| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study was to examine differences in perceptions of rule infractions in
hockey between beginner and elite hockey players. Seven categories (“legal,” “logical,” “value
non-moral,” “contextual,” “value moral,” “authority” and “knowledge”) were used to clarify the
reasons(s) behind the perceived legitimacy o f rule infractions. The instrumentation was a video of
hockey clips and a questionnaire regarding the clips.
The first part of the study dealt with whether or not participants could identify when an
infraction was occurring. Both the elite and the beginner sample groups were successful in
identifying when rule infractions occurred. Beginner athletes had less success than elite athletes in
identifying which specific rule was being broken.
The second part of the study examined what reason(s) participants gave for perceiving
rule infractions as “okay to do.” The reasons given most often by elite participants for rule
infractions as “okay to do” were “contextual” with 25%, “value moral” with 20% and “authority”
with 18%. Beginner athletes gave “value moral,” “authority” and “legal” as the most frequent
reasons at 19% for rule infractions being “okay to do.” Elite athletes perceived rule infractions as
“not okay to do” 54% of the time whereas the beginner athletes perceived rule infractions as “not
okay to do” only 50% o f the time “Value moral” at 73% and “logical” at 57% were the two
most frequently chosen reasons by elite athletes for why rule infractions are “not okay to do.”
Beginner athletes chose “value non-moral” at 54% and “logical” at 55% as the two most frequent
reasons why rule infractions are “not okay to do.” | |
