Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Gurgis, J.J.; Kerr, G.;
Battaglia, A. Investigating Sport
Stakeholders’ Understanding of
Behaviour Management within a
Competitive Youth Baseball Team.
Sports 2023,11, 69. https://doi.org/
10.3390/sports11030069
Academic Editors: Élvio Gouveia,
Cíntia França and Krzysztof
Przednowek
Received: 8 February 2023
Revised: 14 March 2023
Accepted: 15 March 2023
Published: 17 March 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sports
Article
Investigating Sport Stakeholders’ Understanding of Behaviour
Management within a Competitive Youth Baseball Team
Joseph John Gurgis *,† , Gretchen Kerr and Anthony Battaglia
Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 2W6, Canada
*Correspondence: josephg@nipissingu.ca
† Current address: School of Physical and Health Education, Nipissing University,
North Bay, ON P1B 8L7, Canada.
Abstract:
The following study employed an instrumental case study to investigate sport stake-
holders’ understandings of behavioural management strategies used in competitive youth baseball,
including the identification of common strategies and interpretations of these as punishment or disci-
pline. Twenty-one participants, from one competitive (AAA) all-boys baseball team, including three
coaches, eleven baseball players, and seven parents, were recruited to participate in an individual
semi-structured interview. Interviews ranged between 30 and 150 min, and data were analyzed
using reflexive thematic analysis. Several behaviour management tactics were identified, of which
exercise, benching and yelling negative comments were most often reported. While participants in-
terpreted excessive exercise and benching as punitive and/or disciplinary approaches to behavioural
management, yelling was consistently viewed as punitive. Participants confused punishment and
discipline as interchangeable, thus suggesting a lack of awareness regarding developmentally appro-
priate strategies of behavioural management and highlighting the normalization of certain punitive
tactics in youth sport. The results underscore the necessity of imparting knowledge to the sports
community regarding age-appropriate behavioural management interventions to foster safe and
enjoyable athletic experiences for youth competitors.
Keywords: behaviour management; exercise; benching; yelling
1. Introduction
When designed and delivered in a developmentally appropriate manner, participation
in organized sport has been linked with positive physical and psychosocial outcomes for
youth [
1
,
2
]. Informed by sport-specific literature [
3
], the term ‘youth’ is used to broadly
refer to participants between 10 to 18 years. Specifically, participation in organized sport
can enhance self-esteem, improve social skills, increase confidence, reduce depressive
symptoms [
4
] and improve overall health behaviours among youth, such as better eating
habits, decreased drug use, and safer sexual practices [
5
]. The attainment of positive
developmental outcomes is significantly influenced by youth athletes’ experiences with
critical socializing agents, such as coaches and parents [
6
]. In fact, Dorsch et al. [
7
], referred
to coaches and parents as vital “gears” who are seen as the most proximal and influential
stakeholders to athletes within youth sport. One plausible avenue for these socializing
agents to impact the development of young athletes is through the utilization of behaviour
management techniques in sport, including punishment and discipline.
Punishment is defined as the application or withdrawal of a stimulus by an authority
figure in response to perceived wrongful behaviour, which is meant to decrease the like-
lihood of that behaviour being repeated [
8
]. Punishment manifests through positive and
negative forms; positive punishment occurs through the direct application of an aversive
stimulus (e.g., spanking), whereas negative punishment is characterized by the removal
of a rewarding stimulus (e.g., timeout) [
9
]. In the parenting and education literature, the
Sports 2023,11, 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11030069 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sports
Sports 2023,11, 69 2 of 16
negative consequences of punishing youth are well-documented and include impaired
adult–child relationships, decreased abilities to internalize moral values, lower self-esteem,
antisocial behaviour, and the normalization of physical aggression as a strategy for solving
conflicts [10–12].
Informed by the detrimental effects of punishment, a shift from using punitive prac-
tices to developmentally appropriate disciplinary strategies has occurred in parenting and
education [
13
–
15
]. Discipline is understood as a process of nurturing and teaching that
facilitates the development of self-control, competence, and self-direction among children
and youth [
16
]. Disciplinary strategies include, but are not limited to, engagement and
reasoning, goal setting, and rewarding appropriate behaviour [
16
,
17
] and have been as-
sociated with benefits such as improved self-esteem, enhanced relationships, empathy, a
greater ability to regulate emotions and distinguish right from wrong [18].
Despite the adoption of more positive disciplinary approaches in other child-populated
domains, research on behaviour management in sport suggests that punishment continues
to be used to modify athlete behaviour. For example, researchers have examined common
forms of punishment used in sport, such as excessive exercise (e.g., push-ups or sprints
until exhaustion), yelling, and benching (i.e., removal of playing time) as consequences
of perceived undesirable behaviour (e.g., poor attitude, arriving late, and inadequate
performances) [
19
–
22
]. Collectively, these punitive methods have been associated with
negative outcomes for youth athletes, which include but are not limited to fatigue, injuries,
negative perceptions of the self, tarnished sport relationships, impaired learning, and a lack
of desire to continue playing [19,20,23].
In response to documented negative repercussions of punishment use, researchers,
sport leaders and policymakers have denounced the use of coaching tactics such as ex-
cessive exercise and yelling [
24
–
26
], and instead, have advocated for more humanistic
approaches to behaviour management. For example, Harris-Reeves et al. [
17
] suggested
establishing and explaining rules and/or expectations to athletes, communicating unac-
ceptable behaviours and associated consequences, using reminders throughout practices,
positive verbal communication and rewards, and offering athletes choices. Despite the calls
for alternative approaches to youth behaviour management in sport, the use of punishment
in sport remains a pervasive strategy used by physical education teachers, sport coaches,
parents and parent-coaches to modify perceived misbehaviour [21,27–29].
Based upon the evidence of harms associated with punishment use, and the shift from
the use of punitive to disciplinary strategies in other youth-populated domains, a question
is raised about why punishment continues to be used in sport contexts. While researchers
have examined the perceived reasons for use and effects of behavioural management
tactics in youth sport [
19
,
20
,
30
], to-date, no research has investigated how stakeholders
understand and interpret punishment and discipline, and whether common behavioural
management tactics are viewed from punitive or disciplinary lenses. Understanding
stakeholders’ interpretations of behavioural management strategies is important to prevent
harms that may result from punishment use and to better understand where interventions
are needed to advance the use of developmentally appropriate disciplinary strategies.
As such, the current study investigated sport stakeholders’ understandings of behaviour
management strategies used in youth sport. Specifically, we were interested in sport
stakeholders’ identification of common behavioural management strategies used in youth
sport and their interpretations of these practices as disciplinary and/or punitive in nature.
2. Materials and Methods
The current research employed an instrumental case study approach to investigate the
conceptualizations of behaviour management among athletes, coaches, and parents of a
competitive youth baseball team at the AAA level [
31
]. The goal of an instrumental case
study is to gather insights about a specific case or phenomenon to understand its unique
details and how it functions within various contexts or to redraw generalizations of the
phenomenon [
31
,
32
]. In this study, the focus was on behaviour management in the context
Sports 2023,11, 69 3 of 16
of competitive youth baseball, including how it is understood, experienced, and imple-
mented. The youth sport context was chosen as early sport experiences (e.g., behavioural
management) determine the nature and quality of subsequent sport experiences and, thus,
the extent to which social, emotional, and cognitive development is fostered [
1
,
2
]. Further,
the choice of competitive baseball was motivated by the sport’s distinctive normative
and well-documented acceptance of punitive practices, specifically at more competitive
levels [33].
2.1. Research Paradigm
The current study is situated within a constructivist paradigm, which permits us, as
researchers, to critically discuss and reflect on varying conceptions of behaviour manage-
ment in sport with our participants [
32
,
34
]. Constructivism embraces a relativist ontology,
which assumes experientially and socially constructed realities exist as mental construc-
tions [
34
]. The ontological assumption of this study suggests varying interpretations—or
constructions—of behaviour management may exist between participants. A constructivist
paradigm further embraces a transactional, subjectivist epistemology [
34
], which would
perceive the participant(s) and researcher(s) as being interactively connected insofar that
findings are developed as the research proceeds [
34
]. The epistemological assumption of
this study required the researchers to acknowledge how their formal education in the field
of sport psychology and experiences as former athletes, coach educators, and mental per-
formance consultants, may shape their perspectives regarding punishment and discipline
in sport. Specifically, given the principal investigator’s previous experience investigating
coaching practices in sport (e.g., [
35
]), and his role in conducting the interviews, it was
important for him to reflect on how his research and sport experiences influenced the
parameters among which he and the participants discussed punishment and discipline,
behavioural management strategies in sport and the co-created themes. This process of
self-reflection was achieved through maintaining journal notes on member reflections and
conversations with the co-authors who served as critical friends [36].
2.2. Case/Team Description
The case of interest was a competitive all-boys baseball team from a large city in
Canada. According to the league the team was affiliated with, the team is classified as a
14U Triple A (AAA) youth baseball team, which is considered one of the highest levels
of competition for baseball participants within this age group. There were twelve boys
affiliated with the team, three male coaches, and twenty-two parents/caregivers. The
season was eighteen weeks long and consisted of three preseason games, thirty in-season
games (fifteen home games and fifteen away games), three local tournaments, and one
international tournament. Collectively, the boys practiced between two and three times per
week. The team was affiliated with an organization that the parents described as notorious
for selecting “intense and unorthodox coaches”. The principal investigator, who coached
and umpired in this league, had witnessed firsthand the wrath of such coaches (e.g., yelling
at parents and kids, throwing equipment, being thrown out of games). To be included
in this study, participants had to be affiliated with this team in the capacity of an athlete,
coach, or parent/caregiver.
2.3. Participants
Case studies are typically described as being specific and bounded in place and
time [
32
]. Thus, participants were purposefully recruited from one competitive baseball
team in a large city in Canada. The principal investigator initially contacted the head coach
via email; contact information was retrieved through the publicly accessible baseball club
website. Upon coach approval, the principal investigator was invited to a team meeting
to discuss the study with the assistant coaches, parents, and athletes. To be included in
this study, participants had to be affiliated with this team in the capacity of an athlete,
coach, or parent/caregiver. Recruiting participants from the same team was intended
Sports 2023,11, 69 4 of 16
to improve the likelihood that the sample would share similarities associated with the
research questions [
37
] and permitted the research team to gather greater insights about
the case of interest.
Case study research is less concerned about answering questions of ‘how much’ or
‘how many’ but rather focuses on answering questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ [
32
]. As such, the
research team prioritized the intricate complexities of this team as a case [
32
]. Participants
of this study included three youth baseball coaches (one head coach and two assistant
coaches) (Ages: 45–50 years), eleven youth baseball players (Ages: 13–14 years), and seven
parents (Ages: 40–50 years), all affiliated with the same competitive (AAA) baseball team.
The three coaches identified as men; the head coach reported twenty years of baseball
coaching experience across different competitive levels and had previous experience as an
inter-university baseball player. The two assistant coaches reported 3–5 years of coaching
experience and had no prior experience playing baseball. All the athletes identified as boys,
possessed 5–7 years of playing experience, and participated in 10–14 h of baseball per week,
between dryland training, practices, and games. Four of the parent participants identified
as men and three as women. Of the eleven athletes, seven represented athlete-parent dyads
and four participated without their parents.
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University Research Ethics
Board (Ethical Issue Number: 31648). Coaches and parents were asked to provide written
consent prior to participating, whereas athletes were required to provide written assent,
given they were under the age of consent (i.e., 16 years). Additionally, written consent from
the parents was elicited to confirm they approved of their child’s participation in the study.
To maintain participant confidentiality, a pseudonym was assigned to each participant,
and all personal identifiers were removed. Youth athletes’ perspectives were sought
given previous research which has suggested punitive strategies may have a detrimental
impact on developmental outcomes (e.g., diminished fun) [
19
,
20
]. Furthermore, athletes’
perspectives must be considered if stakeholders truly wish to formulate and/or revise
policies and programmes concerning behaviour management that are developmentally
appropriate [
38
]. Finally, given the influential role of coaches and parents in shaping the
nature and quality of youth’s sport experiences [
39
,
40
], it was imperative to include their
perspectives on behavioural management.
2.4. Data Collection
Consistent with the constructivist paradigmatic position upheld for the research,
participants were invited to share their perceptions of behaviour management strategies
used in youth sport and asked to describe whether they perceived these strategies as
punishment or discipline. One individual, face-to-face, semi-structured interview was
conducted with each participant. The length of the interview varied across the three
participant samples; athlete interviews ranged between 30 and 65 min, parent interviews
ranged between 70 and 110 min, and coach interviews ranged between 90 and 150 min.
The principal investigator conducted all interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and,
with the permission of the participants, were audio-recorded.
The interviews began with broad, open-ended introductory questions, pertaining to
behaviour management. For example, coaches and parents were asked questions, such as
“What are common tactics used to manage athlete and/or team behaviours on your team?”
Similarly, athletes were asked, “What happens when you or your teammates do something
wrong, such as arrive late to practices/games, not pay attention, or disrespect others?”
After the participants’ descriptions of the common methods used, all participants were
asked whether they understood these methods as punishment or discipline and probed
to explain why. Probes were intentionally used to clarify participants’ responses and to
gain a more comprehensive understanding of participants’ interpretations of behaviour
management strategies used in youth sport. The findings contained in the current study
focus specifically on participants’ interpretations of behaviour management strategies used
in youth sport as forms of punishment or discipline.
Sports 2023,11, 69 5 of 16
2.5. Data Analysis
Interview transcripts were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis (TA), character-
ized as an open and recursive process used to provide clear and convincing interpretations
of the data [
41
]. The reflexive nature of this analytic approach aligns with our epistemo-
logical position that assumes knowledge is produced from the reflection, transaction, and
negotiation of information [
42
]. As an example of theme development using a reflexive
thematic analysis approach, following interview transcriptions, the principal investigator
immersed himself in the datasets to become familiar with participants’ interpretations,
beliefs, and explanations related to behaviour management in sport. In this phase, he
regularly read through transcripts, wrote memos, engaged in critical conversations with his
co-authors to compare interpretations, and sought connections between the datasets. Next,
succinct codes were inductively generated to aid in identifying larger segments of data. Sev-
eral semantic, surface-level codes were identified in this phase, including: “interpretations
of behaviour management”, “bad behaviours”, “exercise, benching, and yelling negative
comments as behaviour management”, and “punishment and discipline”. Then, themes
were constructed, revised, and defined, respectively. Many of the initial semantic codes
identified were grouped based on perceived similarities to form preliminary themes. For
example, the codes “interpretations of behaviour management” and “exercise, benching,
and yelling negative comments as behaviour management” were combined to construct
the theme “Methods of Managing Athlete and Team Behaviours”. Additional themes, such
as “Normative Behavioural Management Strategies Used in Sport” and the associated
subthemes, as well “Conceptual Confusion around Punishment and Discipline”, were
generated following ongoing discussions among the research team and with participants.
The final phase required us to generate a final report; multiple drafts were developed and
circulated among the research team for revisions.
A collaborative approach to data analysis was adopted for the current study. For
example, following interview transcription, the principal investigator engaged in member
reflections with participants; this was to ensure the passage of time did not negatively
impact the participants’ ability to recall information discussed throughout the interview.
Member reflections facilitated critical dialogues, which led to a better understanding of
participants’ views, the generation of new insights, clarification of thematic interpreta-
tions, and the development of new supporting evidence [
36
]. For example, throughout
the interviews, participants often referred to instances of punishment and discipline; how-
ever, seeking clarifications after interview completion helped the principal investigator
to understand that stakeholders were, in fact, using the terms synonymously and were
often unaware that these terms were distinct. Member reflections also enabled a deeper
understanding of participants’ rudimentary interpretations of discipline as positive and
punishment as negative.
Further, the co-authors, who served in the capacities of a supervisor and colleague,
operated as critical friends throughout the data analysis process. Specifically, research
team members routinely engaged in collaborative discussions throughout the data analysis
process to reflect on and discuss emerging themes and to ensure the participants’ views
and main messages of the data were adequately represented [
36
]. These discussions
were characterized by the sharing and deliberation of pertinent literature and the use of
provocative questions related to behaviour management that aided in the identification and
organization of themes [
43
]. Informed by the collaborative approach to data analysis, the
researchers made an interpretive judgement regarding the overarching themes presented
and discussed throughout the paper.
3. Results
The purpose of this study was to investigate sport stakeholders’ understandings
of behaviour management strategies used in youth sport, including the identification
of commonly used strategies and interpretation of these strategies as discipline and/or
punishment. Participant responses revealed that exercise, benching, and yelling nega-
Sports 2023,11, 69 6 of 16
tive comments were the most common behaviour management strategies used with this
youth sport team. Participants struggled to differentiate exercise and benching as puni-
tive or disciplinary in nature but consistently interpreted yelling negative comments as
punitive. The responses presented are not unique to each athlete, parent, and coach but
represent overarching interpretations and common meanings identified throughout all
participants’ responses.
3.1. Methods of Managing Athlete and Team Behaviours
The participants identified exercise, benching, and yelling as the most common be-
havioural management strategy used by coaches. Some participants referred to setting up
the field, cleaning up equipment after practices and games, and in extreme situations, ask-
ing an athlete to stay home as additional strategies to manage athlete and team behaviour.
3.1.1. Exercise
All participants referred to the use of exercise (e.g., push-ups, running laps, or running
wind sprints) as a method of correcting athlete behaviour perceived as undesirable or
problematic. Mina (athlete) shared, “It’s not uncommon for us to run after a bad loss
or practice”. Patrick (assistant coach) attested to the use of exercise in response to poor
performance, as he stated, “if they [team] don’t want to work hard when it counts, then
they’re going to stay back and work hard after. Usually, a few wind sprints reminds them to
come to the field ready to work”. Exercise was also frequently used to address behaviours
perceived as disrespectful. For example, Laura (parent) explained, “kids would run laps if
they were disrespectful. Swearing at a coach, a player, an umpire
. . .
if there’s disrespect,
then there’s going to be kids running laps
. . .
they’re going to feel some pain
. . .
they’d
run until they’re exhausted”.
3.1.2. Benching
Many participants identified benching as a behaviour management strategy that
coaches used to manage individual athlete behaviours. For example, Derrick (assistant
coach) admitted, “We [coaches] bench players based on their performance. I’d be the first
to say, ‘bench my son’ if he’s playing like crap”. Diego (athlete) agreed that benching was
used as a response to individual poor performance: “We’re playing high level baseball. If
you’re not playing good, you’re sitting. That’s only fair. It’s not great, but you can only
play nine guys. The nine best should play, while the others sit until they prove otherwise”.
Similar to exercise, participants indicated benching could be used in response to other
undesirable behaviours, such as arriving late to practices or games. Phil (parent) stated,
“Showing up late to practice or worse, a game, means you don’t care. So, sit on the bench.
If you don’t care about your team or coaches enough to show up on time, then sit out”.
3.1.3. Yelling Negative Comments
The participants recognized yelling negative comments as a form of behaviour man-
agement used by coaches when they were extremely upset. For example, Eric (athlete)
shared, “
. . .
we played like absolute shit, I think we lost by 8 or 9, and [coach] laid it
on us
. . .
he told us we’re wasting his time. He said we’re so bad that we’d strike out
playing t-ball”. Alyssa (parent) explained that coaches would yell in response to aggressive
behaviours such as fighting: “The coaches expect the boys to respect one another. When
they start fighting, either physically or verbally, you can expect the coaches to yell. I know
that type of behaviour makes them so mad”. Finally, Patrick (assistant coach) admitted, “if
they [athletes] give me lip, they’re going to get it back tenfold. I’m not volunteering my
time to be disrespected”.
3.1.4. Setting up the Field, Cleaning up Equipment, and Asking Athletes to Stay Home
Although not as frequently referred to, the participants identified alternative behaviour
management strategies in addition to exercise, benching and yelling. Following a bad
Sports 2023,11, 69 7 of 16
game, Jim (head coach) revealed he has asked the athletes to set up the field and clean up
the equipment:
I like to get to practice early to clear the tarps and rake the infield. Sometimes I
even give the grass a quick cut. It would take me about an hour to do everything,
then we practice for two hours, and then clean-up for another half hour. If the
boys have a bad game, then next practice, they’re on set-up-clean-up duty. On
those days, I make sure we cut the grass.
In one extreme example, Martin (athlete) admitted he was instructed to stay home
from practice for purposefully attempting to injure an opponent during a game. Martin
shared, “I was pitching, and I meant to hit the [batter] in the back but I hit his head.
Thankfully, he had a helmet. Coach pulled me and told me not to come to next practice”.
3.2. Normative Behavioural Management Strategies Used in Sport
As previously discussed, the participants cited exercise, benching, and yelling negative
comments as the most common behavioural management strategies used on this sport team.
When probed about these tactics, many participants struggled to determine if exercise and
benching were used punitively or disciplinarily, but there was a consensus amongst the
group that yelling negative comments was used punitively.
3.2.1. Exercise as a Punitive and Disciplinary Method
According to the participants, the use of exercise was a common tactic used to manage
youth athletes’ behaviours. Many participants understood exercise as a strategy that can be
used to punish and discipline athletes whose behaviour was perceived to be disrespectful,
unfocused, and lazy. Derrick (assistant coach) explained “exercise as punishment is directly
correlated to disrespectful behaviour towards your coaches, teammates, officials. Exercise
as discipline is about a lack of effort, being lazy on the field, careless mistakes. These are
unacceptable and exercise gets them to refocus”. Eric (athlete) also explained that exercise
was a commonly used punishment in response to disrespectful behaviour but suggested
that if you learn from the punishment, it then constitutes discipline: “If you are being
disrespectful to the coach, then obviously exercise is being used as punishment because
you shouldn’t be disrespecting someone who is volunteering their time
. . .
if you learn
your lesson from the exercise, then it’s discipline”.
Laura (parent) shared similar sentiments about exercise being both punishment and
discipline: “[Exercise] is punishment because they are being punished for bad behaviour,
but it’s discipline because they are learning to take responsibility for their actions
. . .
they
learn from the pain which teaches them not to screw up again”.
Feelings of pain associated with excessive exercise were reportedly necessary for
athletes to learn right from wrong through exercise. Val (athlete) explained, “when you feel
pain it’s punishment because it’s meant to hurt you. It tells you not to screw up again or
else this is what’s going to happen
. . .
nobody wants to experience pain”. Additionally,
Phil (parent) stated, “it’s gotta hurt at least a little bit. It’s what makes exercise an effective
punishment”. In contrast, participants such as Mina (athlete) referred to experiences of
pain as an indicator of an effective disciplinary strategy: “Twenty push-ups or five laps
every time I screw up, well now it’s going to hurt a bit. That’s when you learn what not to
do, so [exercise] would be discipline when it’s painful because we’re learning”.
When referring to the use of exercise, the participants also acknowledged the intensity
of the activity as a potential factor in distinguishing the experience as punishment or
discipline. For example, Tim said, “ . .. punishment is more of you being bad so now you
have to do ten laps. Discipline, I feel like, is running four laps instead of ten”. Similarly,
Caleb (athlete) stated:
If there’s a visible difference, like
. . .
doing ten laps and knowing your players
can’t do it versus doing one lap and having a conversation with the player about
Sports 2023,11, 69 8 of 16
what he did wrong and how he could improve, that’s the difference between
punishing and disciplining.
Although some athletes perceived ten laps as severe punishment, Patrick (assistant
coach) perceived ten laps to be a reasonable form of discipline: “
. . .
ten laps isn’t that
bad
. . .
maybe twenty would be punishment”. When asked to explain the most effective
way of managing misbehaviour, Patrick responded, “Run them until it hurts. I don’t think
you need to do it all the time, but sometimes I think it helps. Gets them focused and
paying attention to us”. Derrick (assistant coach) agreed that running was an effective
method of managing behaviour because “it teaches them [athletes] to wake up
. . .
that
the mistakes they have made are unacceptable and that they are better
. . .
a good hard
run gets the job done”. Overall, the quotations contained within this section highlight
conceptual confusion regarding the use of exercise as a behaviour management strategy,
with participants suggesting exercise is used as punishment, discipline, or both.
3.2.2. Benching as a Punitive and Disciplinary Method
Similar to exercise, benching as a behavioural management strategy was perceived as
both a punitive and disciplinary method. However, unlike stakeholders’ perspectives of
exercise, views of benching differed between stakeholders with athletes viewing benching
as punitive, and adult participants predominantly suggesting it was disciplinary. For
example, Diego (athlete) suggested, “[benching] is punishment
. . .
not playing someone is
the worst thing you can do to an athlete. It’s an extreme punishment”. Likewise, Martin
(athlete) stated, “benching is the worst punishment. If I make a mistake and coach sits
me, he’s punishing me for not being good enough. It’s a terrible feeling”. Alyssa (parent)
agreed that benching is used in response to poor performance; however, she suggested it
was a disciplinary tactic:
Baseball is a team sport and if they’re not playing well, then they need to sit.
Having them out there does no good to them or the team. If a player keeps
on making the same mistake, he’s just going to feel bad about himself and feel
bad about hurting the team, so you have to sit him
. . .
[benching] is purely
disciplinary. It teaches kids the importance of sacrifice, putting the team’s needs
above your own. These boys aren’t babies. This isn’t t-ball anymore. These are
elite boys who can learn a lot from the sidelines.
Alyssa’s comment suggests benching may teach values such as sacrifice and selfless-
ness, which can benefit the team, thus making it an appropriate disciplinary strategy to be
used at the competitive level of sport. The benefits of benching as a disciplinary strategy
were echoed by Derrick (assistant coach), who shared:
I use benching as discipline. It’s good
. . .
because it’s quick feedback. For me
. . .
the best form of feedback
. . .
I’m okay with benching. I’m trying to convey
expectations through benching, trying to build character and resilience. I want
the boys to know they need to work hard and earn their spot on the field
. . .
benching isn’t reactive like punishment. It’s a strategic form of discipline.
Participants noted that the amount of time on the bench influenced whether they
interpreted benching as punishment or discipline, suggesting that benching for a short
period of time constituted discipline whereas longer periods of time spent sitting out was
punishment. Brian (athlete) clarified:
I guess it depends on how many innings you sit. If you make a bad throw to
home from right field, discipline would be maybe, sit an inning, reflect on what
you did
. . .
if you make an error and strike out a bunch of times and bring your
team down, maybe sitting the whole game then would be punishment.
Erica (parent) agreed that extended periods of time spent on the bench represented
punishment: “To punish individuals you can bench them the whole time
. . .
make them sit
out a whole game”. Similarly, Patrick (assistant coach) stated, “If you sit a kid an entire
Sports 2023,11, 69 9 of 16
game, maybe back-to-back games, that’s punishment. A few innings each game, or for one
game, then that’s discipline. It’s not going to break them. It can actually benefit them”.
3.2.3. Yelling Negative Comments as a Punitive Method
Unlike the use of exercise and benching, yelling in the form of critical, demeaning, or
humiliating comments, was interpreted as a punitive method by all participants. Parents,
for example, agreed that yelling was the worst method of punishment for an athlete to
endure, leading to feelings of shame and embarrassment. Erica (parent) suggested, “yelling
is probably the worst punishment the kids can experience on the field. No one ever wants
to be yelled at
. . .
it’s such a shameful punishment. And it doesn’t work”. Further, Alyssa
(parent) shared:
Yelling is pointless
. . .
yelling is just an expression of your frustrations
. . .
[Son]
would rather die than be yelled at by a coach. He just hates it. He’d be mortified
to have a coach call him out in front of his friends. He’d quit baseball.
