Teaching or coaching the action logic of games

 

The concept of the action-logic of the game, developed by Gréhaigne and his colleagues, is an important concept in understanding game-based approaches (GBAs) to sport coaching and teaching sport in physical education. The concept shifts the focus from sport as a series of isolated technical skills (sport-as-sport techniques: Kirk, 2010) to seeing the game as a dynamic, evolving system of problems that players must solve in real-time (Pill, 2014).

At its simplest understanding, the action-logic is the "grammar" or underlying reasoning of a game. It represents the relationship between the conditions of play of the game (rules, space, and time) and the decisions players can make to gain an advantage. The metaphor is that the game is a "debate" between two teams. To "win" the debate, players must be better an understanding the logic governing the current context of the play. This means, the game can be ‘read’.

The key component of the action-logic is the tactical problem. Every game state or moment of play presents a problem. For example, in an "invasion" game like soccer or hockey:

• The Problem: How do we create space to move the ball forward?
• The Action-Logic: The players must understand that drawing defenders out of position (logic) will create the gap needed to pass for a player to run on to or that a player can penetrate to receive a pass (action).

The action-logic provides the "tactical awareness" to know when and why to use it a movement response. It is what guides a player to (e.g.) choose a pass over a shot based on the positioning of teammates and defenders.

The action-logic isn't about following a set play; it’s about understanding the "why" behind the game so that players can become independent, intelligent problem-solvers on the field.

Allied with understanding the action-logic of play, Gréhaigne and colleagues (2009) explained a framework - archetypal dynamics of play, refer to the recurring, fundamental patterns or "configurations of play" that emerge from the chaos of a game. These can be thought of as the tactical building blocks that help players understand the complexity of the game environment. A player who understands archetypal dynamics sees recognisable game "shapes", “formations”, “patterns” or "scenarios" that help determine what the next move they make should be. An archetype in this context is a representative model of a game situation. While every game situation is in one sense unique as that moment has never occurred before, if a player can read the configuration of play they will recognise a familiarity to similar previously experienced game contexts and these dynamics assist the player in identifying a "flow" of tactical decisions - a mental map of how the "Rapport of Force" (the power balance between teams), is occurring. For example:

Common Archetypal Scenarios:

• The Numerical Advantage (Overlap): Identifying when there are more attackers than defenders in a specific zone. The "flow" of decision-making here is: Commit the defender → Pass to the free player.
• The Bottleneck (Congestion): Recognising when the defense has successfully compressed space. The "flow" shifts from Penetration to Circulation (moving the ball sideways or backwards to reset).
• The Isolated Defender (1v1): Identifying a situation where a defender has no immediate cover. The tactical logic dictates an aggressive move to beat the opponent.

Archetypal dynamics assist the flow of tactical decisions in three ways:

A. Reduction of Information Load - By recognising a pattern (e.g., The defense is unbalanced to the left), a player doesn't have to process every detail on the field. They can immediately jump to the "archetypal" solution (e.g., Switch the play to the right).

B. Predictive Power (Anticipation) - Because these dynamics are "archetypal," they follow a predictable trajectory. If a player recognises the dynamic of a Counter-Attack, they can anticipate where the open space will appear before it actually does.

C. Shared Understanding (The "Debate") - When team recognises these archetypes, they develop a "common language" of movement. The "flow" of tactical decisions becomes collective because everyone sees the same archetypal problem and agrees on the archetypal solution.

Gréhaigne and colleagues (2005, 2010) suggest that teaching/coaching should focus on these archetypes through Game Representation. Teachers/coaches should create mini games that frequently force these specific archetypal dynamics to emerge.

Integrating Gréhaigne and colleagues theoretical concepts with the Play with Purpose model (PwP) creates a pedagogical bridge between complex systems and socio-constructivist theory underpinning Grehaigne and colleagues ideas with a session structure to make the abstract "logic" (grammar) of the game visible to players.

The Intersection: By starting with a purposeful game, the "action-logic" -the internal grammar of the sport, remains intact.

Application: If teaching the logic of "creating space" in Hockey, a PwP coach uses a small-sided game (e.g., 3v1 or 4v2) rather than a passing line. This ensures the Rapport of Force is present, forcing players to solve the problem against opposition.

Creating Archetypal Dynamics. PwP emphasises Shaping Play through the use of purposeful playing conditions. This is where the teacher/coach intentionally manipulates the game to make archetypal dynamics emerge more frequently.

The Intersection: A representative game that highlights a specific archetype, such as a Numerical Advantage.

Application: To teach the archetypal dynamic of the "Overlap," a coach might use a "Wide Zone" rule where goals scored after a pass into the wide corridor count for triple. This forces the players to identify the flow of shifting the defense to one side to create an archetype of 2v1 on the flank.

Play with Purpose Questions: Making Action Logic Explicit. The use of purposeful questioning during "game sense" breaks transitions the player/s from doing the action-logic to understanding it.

The Intersection: Questions are designed to help players identify the "flow" of tactical decisions.

Application: Instead of telling a player where to run, a coach may ask: "When the defenders all moved to the ball (Congestion Archetype), where did the space go?" * "What was the logic in passing backward there?"

This asks the player to articulate the action-logic they just experienced.

The "Play-Practice if necessary-Play" Cycle

The PwP utilises a cycle that allows for the "Debate" Gréhaigne and colleagues describe. For example:

Play 1: Players encounter the chaos and try to find the logic.

Practice: A specific activity to refine a technical skill required by that logic (e.g., a hard push pass to beat the defender).

Play 2: Returning to the game to see if the Archetypal Dynamics are now recognised more quickly.

An action research project or teacher/coach self-study that explores these ideas would bridge the structuralist theory of action-logic with the pedagogical application of PwP. For example, "How does the implementation of the 'Play with Purpose' model influence Year PE students' ability to recognise and act upon archetypal dynamics of play in territory games?"

Related Blogs

Learning Games through Understanding click here

Thanks for stopping by and reading this post. If you would like to connect with me about a project to do with this blog or any of the other ideas that I have blogged about, you can contact me by the email link available here 

References

Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47(4), 490-505.

Grehaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1999). The foundations of tactics and strategies in team sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 159-174.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Richard, J. F., & Griffin, L. L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games. Routledge.

Grehaigne, J. F., Didier, C., & Zerai, Z. (2009). Prototypical configurations of play in handball in physical education: A strategy to promote student understanding in team sports. In T. Hopper, J. Butler & B. Storey (Eds.), TGfU: Simply good pedagogy. Understanding a complex challenge (pp. 53-64). Ontario, Canada.

Grehaigne, J. F., Didier, C., & Godbout, P. (2010). Modelling ball circulation in invasion sports: a way to promote learning games through understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15, 257-270.

Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (2014). Dynamic systems theory and team sport coaching. Quest, 66(1), 96-116.

Pill, S. (2014). Informing game sense pedagogy with constraints led theory for coaching in Australian football. Sports Coaching Review, 3(1), 46-62.