Purpose: To determine if small-sided games (SSGs) could be designed to target specific task loads using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index as well as reporting the influence of the physical and technical demands. Methods: Using a within-session, repeated-measures design, 26 junior rugby league players completed 5 SSGs focused on physical, technical, temporal, cognitive, and frustration task loads. National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index responses were evaluated after each game; the physical demands were recorded using microtechnology; and skill involvement recorded using video analysis. Results: In each SSG, the task load emphasized (eg, physical load/physical game) emerged with a higher score than the other loads and SSGs. The physical demands were lowest during the physical game (effect size = −3.11 to 3.50) and elicited greater defensive involvements (effect size = 0.12 to 3.19). The highest physical demands and attacking involvements were observed during the temporal game. Lower intensity activities were generally negatively associated with physical, performance, temporal, and total load (η2 = −.07 to −.43) but positively associated with technical, effort, cognitive, and frustration (η2 = .01 to .33). Distance covered in total and at higher speeds was positively associated with physical, effort, performance, total load (η2 = .18 to .65), and negatively associated with technical, frustration, and cognitive load (η2 = −.10 to −.36). Attacking and defensive involvements generally increased the respective task loads (η2 = .03 to .41). Conclusion: Coaches and sport scientists can design SSGs specifically targeted at subjective task loads in a sport-specific manner and through manipulation of the physical and technical demands.

This study sought to design five touch-specific modified games and evaluate the subjective task load responses and movement characteristics. Forty-two high-performance junior Touch players completed five modified games during a single training session. Each game was designed to increase the physical, technical, mental, frustration or temporal load. Subjective task loads were measured after each game using the NASA task load index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire. Movement characteristics were recorded using global positioning systems. Data were analysed using a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance, and the association between movement characteristics and subjective task loads were assessed using linear mixed modelling. Clear between-game differences were observed in physical, technical, mental, frustration, temporal and technical load, indicating that the load for which the game was designed to increase (e.g. physical load  =  physical game) was higher than all other games (ηp2  =  0.118–0.211, all P < 0.001). No differences were observed across games for effort, performance, mean or total load (ηp2  =  0.004–0.030, P  =  0.178–0.947). Small to large differences in the movement characteristics were observed across the five games (ηp2  =  0.057–0.577, P < 0.001–0.017). The most prominent movement characteristic associated with the NASA-TLX responses was relative distance; it was positively associated with physical and temporal load ( r  =  0.16–0.24, both P < 0.05) and negatively associated with technical, mental and effort load ( r  =  −0.29 to −0.06, P < 0.001–0.353). Overall, coaches and sport scientists can design games for Touch players that increase loads through the rules, intention of the game, and by altering relative distance.