The athletes agreed that yelling was a form of punishment and was a harmful and
ineffective method of changing behaviour. Karim (athlete) compared the ineffectiveness of
yelling at athletes to when he yells at his dog: “When I yell at my dog for barking, he’ll bark
even more. Kids are the same. They won’t respond well”. James (athlete) expressed similar
beliefs, suggesting that yelling may deter athletes from participating in sport: “Yelling
doesn’t help, it just discourages people
. . .
That kind of punishment can scare kids away”.
Yelling was perceived as ineffective due the potential negative outcomes associated
with using this tactic. For example, Jim (head coach) stated, “Yelling is pointless. It serves
absolutely no purpose other than discouraging kids. They may hate you. They may leave
the team or the sport
. . .
yelling demonstrates an inability to communicate and lead, which
we’re called to do as coaches”. In addition to producing feelings of animosity, yelling was
perceived as eliciting fear of failure and anxiety, thus negatively impacting performance.
Tim (athlete) commented:
There’s already so much thinking in baseball and when I’m in a slump, I can’t
help but think of the shit I’m going to get if I make a mistake. Sometimes I like
when coach sits me in those situations because I’m afraid of getting yelled at if I
make a mistake. I don’t want to sit, but I’m also anxious of getting hell after
. . .
I
just hate getting yelled at.
Laura (parent) stated, “yelling at them [athletes], makes it difficult for them to find
the courage and drive to fight through the errors and the losses
. . .
it’s a bad type of
punishment that can really affect the team”. Likewise, Phil (parent) shared:
No, kids are not supposed to get yelled at because when you yell at the kids,
what do you think is going through that kid’s mind? The next ball that goes to
him he’s going to be so nervous that he’s going to try not to mess up, and that’s
when he’ll mess up
. . .
if you yell at him, he’s going to go
. . .
have you seen a
turtle? Right in his shell.
3.3. Conceptual Confusion around Punishment and Discipline
Stemming from the stakeholders’ perspectives of the three common behaviour man-
agement strategies, and the apparent inability to distinguish between these as punitive and
disciplinary, the participants were asked more generally about their conceptualizations of
punishment and discipline. According to the athletes, parents, and coaches, punishment
and discipline were interpreted as interchangeable; specifically, their responses highlighted
the assumption that both approaches achieve similar ends related to behaviour change. For
example, Diego (athlete) stated, “There’s not much of a difference
. . .
the goal is to change
behaviour
. . .
punishment, discipline, it’s all the same at the end”. Eric (athlete) echoed
similar sentiments, “I see it [punishment and discipline] as the same thing
. . .
I don’t see a
difference. Both achieve the same thing . . . both are used to correct behaviour”.
Sports 2023,11, 69 10 of 16
Many of the adult participants (coaches and parents) also suggested that punishment
and discipline were similar concepts. For example, Patrick (assistant coach) indicated,
“There’s no difference
. . .
Punishment, discipline, repercussion, consequence
. . .
it’s about
stopping bad behaviour. If you can use a strategy that stops athletes from misbehaving,
then it shouldn’t matter what you call it, as long as it stops the behaviour”. Similar to the
athletes’ responses, parents associated punishment and discipline with desired outcomes
(i.e., changes in behaviour). Phil (parent) stated, “they’re more or less the same to me
. . .
we’re getting picky about semantics now
. . .
Don’t they both do the same thing?” Likewise,
Laura (parent) elaborated:
Discipline is a branch of punishment. [Discipline] sounds nicer. It’s probably
more politically correct to saying your disciplining a child than punishing. But
it’s the same thing. Punishment sounds harsh, like you’re really cracking the
whip. But don’t they both do the same thing? If I punish or discipline my child,
the goal is still for them to learn right from wrong
. . .
so, it’s the same thing. They
both work.
Overall, the perspective that punishment and discipline were synonymous concepts
was influenced by the participants’ belief that both methods achieve the intended outcome
of behavioural change.
In a few instances, participants claimed that punishment and discipline were different,
but a very rudimentary distinction was provided, namely, that punishment was negative
and discipline was positive. For example, Erica (parent) noted, “
. . .
discipline is to teach
them a lesson
. . .
teach them the right way or teach them the way they shouldn’t be doing
it
. . .
punishment is a harsher, more negative way of trying fix behaviours”. Beyond this
superficial distinction, no substantive differences were conveyed.
4. Discussion
The current study investigated sport stakeholders’ understanding of behaviour man-
agement strategies within one competitive all-boys youth baseball team, including the
identification of commonly used strategies and interpretation of these tactics as punishment
or discipline. The findings in the current study provide insight about sport stakeholders’
views of punishment and discipline; of particular interest, the conceptual confusion of pun-
ishment and discipline highlights the need to educate coaches and other sport stakeholders
on the importance of using developmentally appropriate disciplinary strategies at the
youth sport level. Currently, there is a gap in Canada’s coach education system confronting
the punitive, yet often normalized use of exercise, benching, and yelling. Increasing sport
stakeholders’ (e.g., coaches, parents, athletes) awareness of behaviour management in
sport may safeguard vulnerable participants (i.e., athletes) from maltreatment inflicted by
harsh punishments.
Across the stakeholder groups, responses highlighted that among several reported be-
haviour management techniques used on this baseball team, exercise, benching and yelling
negative comments were the most common. All stakeholder groups believed that the
administration of exercise in response to undesirable athlete/team behaviour was effective
in obtaining athletes’ attention, teaching athletes that their behaviour was inappropriate,
fostering mental toughness, establishing coach authority, and increasing youth’s ability
to distinguish right from wrong, notions which have also been supported by research
examining teachers’, teacher-coaches’, physical education majors’, and athletes’ perspec-
tives on the use of exercise as a behavioural management method (Battaglia et al., 2018;
Kerr et al., 2020). However, these findings contrast with previous research that indicates
exercise as punishment is associated with detrimental effects such as extreme fatigue, in-
jury, impaired coach–athlete relationships, and negative perceptions of self [
20
,
23
], and
researchers have proposed that exercise as punishment may escalate to a point of constitut-
ing psychological or non-contact physical maltreatment [
44
,
45
]. Moreover, several physical
activity and sport-related organizations have denounced the use of excessive exercise to
correct behaviours, highlighting short- and long-term negative effects (e.g., [26]).
Sports 2023,11, 69 11 of 16
For benching, different interpretations existed among stakeholder groups. Coach
and parent responses suggest that benching can be an effective behavioural management
tactic to address poor performance, build character, stimulate reflection, and encourage
values, such as perseverance, sacrifice, and selflessness. Alternatively, athletes viewed this
tactic as a form of punishment and one of the worst things a coach can do to an athlete.
