|
Concern about modifying game conditions has increased in the last
two decades. Modifying the rules is a common way to change game conditions.
Rules provide the unique, differentiating character to the game (Lagardera
and Lavega, 2003;
Parlebas, 1999)
and they specify the requirements of game action. According to Parlebas,
1999,
rules determine four types of participants' relationships that cause game
action to emerge: (a) with other participants, (b) with the game space,
(c) with the equipment, and (d) with how they should adapt to the game
time.
The internal logic of the game (i.e., the result of the dynamic of the
relations of the structural and functional elements and the players) is
not exclusively explained by the rules. The rules should determine all
the necessary conditions to be able to play, that is, the internal logic
should be reflected in them. However, the rules allow for a degree of
variability in the players' motor behaviors. This means that the players'
personal adaptation or the way they execute their motor behaviors produces
different responses because all the players interpret the game actions
according to their own experience, capabilities, knowledge of the opponent,
etc. Along with the complexity of all the variables that interact in the
game, this makes it more difficult to determine the implications of rule
modification (Eaves et al., 2008a;
Gréhaigne and Godbout, 1998;
Kew, 1990;
Usabiaga and Castellano, 2005).
In the literature reviewed, there are few studies of rule modification
and little related information. The modification of a rule cannot take
place in the absence of objective knowledge that serves as a foundation
for the decision. The purpose of this qualitative review was to analyze
the state of the bibliography about rule modification in sport.
This manuscript presents the results of a bibliographic search and its
analysis, which was conducted over three years. The review was completed
using various databases (Science Citation Index, Scopus, SPORTDiscus,
EbscoHost) and the catalogs of five European universities. The bibliographic
search included manuscripts that met the following criteria: (a) published
from 1989 until January of 2009 in journals that use a double-blind peer-review
process, (b) written in English, (c) included an empirical study, (d)
used elements that were defined by rules that are characteristic of a
certain sport, (e) involved a typical motor behavior of the sport, and
(f) referred to the modification of at least one element that was influenced
by a rule of the sport in the title, key words, objectives, or conclusions.
The authors discarded all the studies of modifications of the quality
of the equipment or simply to improve training. The researchers read the
selected documents and reached a consensus to include them in the study.
Lastly, a search was conducted using the snowball technique, by which
the titles in the reference lists of the selected research articles were
reviewed. The keywords were: adaptation, change, modification, rule, law,
adaptation of rules, change of rules, modification of rules, game, competition,
game analysis, modified game and youth sport. Of the 139 studies reviewed,
only the 47 marked with an asterisk in the References met the established
inclusion and exclusion criteria. Along with five experts (who had a Ph.D.
in Physical Educational and Sport and coaches with more than six years'
experience in training children and high performance athletes), the authors
of this article then selected a set of data to be analyzed in the review
(see Tables 1, 3
and 4). In addition to the search
for empirical studies, the authors carried out a complementary search
of theoretical studies (not marked with an asterisk in the references).
In type of study, the authors differentiated studies that analyzed a previous
modification not proposed by the authors and studies that analyzed a modification
proposed by the authors of each study (see Table 1). This review differentiates the purpose of the proposed
modifications and the purpose of the authors when conducting their studies
(see Table 3). We also differentiated whether the goals were achieved
and what motivated the authors to carry out the modifications or to conduct
the studies.
Classification
of the rules
Based on the review of rule modification, diverse authors have proposed
various classifications (Table 2).
Following the game configuration established by Parlebas, 1999,
most of the proposals coincide in differentiating two types of basic rules.
Firstly, are the rules that refer to internal logic. These rules define
the criteria that mark the relationships between a player and the rest
of the players, game time, space, and game equipment. These rules can
be structural and functional. Structural rules determine measurable (quantitative)
aspects of space, time, equipment, and number of players. These aspects
are static and establish the necessary conditions for executing game actions.
Functional rules (also called qualitative rules) determine the form, use,
and the players' use of the structural elements, indicating obligations,
rights, and prohibitions concerning space, time, equipment, and relationships
with other players. For example, with regard to basketball players, a
structural rule determines the number of individuals per team who can
participate at the same time in the game space, whereas a functional rule
indicates the constraints of body contact between players and the penalties
if they exceed these restrictions.
Secondly, rules that refer to the external logic are the criteria concerning
elements that are further from or nonessential to the game. These elements
include the nature of the competition, the scoring system, the characteristics
of the material, team differentiators, game moments or seasons. Game action
can emerge without these elements, although this could influence game
dynamics.
