Background: Recent developments of theories for teaching decision making in sport offer a large variety of applications for the context of physical education. Purpose: This review of current models of teaching tactical skills concludes that most models incorporate different cognitive learning mechanisms, such as implicit and explicit learning, and are either domain specific or domain general. Yet, most models ignore the structure of the environment when defining in which situation a specific cognitive process will be beneficial and in which situations it will fail. Findings: From an ecological rationality perspective the experimentally validated SMART (Situation Model of Anticipated Response consequences of Tactical training) model is presented; this model identifies in which situation a particular learning mechanism should be beneficial. Conclusions: It is crucial to acknowledge that no one model of teaching decision making is the best but rather that choosing the appropriate model depends on the task and persons involved. The SMART model provides selection criteria for models of teaching decision making used in the domain of sport. [Appended to this "Discussion" article is "Response to 'Think SMART'--Some Elements of Perception/Decision/Action in Team Sports" by Jean-Francis Grehaigne and Nathalie Wallian. Grehaigne and Wallian present another view on certain concepts and frames of reference used in Raab's essay. They contend that a player's game-play intelligence results from a combination of flair, resourcefulness, vigilant attention, sense of opportunity, etc. They suggest that, when considering the development of decision-making skills, anticipation, decision making, and effective action should be associated whenever reflection on action is sought. Also appended to the original article is Markus Raab's "Response to the Critique: 'Response to "Think SMART"--Some Elements of Perception/Decision/Action in Team Sports.'" In Raab's response, he addresses three main aspects regarding the similarities and differences between his approaches and those of Grehaigne and Wallian: (1) concepts of perception; (2) configuration of play; and (3) transfer.] (Article and individual responses contain references.) (Contains 1 table and 1 figure.)