May/June 2019 - 13

Poll: Do you use running as punishment?
In February, Coach & Athletic Director polled
readers asking whether they use running as a form of
punishment toward their athletes. Nearly 47% said they
do, but for the others, they offered a few suggestions
for how coaches can implement consequences without
using running. Here's what they're doing in their
programs.
* We'll take away playing time. If you're not following
instructions or giving a total effort, you're not going
to get into the game.
* We use scoring during all of our drills. This creates
a winner and a loser.
* We force players to do pushups, but we will use
running when you lose a practice competition.
practice. It's common sense. The same can be said for
batters who take called third strikes, football players
who miss tackles, tennis players who double-fault, and
volleyball players who serve into the net. Revisit the
fundamentals, modify your teaching techniques, and
spend more time practicing the skill.
2
. It creates a negative attitude. Using running as
. a punishment creates a negative attitude toward
conditioning and could create animosity toward the
coach. Anything that's used for punishment is typically
looked on with distaste. That's not how we want athletes
to view such an important part of their preparation.
Wouldn't it be better for them to see conditioning in a
positive light, as something to develop their bodies and
make them better athletes?
Coaches who use conditioning as punishment foster
an adversarial relationship with their athletes instead of
a cooperative one. Athletes begin to see their coach as
someone who has abandoned the role of teacher and taken
on the role of enforcer. Furthermore, the association of
conditioning with punishment causes many athletes to
carry a negative attitude toward conditioning for the rest
of their lives, to the detriment of their health. It's hard to
see running as a pleasurable activity if you remember it
as punishment from your days as a competitive athlete.
3
. It makes the volume of conditioning random.
.rather than well-planned. A big part of a coach's job
is to give their athletes the optimal amount of conditioning.
It should be enough to provide the appropriate training
stimulus, but not so much that the athletes are insufficiently
recovered for competition or practice.
Coaches who base their athletes' conditioning on missed
free throws or turnovers are not executing a conditioning
plan; they are reacting to unrelated performances. If the
previous game went well and mistakes were few, they run
the risk of insufficiently conditioning their athletes. If the
game went poorly and mistakes were many, they could
overcondition their athletes.
4
. It implies a lack of trust in athletes. If we
. contemplate the assumptions that underlie the use
of conditioning as punishment, we see that they're based
on a belief that coaches must impose motivation on
their athletes to not make mistakes. But here's the truth:
Athletes already want to succeed.
* We track wins and losses all year long for our drills
and keep them on a chart in our gym. They're kind
of like the gold star charts we had in our elementary
school classrooms.
* Depending on the infraction, we might just
completely hold a player out of drills or practice.
* We have players do up-downs or burpees.
* Players in our program will be forced to do various
chores, like filling the water buffaloes or cleaning out
the equipment shed.
* We'll require players to do pushups or sit out drills
and limit court time. Any punishment has to be done
in a trust-filled environment. It's hard to build trust if
the stick is used instead of the carrot.
Experience tells me that nobody wants that free throw
to swish through the net more than the player standing at
the free-throw line. No one wants that two-strike swing to
connect with the pitch more than the hitter. No one wants
that bounce pass to thread the needle and hit the waiting
hands of a teammate more than the point guard who made
the pass.
When I was a player, no amount of threatened
punishment would have made me want to succeed more
than I already did. In fact, the threat of punishment added
unwanted and unhelpful pressure. I think all athletes feel
the same way, and they may resent coaches who show that
they don't trust their athletes' desire to succeed.
During my senior year of high school, my basketball
team hired a new coach who brought a fresh perspective
on conditioning. He had a different name for the
conditioning drill traditionally known as " suicides, "
which are often used by coaches as punishment. He called
them " championship trips. " Yes, it was corny, and we
all knew it, but his point - which he explained on day
one - was that quality conditioning helps us win games.
He never used it as punishment, but he conditioned us
harder than any coach I ever had. We made countless
" championship trips " that year, and we ran them without
complaint because of the way he framed them. Had he
used the same volume of conditioning as punishment,
there would have been a lot of grumbling and much less
enthusiasm. It was not a coincidence that we had the most
successful season of my high school career.
During my 38 years of coaching, I found that most
athletes will work incredibly hard for you if they see the
purpose behind the work and understand that you're trying
to help and not punish them. I've never had an administrator
make me run laps for poor game strategy or ineffective use
of my bench players in a big game. As coaches, we wouldn't
like it much if administrators took that approach. Neither
would we find it helpful. Why should we expect our athletes
to view such methods any differently?
Randy Hisner coaches cross country at Bellmont
High School in Decatur, Indiana, and umpires high
school and college baseball. He also has coached high
school baseball and middle school track and basketball.
WINNINGHOOPS.COM 13
http://www.WINNINGHOOPS.COM
May/June 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May/June 2019