The
goals of rule modification
Fifty-one percent of the studies pursued the same goal as that of the
rule modification. The remaining studies (48.94%) analyzed how rule modification
affected other aspects that were not the object of the modification. It
does not seem reasonable for studies to analyze rule modification proposed
by other people with a different goal. However, it is necessary to analyze
the modified rules with other goals in order to obtain information about
how they affect other aspects of the game. Of all the studies, 74.46%
analyzed a previous modification, 21.28% proposed a modification, and
4.25% analyzed a previous modification
and proposed an alternative (Table 1).
This last option seems to be influenced by a deeper research process of
the modification analyzed. In effect, the study of rule modification should
involve the elaboration of alternative proposals.
Nearly one-third (31.91%) of the studies do not mention the purpose of
the modifications. However, all the studies reported the purpose of the
analysis of such modifications. Kew, 1987
affirms that there is little knowledge of the interactive processes that
produce changes in the rules, which seems logical. The most frequently
mentioned goals of rule modification (see Table
3) were: to improve performance (25.53%) and to attract spectators
and to attend to commercial pressures and interests (25.53%). Most of
the studies analyzed the modifications with the goal of improving performance
(42.55%). According to Kew, 1987,
rule changes are motivated primarily by the need to improve the characteristics
of the game. Elias and Dunning, 1971
provided two explanations for rule changes in sport. The first was the
need to modify the threshold of behavior disorders that occur during the
game. The second was the need to develop game dynamics and motor skills
that allow for improving the game over time.
Attracting spectators and attending to commercial pressures and interests
was one of the goals with the least influence (8.51%) on the study of
rule modification. However, Steen-Johnsen, 2008
identified commercial interests as one of the primary sources of rule
change. Abrevaya, 2004
and Easton and Rockerbie, 2005
pointed out that sports have a continual strategy for maintaining the
business that they generate. Rule change indirectly causes an increase
in spectatorship, which in turn affects the public's interest as well
as the revenue. Kew, 1990
indicated that commercial interests, along with the demands of the media,
are the engines that drive rule change.
Adapting sport to children's possibilities was the third goal both for
modifying rules (21.28%) and for conducting the studies (21.28%). With
the idea that children are not miniature adults, the authors refer to
the fact that children normally lack the strength and physical characteristics
of adults (Chase et al., 1994;
Regimbal et al., 1992;
Satern et al., 1989).
Numerous studies proposed game modifications as a strategy for adapting
the game to children's interests, possibilities, and needs (Arias et al.,
2009a;
Buekers and Billiet, 1998;
Evans, 1980;
Rink, 1993).
One of the goals with the least impact on rule modification was preventing
injury (10.64%). However, this was one of the goals with the greatest
influence on researchers to conduct the studies (27.66%). The unsuitability
of game rules may directly cause injuries (Albright et al., 2004;
Grimmer and Williams, 2003;
Macpherson et al., 2006;
Otago, 2004)
and indirectly cause stressful situations that can result in injuries
(Maddison and Prapavessis, 2005;
Palmi, 1997).
According to Palmi, 1997,
a series of external factors can influence athletes' actions and increase
the risk of injury. Among these factors is highlighted the unsuitability
of the game rules for the individuals. Various studies call for the need
for rule modification to prevent injuries, and not only to serve commercial
interests (Livingston and Forbes, 2003;
Putukian, 2004).
Putukian, 2004
emphasized that rule change is vitally important to protect athletes'
health and safety. Rule modification and strict adherence to rules may
minimize the frequency of injuries (Livingston and Forbes, 2003;
McCrory et al., 2009).
Attracting athletes to practice a sport was the goal with the least influence
on rule modification (6.38%) and on the corresponding studies (6.38%).
Agozino, 1996
indicated that rule modification responds more closely to other interests,
and that the excitement that is aroused in the players is neglected. For
this purpose, those in charge of the administration of the sport should
change the rules to generate situations that are more meaningful and gratifying
for the players. This would involve the analysis of diverse aspects related
to the participants' motivation (satisfaction, self-efficacy, ability
to achieve success, fun, economic reimbursement). In recreational sport,
the goal would be to achieve satisfaction in the practice of the sport
(Pellet and Lox, 1997,
1998).
In amateur sport, the goal seems to be professionalization (Eaves et al.,
2008b;
Williams et al., 2005).
In professional sport, the aim appears to be to improve one's economical
conditions (Eaves et al., 2008b;
Harris, 1992).
Are
the goals achieved?
