PERCEPTION v SCANNING

 

Continuing on the theme of perception I've been running with intermittently, here's more about it and what the differences are between the 2 which should really help you in being able to nail down raining each specifically.

• There is a difference between looking and seeing
• Gaze direction/fixations (looking) show where the eyes are directed but not whether the player is picking up action-relevant information (seeing)
• Peripheral visual, sound, haptics and context can be crucial for perception
• What the player perceives as relevant depends on the relationship between knowledge in the game and affordances like a running opportunity is perceived differently depending on who has the ball and what they can do
• Design training activities where players have to search, discover and use relevant information to succeed
• When an Errol Gulden has the ball then players can lead into tighter spaces and expect the ball from far more different angles then other players and thus they provide an option for him at the same time which is rooted in the relationship between the players, specifically Gulden’s passing ability
• Because Gulden’s such a great kick, player s can expect their runs/leads to be acted upon so they continue to perform them with each leading affordance shaped by Gulden’s action capabilities
• If a different player has the ball then those same players can be less likely to provide the same option and the affordance no longer exists in the same way
• What a player sees is limited by what the player themselves and others can do so every player calibrates their behaviour accordingly
• These options are also shaped by broader socio-cultural contexts where norms/values/perceptions influence how players/coaches perceive/act/interpret the game and often without being noticed because it’s perceived as the way things are
• Learning is inseparable from doing and doing is inseparable from place
• Scanning is not a passive observation but an active search that specifies the player’s options for action guided by the requirements of the task/individual competencies and culturally shaped expectations of what information is important
• Instead of saying to scan more, create environments where players have to search for information in order to succeed
• Design puzzles where relevant information is not always directly available where players are encouraged to explore
• Scanning should not be isolated but in performed in environments where players absorb information effectively
• The aim is to improve the quality of the link between perception/action
• Start with 8v8 x 15mins to develop an understanding of the environment then use this information to evolve what could be amplified/dampened (co-design)
• How do they defend/attack and is there enough variance in each?
• Knowledge about the game promoted in the training culture dictates player behaviour and limits how players develop knowledge in the game, specifically restricting players’ ability to scan the environment and perceive opportunities they could exploit
• Help players break these patterns via task design aimed at shaping players’ intentions – individually/collectively – and help them attend to information in the game
• Balance the intentions of playing through/around/over the pressing/defending team
• Instruct the defensive team to form in a specific way and see if the offense catches on
• Players rarely go short/slow as it carries negative connotations and they’ve been told all their life to go fast and long
• To give value to going slow, time how long the offense can maintain possession for
• To give value to going short, can they use 1 pass through each of the 3 zones
• Teams can discuss how to achieve their specific aims
• Some adapt quickly and some slowly – relying on familiar patterns – but by prioritising observation, manipulating constraints and guiding attention, the coach can foster an environment where perception/action are continuously entwined