Coach to player interaction was mostly initiated by the coaches. Spectator interaction was initiated by the spectators only, because the players never talked to the crowd. Referee interaction with the players and coaches was initiated mostly by the referees because they were making calls. Coach to coach interaction was initiated by both coaches shaking hands and thing of that nature.
The context of the interaction between the players on the court was often yelling things out to help them get an edge on their opponent, and they opponent also did the same things. The players on the bench often cheered their teammates on and talked to each other about calls that were made. Most of the context between the coaches to player interaction was instructional, helping to players learn how stuff is supposed to be done. The context of spectator to spectator interaction was often about the game and calls they viewed as controversial. The context of referee to coach and player interaction was mostly about calls being made.
The impact of the interaction the players on the court made with each other was beneficial to them and it helped them play better and know what’s going on. The impact of the coach to player interaction was also very beneficial because it was instructional and helped the players get better as they were playing their game. The referee interaction with the coachers helped the coaches understand better why calls were being made. The interaction between the referees and the players was also helpful to the players; because it let them know what they were doing was wrong.
I didn’t notice any violent behavior being taken place between the players, parents, coaches, or the spectators. The deviant behavior I did notice about the players was how hard they were players, even when they were tired they still dived on the floor if they had to and fought to try and win, even though they wound up losing. The parents and spectators showed no deviant behavior from what I...