This finding is not surprising when considering playing time is one of the primary ways
youth experience fun and enjoyment in sport [
46
]. Further, the athletes in the current study
suggested that being benched conveyed their lack of worth/skill, supporting previous
researchers who have reported that youth athletes do not view benching as an effective
behavioural management tool but instead a punishment that has detrimental impacts for
their sense of self and worth [
20
,
46
,
47
]. To-date, coaches’ and parents’ perspectives on the
use of benching have not been explored. However, comparisons may be drawn between
benching and the use of time-out, a practice addressed in the parenting and education
literature, characterized by the confinement of individuals, or time spent away from a
positively reinforcing environment, for unacceptable behaviours [
48
]. While the practice of
time-out may be beneficial for cooling emotions, it often has deleterious effects on children,
sending messages that children are not worthy of the adult’s attention [
49
,
50
]. Instead,
some authors (e.g., [
49
]) recommend time-in parenting strategies in which parents provide
a misbehaving child additional rather than less attention. The time-in approach conveys to
children that parents are available for support and that they believe the child can learn to
correct their behaviour on their own; providing children this sense of autonomy is shown to
improve a child’s confidence and sense of self [
49
]. These findings suggest that to reduce the
potential negative effects of benching in youth athletes, coaches should provide attention
to the athlete through explanations for the benching and recommendations for optimal
behaviour once the athlete returns to the field of play. The apparent disconnect between
parents’ and coaches’ views of benching and how this practice is interpreted by athletes
highlights the need for further research to understand how benching may be implemented
in a more developmentally appropriate and strategic manner to foster learning.
In contrast to the findings pertaining to exercise and benching as punishment in
which varying perspectives emerged amongst the stakeholders, all groups agreed that
yelling negative comments was a form of punishment and had detrimental effects. The
stakeholders reportedly viewed this tactic as an inadequate and harmful form of communi-
cation that may elicit feelings of low self-worth, fear, and stress. This finding is consistent
with previous research that identifies yelling negative comments as a form of emotional
abuse in sport [
45
], which is associated with negative outcomes, such as stress, impaired
relationships, and negative perceptions of self [47,51].
There are several reasons to explain why the practices of benching and exercise may be
normalized in sport, while yelling is not. It is possible that the use of exercise as punishment
in sport continues as a common practice despite documented negative effects for athletes
and despite position statements condemning its use because of its long-standing history
of use in sport and its military roots [
26
,
52
]. The use of exercise as punishment is also a
practice unique to environments in which individuals engage in instructional activities
related to physical movement such as sport and physical education and thus may be less
impacted by normative practices outside of sport and physical education. The struggle
of navigating between vigorous, yet beneficial physical exercise, and the punitive, and at
times, abusive use of exercise, poses significant challenges that support the advancement
of clear definitions [53].
The practices used in competitive youth sport are undoubtedly influenced by the
prioritization of outcomes such as performance excellence, including winning-at-all-costs
approaches. Several researchers highlight the implicit and explicit cultures of control
that exist in organized sport [
54
], which provide a context in which potentially harmful
practices become normalized and reinforced in the pursuit of winning and success [
55
].
Moreover, the controlling power held by the coach is often recognized as influencing the
normalisation of questionable practices in sport, such as the use of punishment [
23
]. The
Sports 2023,11, 69 12 of 16
normalized use of harmful practices in sport, such as exercise or benching as punishment,
maybe a consequence of the autonomous nature of organized sport [
56
,
57
]. As Bruyn-
inckx [
56
] claims, sports occur in a separate, autonomous sphere seemingly disconnected
from the normative rules and regulations of society. The autonomous nature of many sport
organizations has reportedly interfered with responsibility to uphold human rights [
57
];
consequently, athletes are exposed to harmful practices that often go unquestioned. The
acceptance of exercise and benching as effective strategies by coaches and parents in the
current study demonstrates a lack of awareness of the negative implications of these prac-
tices. Additionally, the well-documented power held by coaches [
58
] often contributes to
parental compliance and support of harmful practices, further placing athletes in vulnerable
situations [
59
,
60
]. The consistent findings with respect to yelling negative comments, in
contrast to benching and exercise, may result from the fact that yelling is generally viewed
as unacceptable in sectors outside of sport. In other words, yelling is not acceptable in
educational and workplace settings [
61
], and this generalized view may extend into sport.
Benching and exercise, however, are behaviours unique to the sport environment and thus
may not be influenced by non-sport related norms.
The results highlight a lack of understanding regarding punishment and discipline.
Specifically, the participants failed to distinguish these concepts when interpreting the use of
exercise and benching in sport, but instead suggested that these behavioural management
strategies can be used as both punishment and discipline. In the few instances where
participants acknowledged punishment and discipline as different, these interpretations did
not expand beyond the general understanding that punishment was negative and discipline
was positive. Some of the participants referred to conditions such as the length of time an
athlete was benched, the duration and intensity of exercise administered, and whether pain
was experienced to distinguish between punishment and discipline. Further research is
needed to explore the conditions under which discipline is distinguished from punishment.
In several interpretations, participants distinguished a tactic as punitive or disciplinary
based upon the anticipated outcomes such as whether feelings of shame or pain resulted.
The reliance on such outcomes to distinguish between punishment and discipline is prob-
lematic for several reasons. First, using outcomes of the method as the distinguishing
feature means that the same behaviour could be interpreted differently across individuals
and situations based upon the effects of the action. For example, the same exercise ap-
plied as punishment may have differential effects on the athlete depending upon physical
fitness level. Further, punishment is not recommended because it teaches young people
that adults have control over them, which also denies youth athletes the opportunities to
learn important life skills such as self-control, problem-solving and independent thinking.
Finally, a reliance on the outcomes of the methods precludes a preventative approach to
harm of young people in sport [
17
]. Given the well-documented negative consequences for
youth associated with punishment use [19], these methods should be avoided.
The inability of critical socializing agents in sport such as parents and coaches to dis-
tinguish between punishment and discipline is important for several reasons. The lack of
clarity between punishment and discipline may limit stakeholders’ understanding of appro-
priate versus inappropriate behaviours, and without this understanding, harmful practices
may be normalized and perpetuated. Further, the mechanisms of punishment, including
the use of fear and control, may contribute to sport experiences for youth that are character-
ized by a lack of enjoyment and disinclination to continue sport participation [19,47]. The
use of controlling practices such as punishment may also diminish opportunities for young
people to learn important life skills such as problem-solving and teamwork through sport.
Overall, we speculate that the advancement of developmentally appropriate disciplinary
strategies is hindered by interpretations that normalize and promote the use of punishment
in sport.
Sports 2023,11, 69 13 of 16
5. Limitations and Future Directions
The findings in the current study provide insight regarding sport stakeholders’ un-
derstandings of behaviour management strategies used in youth sport as well as their
interpretations of these practices as disciplinary and/or punitive in nature. This research
may stimulate questioning among sport stakeholders regarding the use of punishment
and more developmentally appropriate disciplinary practices in sport. Nonetheless, the
findings must be interpreted within the context of the current sample, which consisted
of stakeholders affiliated with the same competitive boy’s baseball team in a specific geo-
graphic region. The fact that the participants came from the same team and had similar
experiences may have limited heterogenous responses.
The stakeholders’ inability to distinguish between punishment and discipline indicates
a need for education pertaining to developmentally appropriate behaviour management
strategies. This need for education is heightened by the finding that the adults in the study
often held positive views of punishment—an alarming interpretation given the plethora
of evidence indicating the harmful effects of punishment [
19
–
23
]. The continued use of
punishment in sport also speaks to the need for more research and practice on ways to better
align the normative practices of sport with those used in other youth-populated domains.
