Deceptive tactics are commonly used in sport; however, the psychological mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of these tactics are unclear. Increasingly, in rugby union, decoy runners are used to cause deception. Multiple players in an attacking team run option lines off the ball carrier, making it possible that any of the players could receive the ball. Runners who do not receive the ball are decoys. The aim of the tactic is for the decoys to attract attention from defending players, which creates confusion about which player will receive the ball.
Aim
To identify behaviours of option line runners that can be used to improve the effectiveness of this deceptive tactic.
Method
Observational analysis of completed scrums from the 2015 Super Rugby season (n = 260) during which decoy runners were used by the attacking side. Decoy characteristics, including Hands Up, Line Change and Hands Up with Line Change were noted following each scrum. Gainline success was used as a dependent measure of the efficacy of the decoy characteristics. Characteristics were included in a binary logistic regression analysis to develop a best-fit model for gainline success.
Results
Hands Up, Line Change and Hands Up with Line Change significantly improved the likelihood of gainline success seven, eight and six times, respectively.
Discussion
We discuss possible mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of decoy runners and make recommendations for coaches.
RoyalKAFarrowDMujikaI, et al.The effects of fatigue on decision making and shooting skill performance in water polo players. J Sports Sci2006; 24: 807–815.
2.
McMorrisT. Acquisition and performance of sports skills, London: John Wiley and Sons, 2004.
3.
ZakayDWoolerS. Time pressure, training and decision effectiveness. Ergonomics1984; 27: 273–284.
4.
BakerJCoteJAbernethyB. Sport-specific practice and the development of expert decision-making in team ball sports. J Appl Sport Psychol2003; 15: 12–25.
5.
HohmannTObelöerHSchlapkohlN, et al.Does training with 3D videos improve decision-making in team invasion sports?J Sports Sci2016; 34: 746–755.
6.
AbernethyBRussellDG. Expert-novice differences in an applied selective attention task. J Sport Exerc Psychol1987; 9: 326–345.
7.
MannDTWilliamsAMWardP, et al.Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol2007; 29: 457.
8.
RoweRHorswillMSKronvall-ParkinsonM, et al.The effect of disguise on novice and expert tennis players’ anticipation ability. J Appl Sport Psychol2009; 21: 178–185.
9.
TravassosBAraújoDDavidsK, et al.Expertise effects on decision-making in sport are constrained by requisite response behaviours – a meta-analysis. Psychol Sport Exerc2013; 14: 211–219.
10.
LorainsMBallKMacMahonC. Expertise differences in a video decision-making task: speed influences on performance. Psychol Sport Exerc2013; 14: 293–297.
11.
GüldenpenningIKundeWWeigeltM. How to trick your opponent: a review article on deceptive actions in interactive sports. Front Psychol2017; 8: 917.
12.
JacksonRCWarrenSAbernethyB. Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychol2006; 123: 355–371.
13.
LopesJEJacobsDMTraviesoD, et al.Predicting the lateral direction of deceptive and non-deceptive penalty kicks in football from the kinematics of the kicker. Hum Movement Sci2014; 36: 199–216.
14.
AlsharjiKEWadeMG. Perceptual training effects on anticipation of direct and deceptive 7-m throws in handball. J Sports Sci2016; 34: 155–162.
15.
KundeWSkirdeSWeigeltM. Trust my face: cognitive factors of head fakes in sports. J Exp Psychol: Appl2011; 17: 110.
16.
WeigeltMGüldenpenningISteggemann-WeinrichY, et al.Control over the processing of the opponent’s gaze direction in basketball experts. Psychonomic Bull Rev2017; 24: 828–834.
SchmidtRAWrisbergCA. Motor learning and performance: a situation-based learning approach, Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2008.
19.
Pashler H. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological bulletin 1994; 116: 220.
20.
WelfordAT. The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance – a review and a theory. Br J Psychol1952; 43: 2–19.
21.
RuthruffEJohnstonJCVan SelstM, et al.Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?J Exp Psychol: Human Percept Perform2003; 29: 280.
22.
RuthruffEVan SelstMJohnstonJC, et al.How does practice reduce dual-task interference: integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening?Psychol Res2006; 70: 125–142.
23.
NakamotoHMoriS. The influence of sport-specific experiences during the psychological refractory period in the Go/Nogo double stimulation task. Int J Sport Psychol2010; 41: 243–254.
24.
RunesonSJuslinPOlssonH. Visual perception of dynamic properties: cue heuristics versus direct-perceptual competence. Psychol Rev2000; 107: 525.
25.
SmeetonNJWilliamsAM. The role of movement exaggeration in the anticipation of deceptive soccer penalty kicks. Br J Psychol2012; 103: 539–555.
HickieGDonaldsonE. Rugby revealed: reaching your rugby potential, London: Bloomsbury, 2015, pp. 199.
30.
PetersDMO'DonoghueP. Performance analysis of sport IX, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2014, pp. 81.
31.
GreenwoodJ. Total rugby, London: A. & C. Black, 2003.
32.
ThompsonI. The RFU guide to coaching positional skills, London: Bloomsbury, 2011, pp. 135–138.
33.
ReynoldsJ. Habituality and undecidability: a comparison of Merleau-Ponty and Derrida on the decision. Int J Philos Stud2002; 10: 449–466.
34.
MackARockI. Inattentional blindness1998; (Vol. 33). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
35.
DrewTVõMLHWolfeJM. The invisible gorilla strikes again sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychol Sci2013; 24: 1848–1853.
36.
PammerKBlinkC. Attentional differences in driving judgments for country and city scenes: semantic congruency in inattentional blindness. Accident Anal Prevent2013; 50: 955–963.
37.
ChabrisCFWeinbergerAFontaineM, et al.You do not talk about Fight Club if you do not notice Fight Club: inattentional blindness for a simulated real-world assault. i-Perception2011; 2: 150–153.
38.
FurleyPMemmertDHellerC. The dark side of visual awareness in sport: inattentional blindness in a real-world basketball task. Attention Percept Psychophys2010; 72: 1327–1337.
39.
MemmertD. The effects of eye movements, age, and expertise on inattentional blindness. Consciousness Cogn2006; 15: 620–627.
40.
SimonsDJJensenMS. The effects of individual differences and task difficulty on inattentional blindness. Psychon Bull Rev2009; 16: 398–403.
41.
MemmertDFurleyP. “I spy with my little eye!”: breadth of attention, inattentional blindness, and tactical decision making in team sports. J Sport Exerc Psychol2007; 29: 365.
