Context matters: an examination of game management in refereeing

ABSTRACT

Game management is a multifaceted strategy used by referees that includes various aspects such as consistent decision making and increased communication. To date, empirical investigation of these theoretical considerations has been limited due to methodological and practical restrictions. This study empirically examines predictions made by the threshold process model, which posits that contextual factors (specifically game aggression) and individual differences influence the time point of application of game management strategies by referees. To achieve this, consistent deviations in decision-making tendencies of participants, compared to accurate decisions made by expert observers who had access to repeated and slow-motion scene viewings, were measured. The experimental sample comprised 117 basketball referees and players. Comparisons of scenes presented in non-aggressive and aggressive contexts reveal that an aggressive game context leads to milder decision making. Regarding the timing of the shift to game management, findings from a mixed ANCOVA provide evidence that expert referees transition earlier to game management in aggressive contexts compared to non-aggressive contexts. However, predictions regarding the influence of individual differences on decision making are not supported. Regression models investigating communication attempts suggest that the employed approach effectively assesses overall communication tendencies, indicating that referees utilise communication as a compensatory mechanism when uncertain about their decisions. The study's findings support the practical validity of the predictions derived from the threshold process model, particularly in relation to the impact of game context. Future research should incorporate broader assessments of various personality constructs and additionally scrutinise referees` decision making in games with varying aggression.

KEYWORDS:

• Consistent decision making
• Communication
• Contextual changes
• Individual differences
• Officiating

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

All data used in this study will be made publicly available after publication on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/gq289/) doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/GQ289.