Coach and player rating of perceived challenge (RPC) as a skill monitoring tool in Rugby union

Bam, Jenna, Watson, Neil, Parker, Nassier, Lambert, Mike, Jones, Ben, Weston, Matthew ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9531-3004 and Hendricks, Sharief ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-6266 (2023) Coach and player rating of perceived challenge (RPC) as a skill monitoring tool in Rugby union. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 18 (4). pp. 1010-1017. ISSN 1747-9541

Preview

Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (797kB) | Preview

Abstract

Objective: To determine the relationship between player and coach rating of perceived challenge (RPC) for different training sessions over a competitive rugby union season. A secondary aim was to explore the relationship between player RPC and player session rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Methods: We used an observational longitudinal study design to monitor 51 male highly-trained under 21 rugby union players and four coaches over an 11-week competitive rugby season (a total of 1798 training session observations). Player RPC (0 to 10 arbitrary units (AU)) and RPE ratings (0 to 10 AU) were collected after team sessions (a technical and tactical field-based session with all players training together), split sessions (a technical and tactical field-based session where players trained separately according to their positional grouping (forward and backs)) and gym sessions (non-field-based session with all players training together). Coach RPC ratings were only collected after team sessions and split sessions. Results: A weak positive relationship (rho = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09–0.42; p <.001) was found for split sessions (player RPC: 4.40; 95% CI: 3.87–4.87 AU; coach RPC: 4.25; 95% CI: 3.92–4.60 AU), while a moderate positive relationship (rho = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.31–0.43; p <.001) was found between player RPC (4.29; 95% CI: 4.00–4.55) and coach RPC (4.96; 95% CI: 4.89–5.05) for team sessions. Forwards had a higher RPC (5.33; 95% CI: 4.50–5.65) compared to backs (3.45; 95% CI: 2.88–4.00) for split (p <.001) and team sessions (forward's RPC: 4.66; 95% CI: 4.37–4.94; back's RPC: 3.84; 95% CI: 3.38–4.26; p <.001). Conclusions: In conclusion, using a rating to quantify the perceived challenge of training, we found coaches may be overestimating how challenging their training sessions are. Forwards-rated field sessions more challenging than backs, which likely represents their additional technical and tactical demands from training scrums, line-outs and mauls. While the RPC has strong theoretical justification as a rating tool to potentially fulfil the gap of quantifying the perceived challenge of training, thoughtful validity studies are yet to be conducted on the scale, which are the required next steps if the RPC is going form part of a coach's and practitioner's toolbox to optimise skill training.