Nearly two-thirds (65.71%) of the studies did not mention whether the
previous modifications they analyzed achieved the proposed goals (see
Table 3). The goal was achieved in 20% of the
cases, and it was not achieved in 14.28%. According to Mathes and Flatten,
1982,
the lack of information about the effect of the modifications on the players'
behavior causes some rule modifications to be questioned. On the other
hand, all the studies that proposed a modification stated whether or not
the modifications that they analyzed achieved the goals. Thus, 60% of
the studies achieved the goals that prompted the study. The results of
the review seem to corroborate previous research data. Several authors
suggest that most of the studies conducted to verify the effect of rule
modification produce results that are far from or contrary to what was
intended with the change (Eaves et al., 2008a;
Kew, 1987;
Krauss, 2004;
Usabiaga and Castellano, 2005).
Nearly half (48.6%) of the studies that analyzed a previous modification
achieved a different goal from that originally proposed. This datum seems
to coincide with the fact that rule modification can interfere with aspects
that, theoretically, should not be affected (Kew, 1990;
Krauss, 2004).
We need to know how rule modification interferes with a wide range of
variables, and not only how it interferes with the variables that the
researchers intended to change. All the studies that analyzed a previous
modification and proposed an alternative achieved the intended goals of
the modification and of the study. However, these cases are scarce (only
two studies). Studies should not only analyze a modification proposed
by others. They should also elaborate useful proposals that serve the
organizations that are responsible for competitions. Evans, 1980
acknowledged that research has done very little to provide information
to guide the people in sport administration who are responsible for competition.
Data
registered and methods
Nearly half (48.94%) of the studies analyzed the effect of rule modification
on the game actions that occur during the game (see Table
4). Game action was also one of the data in the studies that was most
often registered through a test (14.89%). Registration of injuries during
the game was common in various manuscripts (12.76%). Other data used in
the studies to analyze the effects of rule modification were: (a) injuries,
by questionnaire and database (10.64%); (b) psychological variables, by
questionnaire (6.38%); (c) game statistics (6.38%); (d) physiological
parameters during the game (6.38%); (e) physiological and anthropometric
parameters, by test (6.38%); (f) mechanical variables, by power plates
and accelerometers (4.25%); and (g) result of the games (2.13%). Furthermore,
two studies (4.25%) did not mention the data they used to analyze the
effect of rule modification. The effect of rule modification cannot be
evaluated easily. Observational analysis can be used as an objective method
and technique of analysis. Game actions are important data that are directly
affected by the modifications (Arias et al., 2009a; 2009b; Parlebas, 1999; Williams et al., 2005). Due to the changes undergone in game actions, rule modification
indirectly causes changes in: (a) game conditions (Hammond and Hosking,
2005; Hammond et al., 1999), (b) energy demands (Ben Abdelkrim et al., 2007; Cormery et al., 2008; Platanou and Geladas, 2006), (c) players' conditions (Carter et al., 2005; Ekstrand et al., 2006), and (d) players' motivation (Chase et al., 1994; Pellett and Lox, 1998). Sixty-eight percent of the studies used only one type
of data from a single register procedure, and 31.11% based used more than
one type of data. We consider that it is necessary to use more than one
type of data that allows us to confirm the results. This methodological
strategy leads to more powerful results. Therefore, it would be interesting
to utilize qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
A great majority of studies (see Table
4) did not consult the participants (91.5%). However, when studying
rule modification, we need to know the players' and coaches' opinions
(Chase et al., 1994;
Evans, 1980; Kew, 1990, 1992; Palacios-Huerta, 2004). The four studies that collected participants' data only
took the players into consideration. None of the studies considered the
coaches or other people. According to Kew, 1990, the rule modification entails a process of social interrelation
between the administrators of the sport, the players, and the coaches.
Of the four aforementioned studies, two registered data about psychological
variables, one about preferences, and another requested the participants'
opinions. According to Agozino, 1996, few studies examine the players' or coaches' opinions
of the rules and the changes to be made in them. Although this is lacking
in most of the studies, it would be interesting to consult the protagonists'
viewpoint of the need to modify the game and the modifications that may
be included (Evans, 1980).
Specifically, studies that pursue goals that are directly related to people-
that is, attracting spectators and athletes and adapting the sport to
children's possibilities- should make a special effort to ask the people
involved.
Evidence
of analysis prior to rule modification
More than two-thirds (70.21%) of the studies did not mention whether the
modifications that were introduced were previously analyzed by the organizations
that proposed them (see Table 4).
