By now most of you should have seen this diagram at least once. This representation of Game Management isn't really something new; in fact, its a concept that has been around for sometime. It is easy to be overwhelmed by the elements of this model and struggle to apply these "new" concepts in our games. But in reality we are likely applying all of these concepts in our matches without assigning the terms to them. For example, when we choose not to call a trifling foul near midfield to keep the ball moving we have just demonstrated the Risk Taking element. Or when we issue a caution for a player removing their shirt to celebrate a goal (even though its not a "big deal") we are adhering to 100% Misconduct.
Over the next few weeks both on this blog and at the ASRA Meetings (if you live in Albuquerque) we will continue to examine some of the elements of this model. I find drawing the correlations between this model and previous procedures is helpful. Take a look at the clip below and think about Risk Taking.
The Advice to Referees on the LOTG is very clear when it talks about Law 5 and the referee's power "to decide that an infringement is trifling or doubtful and should not be called at all." We see in the video that if the two minor fouls were called that a goal probably wouldn't have resulted (affecting the Entertainment value). So in this case we saw that there was enough game control to allow play to continue (take a risk) and getting more flow in the game. Keep in mind we must be careful when risk taking. Never do we want the player's safety to be endangered or lose control of the match. Watch how players react to the foul being ignored: Do they keep playing? Are they frustrated? Do they look for revenge? Communicate with players to let them know you see the contact, but are allowing them to continue. If you have less game control you will not be able to take as many risks.