Several other areas of interest emerge for future research, including whether interpre-
tations of punishment and discipline differ according to sport type, sport level, and identity
variables such as gender, educational background, and years of coaching. Investigating
the experiences of behaviour management among athletes with varying intersections of
identity may expose alternative punitive methods or introduce more humanistic methods
of discipline. Moreover, research exploring stakeholders’ perspectives of behavioural man-
agement strategies across different competitive levels could disclose an intensification of
the utilization and endorsement of punitive measures under circumstances where there
exists an amplified pressure to win.
6. Conclusions
All the athletes, coaches, and parents agreed that exercise, benching, and yelling are
the most common behavioural management strategies used in youth sport. While the
participants commonly interpreted yelling as punishment, they struggled to differentiate
exercise and benching as punitive or disciplinary in nature. For many participants, pun-
ishment and discipline were perceived interchangeably based upon the assumption that
both approaches achieve the same outcome of behaviour change. For participants who
perceived a distinction between punishment and discipline, their interpretations were often
characterized by a rudimentary understanding of punishment as negative and discipline as
positive. This research extends current youth sport literature by exploring sport stakehold-
ers’ understanding of common behaviour management strategies used in youth sport as
being punitive or disciplinary in nature. Overall, the findings highlight the need to inform
the sport community about the importance of using more developmentally appropriate
strategies to foster positive sport experiences for youth athletes.
Author Contributions:
J.J.G. contributed to the conceptualization of the study, collected and ana-
lyzed the data, wrote each section, and edited the manuscript. G.K. and A.B. contributed to the
conceptualization of the study, the analysis and writing and thoroughly edited the paper. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Tri-Council Policy Statement (Government of Canada) and approved by the Research Ethics Board of
the University of Toronto (Protocol Reference #: 31648).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all coaches and parents involved
in the study, whereas informed assent was obtained from the athletes.
Sports 2023,11, 69 14 of 16
Data Availability Statement:
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Anderson-Butcher, D. Youth Sport as a Vehicle for Social Development. Kinesiol. Rev. 2019,8, 180–187. [CrossRef]
2. Holt, N.L. Positive Youth Development through Sport; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2016.
3. Green, K.; Smith, A. Routledge Handbook of Youth Sport; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2016.
4.
Eime, R.M.; Young, J.A.; Harvey, J.T.; Charity, M.J.; Payne, W.R. A Systematic Review of the Psychological and Social Benefits of
Participation in Sport for Children and Adolescents: Informing Development of a Conceptual Model of Health through Sport.
Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013,10, 98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Taliaferro, L.A.; Rienzo, B.A.; Donovan, K.A. Relationships between Youth Sport Participation and Selected Health Risk Behaviors
from 1999 to 2007. J. Sch. Health 2010,80, 399–410. [CrossRef]
6.
Holt, N.L.; Neely, K.C.; Slater, L.G.; Camiré, M.; Côté, J.; Fraser-Thomas, J.; MacDonald, D.; Strachan, L.; Tamminen, K.A. A
Grounded Theory of Positive Youth Development through Sport Based on Results from a Qualitative Meta-Study. Int. Rev. Sport
Exerc. Psychol. 2017,10, 1–49. [CrossRef]
7.
Dorsch, T.E.; Smith, A.L.; Blazo, J.A.; Coakley, J.; Côté, J.; Wagstaff, C.R.D.; Warner, S.; King, M.Q. Toward an Integrated
Understanding of the Youth Sport System. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2022,93, 105–119. [CrossRef]
8. Geeraets, V. Two Mistakes about the Concept of Punishment. Crim. Justice Ethics 2018,37, 21–35. [CrossRef]
9. McConnell, J.V. Negative Reinforcement and Positive Punishment. Teach. Psychol. 1990,17, 247–249. [CrossRef]
10.
Alampay, L.P.; Godwin, J.; Lansford, J.E.; Bombi, A.S.; Bornstein, M.H.; Chang, L.; Deater-Deckard, K.; Di Giunta, L.; Dodge,
K.A.; Malone, P.S.; et al. Severity and Justness Do Not Moderate the Relation between Corporal Punishment and Negative Child
Outcomes: A Multicultural and Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2017,41, 491–502. [CrossRef]
11.
Grogan-Kaylor, A.; Ma, J.; Graham-Bermann, S.A. The Case against Physical Punishment. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2018
,19, 22–27.
[CrossRef]
12.
Le, K.; Nguyen, M. ‘Bad Apple’ Peer Effects in Elementary Classrooms: The Case of Corporal Punishment in the Home. Educ.
Econ. 2019,27, 557–572. [CrossRef]
13.
Durrant, J.E.; Ensom, R. Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth: Coalition on Physical Punishment of
Children and Youth. 2004. Available online: https://cwrp.ca/publications/joint-statement-physical-punishment-children-and-
youth (accessed on 26 January 2023).
14. Osher, D.; Bear, G.G.; Sprague, J.R.; Doyle, W. How Can We Improve School Discipline? Educ. Res. 2010,39, 48–58. [CrossRef]
15.
Sullivan, A.M.; Johnson, B.; Owens, L.; Conway, R. Punish Them or Engage Them? Teachers’ Views of Unproductive Student
Behaviours in the Classroom. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2014,39, 43–56. [CrossRef]
16.
Lavay, B.W.; French, R.W.; Henderson, H. Positive Behavior Management in Physical Activity Settings; Human Kinetics: Champaign,
IL, USA, 2016.
17.
Harris-Reeves, B.E.; Skinner, J.; Milburn, P.; Reddan, G. Applying Behavior Management Strategies in a Sport-Coaching Context.
J. Coach. Educ. 2013,6, 87–102. [CrossRef]
18. Ainsworth, J. Sociology of Education: An A-to-Z Guide; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.
19.
Battaglia, A.V.; Kerr, G.; Stirling, A.E. Youth Athletes’ Interpretations of Punitive Coaching Practices. J. Appl. Sport Psychol.
2017
,
29, 337–352. [CrossRef]
20.
Battaglia, A.; Kerr, G.; Stirling, A. An Outcast from the Team: Exploring Youth Ice Hockey Goalies’ Benching Experiences. Psychol.
Sport Exerc. 2018,38, 39–46. [CrossRef]
21.
Burak, L.J.; Rosenthal, M.; Richardson, K. Examining Attitudes, Beliefs, and Intentions Regarding the Use of Exercise as
Punishment in Physical Education and Sport: An Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action: Exercise as Punishment. J. Appl.
Soc. Psychol. 2013,43, 1436–1445. [CrossRef]
22.
Richardson, K.; Rosenthal, M.M.; Burak, L. Exercise as Punishment: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Am. J.
Health Educ. 2012,43, 356–365. [CrossRef]
23.
Kerr, G.; Stirling, A.; MacPherson, E.; Banwell, J.; Bandealy, A.; Preston, C. Exploring the Use of Exercise as Punishment in Sport.
Int. J. Coach. Sci. 2016,10, 35–53.
24.
Government of Canada. Application Guidelines—Independent Safe Sport Mechanism. 2020. Available online: https:
//www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/sport-support/independent-safe-sport-mechanism/application-
guidelines.html (accessed on 1 February 2023).
