What Cognitive Mechanism, When, Where, and Why? Exploring the Decision Making of University and Professional Rugby Union Players During Competitive Matches

Abstract

Over the past 50 years decision making research in team invasion sport has been dominated by three research perspectives, information processing, ecological dynamics, and naturalistic decision making. Recently, attempts have been made to integrate perspectives, as conceptual similarities demonstrate the decision making process as an interaction between a players perception of game information and the individual and collective capability to act on it. Despite this, no common ground has been found regarding what connects perception and action during performance. The differences between perspectives rest on the role of stored mental representations, that may, or may not facilitate the retrieval of appropriate responses in time pressured competitive environments. Additionally, in team invasion sports like rugby union, the time available to players to perceive, access memory and act, alters rapidly between specific game situations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine theoretical differences and the mechanisms that underpin them, through the vehicle of rugby union. Sixteen semi-elite rugby union players took part in two post-game procedures to explore the following research objectives; (i) to consider how game situations influence players perception of information; (ii) to consider how game situations influence the application of cognitive mechanisms whilst making decisions; and (iii) to identify the influence of tactics and/or strategy on player decision making. Deductive content analysis and elementary units of meaning derived from self-confrontation elicitation interviews indicate that specific game situations such as; the lineout, scrum or open phases of play or the tackle situation in attack or defence all provide players with varying complexity of perceptual information, formed through game information and time available to make decisions. As time increased, players were more likely to engage with task-specific declarative knowledge-of the game, stored as mental representations. As time diminished, players tended to diagnose and update their knowledge-in the game in a rapid fashion. Occasionally, when players described having no time, they verbalised reacting on instinct through a direct connection between perception and action. From these findings, clear practical implications and directions for future research and dissemination are discussed.

Coaching player decision making in rugby union: exploring coaches espoused theories and theories in use as an indicator of effective coaching practice

“…Convergent questions were often asked when reviewing the team's collective knowledge-of the game and shared mental model (Kagan 2005;Harvey and Light 2015). These questions often challenged players to consider tactics, strategy and their common language, which aligned closely with their espoused theory regarding a common language as a connecting variable between game information and collective execution of their accepted tactical framework (Ashford, Abraham, and Poolton 2021c;Mckay and O'Connor 2018). For instance;…”

“…Analysis of coaches espoused theories have identified the central importance of tactical frameworks which scaffold player's decision-making, underpinned by a common language (Ashford, Abraham, and Poolton 2021c) which guides players collective perception and action (Richards, Collins, and Mascarenhas 2017). These findings suggest that shared mental models presented the closest alignment between coaches espoused theories and theories in use (Argyris and Schön 1974).…”

“…Findings from academic research have presented coaches with conflicting practical implications regarding how to best support the development of player decision making Poolton 2021a, 2021b;Raab et al 2019). These implications have largely, although not exclusively, been derived from two standpoints, the cognitive and ecological perspectives (Ashford, Abraham, and Poolton 2021b;2021c). Drawing on the work of Bar-Eli, Plessner, and Raab (2011), such practical implications have been separated into two types; intentional decision making training and incidental decision making training.…”

“…Drawing on the work of Bar-Eli, Plessner, and Raab (2011), such practical implications have been separated into two types; intentional decision making training and incidental decision making training. According to Bar-Eli, Plessner, and Raab (2011) intentional decision making training centres on planning and strategizing behaviour to outwit and defeat one's opponent, largely supported by a deeper understanding and knowledge-of the game (Collins, Collins, and Carson 2021;Ashford, Abraham, and Poolton 2021b;2021c;Toner and Moran 2015). For instance, match strategy (Grehaigne, Godbout, and Bouthier 1999), shared mental models (Richards, Collins, and Mascarenhas 2012; and tactical frameworks (Tee, Ashford, and Piggott 2018) all encourage the weighting and execution of specific planned roles and responsibilities that guide players to behave in particular ways (Light, Harvey & Mouchet 2014).…”

Naturalistic Decision-Making in Sport: How Current Advances Into Recognition Primed Decision Model Offer Insights for Future Research in Sport Settings?

“…Taken together, these outcomes suggest that decision-making in a sport setting may take place on a continuum between intuitive and analytical processes (Kahneman and Klein, 2009 ). In this sense, integrated theoretical models of decision-making have recently been proposed for athletes (Ashford et al, 2021a , b ; Hallé Petiot et al, 2021 ), referees (Kittel et al, 2021a ; Samuel et al, 2021 ) and coaches (Collins et al, 2016 ; Richards et al, 2017 ). There is a lack of consistent empirical evidence in a sport setting for establishing the continuum from intuitive to analytical decision-making.…”