Except for two, in all cases, the modification was proposed by the organizing
body of the competition. Very few of articles (4.25%) reported that the
promoters of the rule modification did not carry out previous analyses.
Therefore, most of the studies (74.46%) researched the effect of rule
modification without knowing whether there had been a previous analysis
or without any previous analysis. According to Evans, 1980 and Pellet et al. (1994),
most of the studies analyzed rule modifications that were introduced intuitively
and subjectively instead of on the basis of objective evidence. Only 25.5%
of the modifications were proposed after a previous analysis. In 83.33%
of these cases, the authors proposed the modification, and only in two
cases, the authors analyzed a modification that was introduced by the
organizing bodies of the competition. Due to the various options of many
rules, the administrators of the sport cannot precisely anticipate the
consequences of their modification. However, changes to be made should
be designed and analyzed through a reflective process to determine their
influence before finally introducing them into the game (Easton and Rockerbie,
2005; Krauss, 2004; Parkkari et al., 2001; Usabiaga and Castellano, 2005).
In more than half of the studies (58.33%), modifications proposed after
a previous analysis achieved the desired goal. According to Evans, 1980, it is necessary to study rule modification objectively
to obtain valid information through empirical methodology. Modifications
carried out using a scientific design are more likely to be effective.
The stages followed by most of the studies (72.72%) that conducted a prior
analysis were: (a) to analyze the literature, (b) to identify deficiencies,
(c) to modify the rules and (d) to conduct an analysis after the modification.
Three studies proposed establishing the goals before rule modification.
Recent publications suggest the need for sport administrators to consider
studies of rule modification before modifying any rules (Arias et al.,
2009a;
Eaves et al., 2008a;
Hammond et al., 1999;
Hammond and Hosking, 2005;
Platanou and Geladas, 2006;
Usabiaga and Castellano, 2005).
We found two proposals of models that established stages for the study
and modification of game rules. Evans, 1980
proposed three stages to adapt a sport to children's characteristics:
(a) analyze the game with adult rules; (b) identify game deficiencies
with regard to children's needs, interests, and possibilities and (c)
recommend the modifications to transform the game. Usabiaga and Castellano,
2005
established that the study and modification of game rules should follow
the following stages: (a) structural analysis of the sport, (b) descriptive
analysis of the game action in the sport, (c) structural modification
of the sport, (d) descriptive analysis of the game action in the modified
sport, and (e) optimization and descriptive analysis of the game action
in the modified sport.
Modified
rules
Three-fourths of the studies (74.47%) analyzed rule modifications related
to internal logic and few studies (14.89%) analyzed rules related to external
logic. Only three studies analyzed a rule modification about both the
internal and external logic, and two studies did not mention all the modifications
that they analyzed (see Table 4).
It seems logical for the modified rules to be related to internal logic.
Although the aspects that designate the rules related to external logic
can influence game dynamics, they are expendable when determining the
game actions. However, the rules related to internal logic conceive the
particular way of predetermining the game actions of each sport (Parlebas,
1999).
When examining these latter rules in detail, 71.43% of the studies analyzed
structural modifications, 22.86% analyzed functional modifications, and
two studies dealt with both types of rules. The strategies adopted to
modify game conditions seem to focus on structural rules. Some of the
following are emphasized: (a) number of participating players, (b) game
duration, (c) game space and (d) equipment. These rules establish the
basic conditions that make the game possible; they determine an important
part of the contextual conditions in which players develop their actions.
Rink, 1993
suggested that an effective way to modify game conditions is through the
structural rules. The literature about prevention of injuries also emphasizes
that more attention should be paid to these rules in order to decrease
the risk of injury (Krauss, 2004;
Parkkari et al., 2001;
Schieber et al., 1996).
None of the studies that analyzed the modification of rules related to
external logic reported whether the proposed goal was achieved. Of the
studies that provided this information, the following achieved the proposed
goal: (a) two studies modified rules related to both internal and external
logic, (b) 65% modified rules related to internal logic, (c) 71.43% modified
functional rules and (d) 61.54% modified structural rules. It seems reasonable
that fewer studies were able to achieve their proposed goal through structural
rules, because these rules only determine the formal aspects of the game.
Structural rules allow for the player's personal interpretation. Their
responses are different because each player is different. Functional rules
study the development of game action but the complexity of variables that
interact in the game make it more difficult to achieve the goals when
these rules are modified (Eaves et al., 2008a; Gréhaigne and Godbout, 1998; Kew, 1990; Usabiaga and Castellano, 2005).
|
|
,
Francisco M. Argudo2 and Jose I.
Alonso3