Multiparty Coordination Under Time Pressure: The Social Organization of Handball Team Time-Out Activities

  • Christian MeyerEmail author
  • Ulrich v. Wedelstaedt


In the course of a handball game, coaches can address their team only at 60-second time-outs. Time pressure, the involvement of other staff, thousands of cheering spectators, and other environmental conditions lead to condensed interaction. Analyzing recordings taken during fieldwork (First German Leagues and national teams), we identify common ‘time-out practices’ used across genders, teams, and coaches. These include semiotic resources and embodied practices by which participation frameworks and joint attention are attained, actions are performed, made recognizable, and ordered. We show how these practices are effective not despite but because of the ‘adverse’ conditions. Our study has implications for interaction research more generally: we demonstrate how talk must be viewed as embodied activity itself, requiring bodily effort and skill by multiple persons involved.


  1. Ameka, Felix. 1992. The meaning of phatic and conative interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Sport Education Program (ASEP), and Kathy McGee. 2007. Coaching basketball. Technical and tactical skills. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, J. Maxwell. 1984. Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  4. Bolden, Galina B. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 974–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, Penelope. 2001. Repetition. In Key terms in language and culture, ed. Alessandro Duranti, 219–222. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, W.W.M., A.F. Carre, K. Kim, and R. Carr. 2003. International comparative analysis of timeout decision making strategies employed by male university basketball coaches. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation 9 (2): 66–70.Google Scholar
  7. Duke, Alison, and John Corlett. 1992. Factors affecting university women’s basketball coaches’ timeout decisions. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences 17 (4): 333–337.Google Scholar
  8. Fessler, Daniel M.T., and Colin Holbrook. 2014. Marching into battle: Synchronized walking diminishes the conceptualized formidability of an antagonist in men. Biology Letters 10: 20140592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfinkel, Harold. 1963. A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. In Motivation and social interaction, ed. O.J. Harvey, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places. Notes on the social organization of gatherings. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gómez, Miguel A., Sergio Jiménez, Rafael Navarro, Carlos Lago-Penas, and Jaime Sampaio. 2011. Effects of coaches’ timeouts on basketball teams’ offensive and defensive performances according to momentary differences in score and game period. European Journal of Sport Science 11 (5): 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin, Charles. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy, George A. 1992. A hoot in the dark: The evolution of general rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 25 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  16. Kolodziej, Christoph. 2013. Erfolgreich handball spielen: Technik-Taktik-Training. München: BLV.Google Scholar
  17. Lerner, Gene H. 2002. Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In The language of turn and sequence, ed. Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara E. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lorenzo, Jorge, Rafael Navarro, Jesús Rivilla, and Alberto Lorenzo. 2013. The analysis of the basketball coach speech during the moments of game and pause in relation to the performance in competition. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 22 (1): 227–230.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, Christian, and Ulrich v. Wedelstaedt. 2013. Skopische Sozialität: Sichtbarkeitsregime und visuelle Praktiken im Boxen. Soziale Welt 64: 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer, Christian, and Ulrich v. Wedelstaedt. 2015. Teamsubjekte: Körperlich-rituelle Mechanismen der Vergemeinschaftung im Spitzensport. In Vergemeinschaftung durch rituelle Verkörperung. Zur körperlichen Performanz kollektiver Identität, ed. Robert Gugutzer and Michael Staack, 97–124. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, Christian, Jürgen Streeck, and J. Scott Jordan. 2017. Introduction. In Intercorporeality: Emerging bodies in interaction, ed. Christian Meyer, Jürgen Streeck, and J. Scott Jordan, xiii–xlvii. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi Schieffelin. 1989. Language has a heart. Text 9 (1): 7–25.Google Scholar
  23. Permutt, Sam. 2011. The efficacy of momentum-stopping timeouts on short-term performance in the National Basketball Association. Unpublished senior thesis, Haverford College, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  24. Raymond, Geoffrey, and Don H. Zimmerman. 2007. Rights and responsibilities in calls for help: The case of the mountain glade fire. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40 (1): 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saavedra, Serguei, Satyam Mukherjee, and James P. Bagrow. 2012. Can timeouts change the outcome of basketball games? Unpublished paper.
  26. Sampaio, Jaime, Carlos Lago-Peñas, and Miguel A. Gómez. 2013. Brief exploration of short and mid-term timeout effects on basketball scoring according to situational variables. European Journal of Sport Science 13 (1): 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2): 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Streeck, Jürgen. 2008. Gesture in political communication: A case study of the democratic presidential candidates during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 154–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. v. Wedelstaedt, Ulrich, and Christian Meyer. 2017. Social action under time pressure: Intercorporeality and Interkinesthetic Gestalts in Handball. In Moving bodies in interaction—Interacting bodies in motion. Intercorporeality, interkinesthesia and enaction in sports, ed. Christian Meyer and Ulrich v. Wedelstaedt, 57–91. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Watson, Rodney. 2005. Reflexivity, description and the analysis of social settings. Ciências Sociais Unisinos 41 (1): 5–10.Google Scholar
  31. Wieder, D. Lawrence. 1974. Language and social reality. The case of telling the convict code. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  32. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2009. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations