Extending Research on Deception in Sport - Combining Perception and Kinematic Approaches

Goalkeepers benefit from using deceptive actions in the soccer penalty kick

Most studies on deception in soccer penalty kicks have focused on the deceptive actions used by penalty takers. However, it is worth noting that deception can also be played out by goalkeepers. To examine the effectiveness of goalkeepers' deceptive actions in professional competition, we analysed 714 penalty kicks taken during matches in the English Premier League and German Bundesliga, spanning the seasons from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020. We scored whether goalkeepers used deception, and if so, what type of deception, the outcome of the penalty and the kicking strategy of the penalty taker. The results showed that goalkeepers used deception in half of the penalty kicks, resulting in significantly less goals compared to penalties without deception. This advantage was similar for the different types of deception, but larger when penalty takers paid attention to goalkeepers. We propose that the deceptive actions by goalkeepers are effective, mainly because it leads the penalty taker to lose focus. The practical implications of these findings are discussed for both goalkeepers and penalty takers.

Expertise and Deceptive Movements in Sport

BACKGROUND

Deceptive movements occur when an actor seeks to fake, hide or delay kinematic information about their true movement outcomes. The purpose of deceptive movements is to impair the perception of opponents (the 'observer') to gain an advantage over them. We argue though that a lack of conceptual clarity has led to confusion about what deception is and in understanding the different approaches by which an actor can deceive their opponent. The aim of this article is to outline a conceptual framework for understanding deceptive movements in sport.

MAIN BODY

Adopting Interpersonal Deception Theory from the field of communication, we define deception as when an actor deliberately alters their actions in an attempt to impair the ability of an observer to anticipate their true action outcomes. Further, deception can be achieved either by what we define as deceit, the act of providing false information, or disguise, the act of concealing the action outcome. Skilled athletes often have actions that are difficult to anticipate, but an action is only classified as containing deception if the actor has explicit intent to deceive an observer. Having outlined the conceptual framework, we then review existing empirical findings on the skilled perception of deceptive movements considering the framework. This approach includes a critical evaluation of the mechanisms known to facilitate the perceptual ability to prevent being deceived, including a consideration of visual search strategies, confidence, the contribution of visual and motor experiences, and the influence of response biases and action capabilities on perceptual performance.

CONCLUSION

The distinction between deceit and disguise particularly helps to show that most research has examined deceit, with little known about how an actor can more effectively disguise their action, or about how an observer can improve their ability to anticipate the outcome of disguised actions. The insights help to identify fruitful areas for future research and outline implications for skill acquisition and performance enhancement.

The effectiveness of penalty takers' deception: A scoping review

Attackers are supposed to take advantage of producing deceptive actions in competitive ball sports, particularly in penalty situations. We conducted a scoping review of the experimental literature to scrutinize whether penalty takers do indeed benefit from using deceptive actions in penalty situations, especially by increasing the likelihood to score a goal. Studies using video-based and in-situ tasks in which soccer and handball goalkeepers try to save a penalty were evaluated. Results showed that penalty takers' manipulation of spatial information available to the goalkeeper during deception (i.e., by using misleading and/or disguising actions) is less effective in in-situ than video-based studies. We argue that this difference occurs because goalkeepers adapt differently to the spatiotemporal constraints in the video-based and in-situ tasks. Goalkeepers appear to prioritize picking up spatial information in video-based tasks while prioritizing temporal information in-situ tasks. Therefore, the manipulation of spatial information appears to be less effective in the more representative in-situ studies than in video-based studies. In order to deceive, penalty takers are advised to manipulate temporal information during on-field penalty situations.