Colman Noctor: Why I support the GAA's game-changing decision 

There will always be those who believe sport has ‘gone soft’ and those who believe children’s sport is ‘too serious’

Different children want different results from sports. For some it’s about being the best - for others about having fun.

LAST week, the GAA announced a clampdown on competitive U12 games with penalties for clubs that ignore the directive. The move has sparked different opinions about the role competition should play in children’s development. There are those who believe children should be spared the pressures of competition, so they can learn about inclusivity and participation, and those who believe sport is a rehearsal for life and should include the early experience of loss and failure in matches.

I have long held the position that issues in junior activities are adult problems, not child problems. The abuse of referees and overzealous commentary is carried out by parents and coaches, not the young players on the pitch. We all understand that children will be children, however some adults do not take the responsibilities of adulthood seriously and it is for this reason problems occur.

The Go Games initiative, where ‘every child gets to play in every game’, has been in place for several years but the GAA had to circulate an email from their headquarters last week reminding clubs that scorekeeping, organising elite blitzes and publishing results of U12s games is not permitted. This email was for the attention of coaches and parents, not the children.

It’s impossible to have ‘a one size fits all’ solution to please everyone. There will always be those who say sport has ‘gone soft’ and is ‘being ruined’, and those who say children’s sport is ‘too serious’ and causing more and more children to give up early.

But such polarised debates ignore the central role played by children’s personalities. Different types of children want different things from sport.

Some children are naturally motivated by performance. Winning is important for them and whether scores are counted or not they are acutely aware of the scoreline. They are likely to excel in sports because they have an inner drive and natural ability. And they tend to be the ‘culture setters’ in a group because they are often the loudest and most dominant participants.

These players appeal to competitive coaches because they thrive on competition but are also likely to be highly self-critical if they perform poorly and struggle with being gracious in defeat.

Being ego-driven is not a bad thing: it’s a personality trait. But because results-driven children appeal to competitive coaches, does that mean our junior sports culture must be designed around them?

One must question whether these children represent the majority and if facilitating their drive to succeed before they reach 12 is a good thing for them.

Loudest voices are heard

I have coached and been on the sidelines of children’s sports for years and while the competitive children are undoubtedly there in every team, they are often not the majority. But they tend to be more vocal than the other children who are more ‘task driven’.

The difference with task-driven children is not that they don’t enjoy winning, it is just not the be-all and end-all for them. They attend sports to learn a skill and enjoy the social opportunity to meet and play with friends. These children are driven by fun, not performance. This is not a bad thing either: it’s a personality trait.

To illustrate how this social dynamic plays out in adult sports, let’s look at what happens in amateur golf. High-handicap golfers are ranked lowly when it comes to the elite level of the sport and despite failing to drive down their handicap, they continue to play. They are not winning every week; they may not even be progressing. But they will hit a shot as good as Tiger Woodsevery now and again that will get them back on the course. Given the number of golf club members who play for the fun of participation, it stands to reason that children will want to join team sports for the same benefits.

The problem is trying to create an environment to meet children’s varying needs and personalities. If you adopt the competitive environment, which has the sole focus on winning and developing elitist mentalities, it may suit some, but you will negatively impact children who are left with no game time and have their self-confidence crushed.

Alternatively, removing all competition and having an ‘everyone’s a winner and everyone wins a prize’ culture will only frustrate the ‘must-win’ children who will believe their efforts and abilities are not recognised. Or probably more accurately, these environments will upset the parents of competitive children who may argue their child’s ability is not being recognised. And while often these parents are in the minority, they tend to have the loudest voices, which can influence an amateur coach’s choices.

What children need

I am unaware of any evidence to support the argument that elite development of U12s positively impacts their sporting trajectory. Sometimes, being the adult means giving children what they need instead of what they want.

For those who are concerned about removing competitive practices for young children, remember that rugby player Hugo Keenan was left on the bench of the U14 Blackrock C team. Yet, he is currently the grand slam-winning Irish full-back who is the most consistent player on the number-one rugby team in the world. His experience is something to consider when we reflect on the responsibility of deciding that any child under 12 should be chosen or dismissed based on our amateur assessment of their childhood potential.

In an ideal world, the solution would be to provide a menu of different routes where the competitive and task-driven child could be facilitated in like-minded environments. But the practicalities of this model are cumbersome, and it is likely there would not be enough children or coaches for it to work.

In my view, the GAA’s decision to remove competition in under-12 games is the best approach to take. If we facilitate competition and allow it to be dominant in our junior sports we will continue to see children under 12 being sidelined for the price of a medal, and we will undoubtedly see many children retire from sports early because it became too serious, there was no fun, or they never got to play.

However, if we encourage as many children as possible to participate until they are 12 and allow for equal game time and skill development, they are more likely to have a positive relationship with movement and exercise and stay involved for longer. Despite the temporary frustration that this may cause results-driven children and their parents, the knowledge that the elite development pathway can begin after they reach 12 years old creates less likelihood of them leaving the sport.

By playing the long game, we can embrace all children of all abilities.

• Dr Colman Noctor is a child psychotherapist