| The general purpose of the three studies undertaken in the present investigation was to extend the research pertaining to the conceptual model for game location research advanced by Courneya and Carron (1992). The primary purpose of Study 1 was to examine the influence of game location on the critical behavioral states of ice hockey coaches. A secondary purpose was to examine the degree to which ice hockey coaches' cognitions (i.e., confidence) and mood states (i.e., anger, enthusiasm, irritability, nervousness, and sociability) differ at home versus on the road. The purpose of Study 2 was to determine the extent to which reported coaching strategies are translated by athletes into team behavior. Finally, the purpose of Study 3 was to examine a relatively unexplored area of the model, namely, the influence of game location on the subjective decision making of ice hockey officials.; The first purpose of Study 1 was tested by soliciting responses from National Hockey League (NHL, {dollar}n=23){dollar} and Ontario Hockey League (OHL, {dollar}n=17){dollar} coaches on the degree to which they had their teams forecheck assertively. The results showed that both NHL and OHL coaches used a more assertive forechecking strategy at home vs. on the road, and against teams low vs. high in ability. The second purpose, the influence of game location on the coaches' psychological states, showed that professional hockey coaches were more confident about their teams' ability to win at home than on the road. However, game location was not related to differences in any of the mood states examined.; The purpose of Study 2 was tested by using video analysis to determine the extent to which professional hockey teams use an assertive forechecking strategy at home versus away. The results revealed that coaching strategies are translated into team performance, i.e., a more assertive forechecking strategy is used significantly more often at home than away.; The purpose of Study 3 was tested by using video analysis to determine whether rule violations overlooked by officials favored the home team. The results failed to show evidence of officiating bias; there was no difference in the number of rule infractions present but not called between the home and visiting teams. |