25.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Physical Activity Used as Punishment and/or Behavior Management.
2009. Available online: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/38036804/physical-activity-used-as-punishment-and-or-
behavior-aahperd (accessed on 1 February 2023).
26.
SHAPE America. Position Statement: Physical Activity Should Not Be Used as Punishment and/or Behaviour Management. 2021.
Available online: https://www.shapeamerica.org/uploads/2021/advocacy/position-statements/Physical-Activity-Should-
Not-Be-Used-as-Punishment-and-or-Behavior-Management.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2023).
Sports 2023,11, 69 15 of 16
27.
Kerr, G.; Battaglia, A.; Stirling, A.; Bandealy, A. Examining Coaches’ Perspectives on the Use of Exercise as Punishment. Int. Sport
Coach. J. 2020,7, 306–316. [CrossRef]
28.
Lauer, L.; Gould, D.; Roman, N.; Pierce, M. Parental Behaviors That Affect Junior Tennis Player Development. Psychol. Sport Exerc.
2010,11, 487–496. [CrossRef]
29.
Schmid, O.N.; Bernstein, M.; Shannon, V.R.; Rishell, C.; Griffith, C. ‘It’s Not Just Your Dad, It’s Not Just Your Coach
. . .
’ The
Dual-Relationship in Female Tennis Players. Sport Psychol. 2015,29, 224–236. [CrossRef]
30.
Barney, D.; Pleban, F.T.; Fullmer, M.; Griffiths, R.; Higginson, K.; Whaley, D. Appropriate or Inappropriate Practice: Exercise as
Punishment in Physical Education Class. Phys. Educ. 2016,73, 59–73. [CrossRef]
31. Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage: London, UK, 1995.
32.
Sparkes, A.C.; Smith, B. Qualitative Research Methods in Sport, Exercise and Health: From Process to Product; Routledge: Abingdon,
VA, USA, 2014.
33.
Cushman, F.; Durwin, A.J.; Lively, C. Revenge without Responsibility? Judgments about Collective Punishment in Baseball.
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012,48, 1106–1110. [CrossRef]
34.
Jones, S.R.; Torres, V.; Arminio, J.L. Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Fundamental Elements
and Issues, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
35.
Gurgis, J.; Callary, B.; Denny, L. First Nation Stories of Coaching Barriers: A Mi’kmaq Perspective. Sport. Coach. Rev. 2022;
ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
36.
Smith, B.; McGannon, K.R. Developing Rigor in Qualitative Research: Problems and Opportunities within Sport and Exercise
Psychology. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2018,11, 101–121. [CrossRef]
37.
Galletta, A. Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and beyond: From Research Design to Analysis and Publication. Qualitative Studies
in Psychology; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
38.
Hartill, M.; Lang, M. Conclusion. In Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International Perspectives in Research, Policy
and Practice; Lang, M., Hartill, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 192–202.
39. Jowett, S.; Carpenter, P. The Concept of Rules in the Coach-Athlete Relationship. Sport. Coach. Rev. 2015,4, 1–23. [CrossRef]
40.
Stefansen, K.; Smette, I.; Strandbu, Å. Understanding the Increase in Parents’ Involvement in Organized Youth Sports. Sport Educ.
Soc. 2018,23, 162–172. [CrossRef]
41.
Braun, V.; Clarke, V.; Hayfield, N.; Terry, G. Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health and Social Sciences;
Liamputtong, P., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 843–860.
42. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2019,11, 589–597. [CrossRef]
43.
Blake, J.; Gibson, A. Critical Friends Group Protocols Deepen Conversations in Collaborative Action Research Projects. Educ.
Action Res. 2021,29, 133–148. [CrossRef]
44.
Fortier, K.; Parent, S.; Lessard, G. Child Maltreatment in Sport: Smashing the Wall of Silence: A Narrative Review of Physical,
Sexual, Psychological Abuses and Neglect. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2020,54, 4–7. [CrossRef]
45.
Stirling, A.E. Definition and Constituents of Maltreatment in Sport: Establishing a Conceptual Framework for Research Practi-
tioners. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2009,43, 1091–1099. [CrossRef]
46.
Kretchmar, S. Bench Players: Do Coaches have a Moral Obligation to Play Benchwarmers? In The Ethics of Coaching Sports: Moral,
Social and Legal Issues; Simon, R.L., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 121–136.
47.
Battaglia, A.; Kerr, G.; Stirling, A. Examining the Influence of Athletes’ Punishment Experiences on Decisions to Cease Participation
in Competitive Hockey. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2020,18, 519–533. [CrossRef]
48. Miethe, T.D.; Lu, H. Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012.
49.
Weininger, O. Time-in Parenting: How to Teach Children Emotional Self-Control, Life Skills and Problem Solving by Lending Yourself and
Staying Connected; Rinascente Books: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002.
50. Zirpoli, T.J. Behavior Management: Applications for Teachers; Merrill/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2005.
51.
Stirling, A.E.; Kerr, G.A. Initiating and Sustaining Emotional Abuse in the Coach-Athlete Relationship: An Ecological Transactional
Model of Vulnerability. J. Aggress. Maltreatment Trauma 2014,23, 116–135. [CrossRef]
52.
Lang, M.; Hartill, M. (Eds.) Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International Perspectives in Research, Policy and Practice;
Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015.
53.
Oliver, J.L.; Lloyd, R.S. Physical Training as a Potential Form of Abuse. In Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport:
International Perspectives in Research, Policy and Practice; Lang, M., Hartill, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA,
2015; pp. 163–171.
54. Young, K. Sport, Violence and Society; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012.
55.
Stirling, A.E. Understanding the Use of Emotionally Abusive Coaching Practices. Int. J. Sport. Sci. Coach.
2013
,8, 625–639.
[CrossRef]
56.
Bruyninckx, H. Obsession with Rules vs. Mistrust in Being Ruled. In Proceedings of the Play the Game Conference, Cologne,
Germany, 3–6 October 2011.
57.
Donnelly, P.; Kerr, G.; Heron, A.; DiCarlo, D. Protecting Youth in Sport: An Examination of Harassment Policies. Int. J. Sport
Policy Politics 2016,8, 33–50. [CrossRef]
58.
Rylander, P. Coaches’ Bases of Power: Developing Some Initial Knowledge of Athletes’ Compliance with Coaches in Team Sports.
J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2015,27, 110–121. [CrossRef]
Sports 2023,11, 69 16 of 16
59.
Kerr, G.A.; Stirling, A.E. Parents’ Reflections on their Child’s Experiences of Emotionally Abusive Coaching Practices. J. Appl.
Sport Psychol. 2012,24, 191–206. [CrossRef]
60.
Roberts, V.; Sojo, V.; Grant, F. Organisational Factors and Non-Accidental Violence in Sport: A Systematic Review. Sport Manag.
Rev. 2020,23, 8–27. [CrossRef]
61.
Coffelt, T.A.; Frances, L.M.S. Exemplary and Unacceptable Workplace Communication Skills. Bus. Prof. Commun. Q.
2020
,83,
365–384. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
