Handball in school: teaching of defensive contents

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the defensive contents and teaching approaches preferred by handball coaches of school teams. Eleven coaches from a city in the State of São Paulo were interviewed. The discourses from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed based on the Collective Subject Discourse method. Coaches revealed that match-up, base position, coverage, and spatial occupation are the main individual defensive contents and use the teaching through games situations, technique approach, and teaching through games. The main group defensive content mentioned by the coaches is the match-up changes, mutual cover, and defensive systems, for which they preferred the teaching through games situations, teaching through games and technique approach. The fi ndings show that although they are content of the same phase of the game, there is a preference for different teaching approaches. On the other hand, there seems to be inconsistency with the choice of the technique approach when it comes to the teaching of individual defensive contents, mainly because they are related to the players' decision-making. Such fi ndings will contribute to the teaching of handball in school teams and with refl ections for the teaching of the different specifi c contents, raising new discussions.

Activating Specific Handball’s Defensive Motor Behaviors in Young Female Players: A Non-Linear Approach

“…In handball, to defend against any offensive action, there are several technics and tactical skills which respond to three basic pillars that always have to be accomplished during the whole game: to avoid attackers from getting near their zone of effectiveness, to avoid attackers from shooting at the goal, and to recover the ball at any given opportunity [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. The results found in the present study are coincident with the aforementioned, as the specific handball motor behaviors that were activated the most with the three different constraints were “Defense in Line of Progression” and “Proximal Contact,” which are the basic individual conducts that the defenders must have in order to defend the attacker to avoid them to get near to their zone of effectiveness [ 32 ]. However, a difference is given in the third constraint, where these motor behaviors were activated more compared with constraints 1 and 2, where the frequency of activation was the same for both (57 observed actions).…”