared. The coach must also adjust & be willing to change course of action if kids focus & attention is not there on a particular day. Coaches that fall back on negative punishment for athletes mistakes are taking an easy way out. The best coaches I have had were teachers.
If an athlete makes a mistake examples rather than punishment would be 1). Stop an explain what is wrong & how we are going to fix it (then the athletes understand). 2). Use situational play, or a drill to teach the skill to the athletes. 3). You can have the athletes set a goal of how many times they can correctly execute the play & if they meet that goal reward them at the end of practice by letting them choose which drill or game to play. Teach & train the athletes so the mistake may not happen again (don’t punish them for it). And if the mistake does happen again teach the athletes to adapt and overcome because that is life.

By: nmlavoi

nmlavoi — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:39:46 +0000

I hear this same justification you describe all the time. I would argue though that “less playing time” is a response cost (take away a positive thing) and making an athlete run (add a negative) is an aversive punishment. A response cost can be effective, but overuse of aversive punishment is not. You bring up some interesting points that I agree, so need to be unpacked especially in light of coaching millennials. -nml

By: d'Alary

d'Alary — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:19:31 +0000

This does not directly address your question, but I would love to get your take… I recently asked some female high school coaches (in Bay Area, CA) about their coaching. Around the question of punishment, it was their contention that they have a repsonsibility to establish consequences for negative behavior and to ensure that their high standards were met. They also said that they believed athletes most often repond to negative consequences (such as, less playing time, added running etc.) – evidence of the myth that you debunk. The real kicker is that these coaches equate facing these consequences with their athletes being held accountable and thus, with teaching positive life skills. That is, they believe that punishment is in fact teaching their athletes positive life skills (such as accountability and responsibility). I think how these coaches understand positive life skills probably needs to be unpacked, but is their take on punishment just semantics or are these coaches making an important distinction? I should note that all of these coaches ascribe to positive coaching techniques (mostly from the PCA) in combination with “holding their athletes accountable.”