This study quantified and compared the collision and non‐collision match characteristics across age categories (i.e. U12, U14, U16, U18, Senior) for both amateur and elite playing standards from Tier 1 rugby union nations (i.e. England, South Africa, New Zealand). Two‐hundred and one male matches (5911 min ball‐in‐play) were coded using computerised notational analysis, including 193,708 match characteristics (e.g. 83,688 collisions, 33,052 tackles, 13,299 rucks, 1006 mauls, 2681 scrums, 2923 lineouts, 44,879 passes, 5568 kicks). Generalised linear mixed models with post‐hoc comparisons and cluster analysis compared the match characteristics by age category and playing standard. Overall significant differences (p < 0.001) between age category and playing standard were found for the frequency of match characteristics, and tackle and ruck activity. The frequency of characteristics increased with age category and playing standard except for scrums and tries that were the lowest at the senior level. For the tackle, the percentage of successful tackles, frequency of active shoulder, sequential and simultaneous tackles increased with age and playing standard. For ruck activity, the number of attackers and defenders were lower in U18 and senior than younger age categories. Cluster analysis demonstrated clear differences in all and collision match characteristics and activity by age category and playing standard. These findings provide the most comprehensive quantification and comparison of collision and non‐collision activity in rugby union demonstrating increased frequency and type of collision activity with increasing age and playing standard. These findings have implications for policy to ensure the safe development of rugby union players throughout the world.

Objective: The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) measures the nature of the coach-athlete relationship, yet the psychometric properties of the instrument still remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to resolve uncertainty about a suitable factor solution by applying previously used analytical methods, asymptotic distribution-free confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis. Method: The 11-item direct and meta-perspective versions of the CART-Q were examined utilising AMOS, LISREL and Rach analysis using a sample of 251 national football and futsal coaches and athletes. A model comparison strategy with AMOS provided a direct comparison with previous studies. LISREL and Rasch analysis was conducted to provide additional information about the CART-Q psychometric properties. Results: CFA with maximum likelihood and diagonally-weighted least squares estimation methods supported the factorial validity of the three-factor first-order model of both CART-Q versions, although a unidimensional solution was also tenable. Rasch analysis determined that the unidimensional model possessed higher reliability and provided improved coverage of participants’ scores, minimising ceiling effects. Conclusion: Research designs that require assessment of coach-athlete relationships may prefer the unidimensional model due to its superior psychometric properties. When more detailed profile scores are required, the subscale scores can still be interpreted with adequate validity and reliability KEY POINTS What is already known about the topic: What this study adds:

Drawing on data from semi-structured interviews with New Zealand coaches (N = 6), this study examined how video self-reflection (VSR) was perceived as a tool for learning within ‘on-going’ coach development. This study also looked to determine the potential barriers experienced by coaches before engaging in VSR. Each participant was a performance coach (as identified by the NZ coach development framework (CDF)) with 5+ years coaching experience and had recently (in the previous 12 months) participated in a coach development program that aligned with Sport NZ’s CDF. Five main themes emerged from the data; coaches had a positive perception of the benefits of VSR, a desire to engage in VSR but did not prioritise the time, logistical concerns, a fear of self-confrontation and evidence of knowledge for ‘modern’ coaching development. Findings indicated that coaches valued VSR as a tool for learning; however, the lack of exposure and experience in the process meant coaches did not value the practise enough to dedicate specific time towards it. This study provides an evidence-base that can be used to support National Governing Bodies coach development frameworks, and the modification of content to encourage the use of VSR as a tool for learning.