Replacing Sports Referees With Technology?

dividedsky319 asks: "There have been numerous instances in which fans of a sporting team blame the loss of a game on the refs. Yet, nowadays, technology could replace a lot of what referees do. A sensor in a baseball could determine a ball or a strike. Same with a tennis match, the ball is either in or out. A sensor in a football could determine whether the ball moved forward 10 yards for a first down. Why hasn't this happened, yet? Obviously not all calls can be determined by technology, but it is feasible for certain instances. What would be the ramifications if something like this WAS introduced, and why has it taken so long?"

Comments

Photo finish

[Kelson]

So, how old is the phrase "photo finish," anyway?

The human factor makes the game

[bluGill]

The human factor of umpires that are failable make the game. Despite a few who are dishonest, most officials try their best to be fair, even when it is against the team they want to win.

I don't want to see robots play sports. In theory (the Jetson's universe) watching robots play is just a case of waiting to see who's bearings wear out sooner.

Now in amateur sports a robot ump would be nice. When it is just me and someone at my level on the racquetball court it would be nice to have something that knew all the rules to tell them to us, not to mention call violations where neither of us know that rule. However I cannot afford to pay for a device to call racquetball games, nor could I afford membershim in a gym that would have it.

Re:The human factor makes the game

[Mumbly_Joe6432]

The errors of unpires and referees are simply a part of the game. In a lot of sports, getting away with a foul is a very important part of the contest, and plus, missed calls can make things more interesting.

In FIFA, (the worldwide soccer group that controls the rules, international play, etc.) they have seriously considered having a sensor that detects whether the ball is over the goal line or not. While some people think this would be good for the game, others, like me, wonder where it would stop. The referees are good at what they do, and most of them do a good job. Yes, a robot could do better, but as the technology improves, we would simply have robots judge more and more of the games. If we had a robot detecting every foul, the game of soccer would not exist. For those of you who have never watched a game of soccer, at a skilled level of play, it seems like everyone is pulling somone else's jersey throughout the entirety of the match, yet it is almost never called. If they weren't allowed to do this, it would completely change the game.

For those of you who shun soccer, consider (American) football. How many holding/clipping penalties do referees miss? I'd bet that if a robot referee refed a game, they would stop every play. True, the players would get used to it and stop committing penalties, but again, that changes the game completely.

FIFA

[orasio]

FIFA is using a radio chip so the ball can say it scored a goal, in a football game (the sport you play with your feet).

This is an early announcement:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1 384236,00.html

They did use it for the Sub-17 World Cup, last month in Peru.
They refuse to use video, because they say it goes against the spirit of the game.

It's been rejected

[stereo_Barryo]

Tennis considered this about 10 (?) years ago and rejected it. Both players and administration agreed that the human element was part of the game and they wanted umpires, even with their bad calls (everybody makes mistakes, even the players). In baseball they have a Questek system for balls and strikes but it is used to judge the quality of the umpires (performance review monitoring by the admins) rather than for live action calls. Humans, and their mistakes, are part of the game.

Re:It's been rejected

[Buck2]

Questek has also not gone over very well. There have been complaints about the cameras being in different positions in different ballparks, not capturing the motion of the ball and/or the batter during the pitch, and the "sterilization" of the strike zone to name a few.

It's a good idea which wasn't implemented well enough, IMO.

WHY?? BECAUSE IT'S AN F'N GAME!

[alta]

It's a game damnit. What's the fun in a computer saying, in it's best mac text-to-speach voice, YOU ARE OUT.

And the fun of fighting with the ref. I think baseball is boring, but it has some of the best ref' fights. I love it when the ref throws out the coach. What's the coach going to do to the computer? Spit on it?

And when I'm sitting around on the couch, watching a game, and we aren't all for the same team, it's great to fight over if the ball was in or not.

I can see the water fountain conversations the next day. "Hey, did you see that call the computer made? Well, it must have been right, but I sure didn't appreciate it!"

Soccer less popular because...

[jvj24601]

My theory as to why soccer hasn’t acheived higher popularity in the US:

In the three major American sports (basketball, baseball, and football), it’s possible to go from being behind (in the score) to being ahead in one single play: think Pujols the other night, Adam Vinatieri frequently, or Kobe burying a three. That kind of emotional swing, from losing to winning or winning to losing, is unavailable in soccer and hockey (though hockey has fighting to keep me entertained).

If soccer could conceive of some way to earn two points on a single goal (a larger box outside the current penalty box?) to earn that emotional swing, perhaps there would be more interest.

I’ve only starting watching soccer because my son plays on two teams - we watch games together. And high-quality play from international teams are most definitely enjoyable. But if the team you’re rooting for is down by two goals with 90 seconds left, the game is over.