Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Project Scope For MLB Robot Umpires?
nightcats writes "The League Championship Series of baseball are upon us, and numerous sports media pundits, armies of fans at comment boards, and TV people are openly debating the possibility of robot umpires coming to Major League Baseball, to either replace or enhance the human umps' work on the field. Question: what kind of project are we reasonably talking about here? What would the scope and length be from planning/design to user testing/implementation (presumably in a spring training/minor league setting)? What kinds of hardware (video scanners, touch-sensitive bases/foul lines, etc.) and software would be required?"
And, as long as we're on the subject — do you think it would be good for the game?
There goes your excuse for calling the umpire an idiot.
My opinion? See above.
Pretty much everything could be accomplished using cameras, and software like Hawkeye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye).
This is what they use in tennis to track balls moving well over 200km/h. It is supposedly accurate to within the fuzz on the tennis ball. This can handle strikes/balls, foul calls, home runs, and potentially even tag-outs.
The technology is there. I remember hearing that it took a trailer full of electronics to draw the first-down line in football a decade ago, and now it can be run on a high end laptop.
In baseball, with the rising number of incorrect calls at the plate, I'm all for electronic verification. We saw a perfect game (or was it a no-hitter...) stolen last year by a bad call at first base. The strongest argument against using these techniques is that it increases the barrier to entry for kids to "really" be playing the game they see on TV. With sports like soccer, options like these are rarely considered for this reason. To match what the kids see on TV, they need a few posts, a ball, and maybe their favorite player's jersey. Add cameras, and you've added an element no child can hope to include in their own game with their friends.
But all that's changed in tennis is McEnroe's endless rants about bad line calls. Tennis has never been better. Umpires should still call out/safe calls, but ball/strike should have been given to a computer long ago, especially seeing what an inconsistent job the umps do at it.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Most broadcasts now have a "pitch zone" and you can watch the umps get it wrong regularly enough that robotic calls and strikes could be useful.
Sorry, you'd rather have the umpire rule incorrectly against your team sometimes, because it pisses you off when it happens, and you want sport to piss you off sometimes. Is that really what you're saying?
Frankly, as far as I see it, the point of a spectator sport is to allow you to get behind a group of people who are really good at what they do, and hope that they do really well against other similar groups. I don't think incorrect enforcement of rules is a necessary part of this experience.
An automated system for sensing and interpreting play on a baseball diamond wouldn't really be "robotic" would it?
It would rather be a system of cameras and sensors and some calibrated displays so that close plays in the physical world could be replayed and interpreted.
(Killing Bob Costas would not only be good for baseball, but just in general make the world a better place.)
Mmmmm... first, the issue that from your words it looks like every umpire in every game in every sport is being bribed, or in risk of being. So much for conspiracy theories. There are economic interests in the game and when this happens there is always a risk of illegal behavior, ok. Jumping from that to "the system looks legit because there are too many groups trying to rig it" is quite unfounded. We know that for some people "free market" is the blanket answer to every question, but this is ridiculous.
Second. Right now, if someone bribes an umpire, it cannot be proven other than by the money movement. An umpire does fail? It was not a good day for him. The fails favour only one of the sides? Bad luck. Change that against "the robot code is calibrated before the game, the SHA1 of the code compared with the official one, then calibrated again after the game and stored for independ review" and you get that cheating with robots is orders of magnitude more difficult than with human umpires. Changes in robots are traceable. An incorrect decision? Go to the program, feed the same input, find if it is a software bug or manipulation. You would need to have a signficant part of the organization in your pocket for it to work. If you think that someone can get away with it, I think it is safe to assume that "that someone" can already be owning all of the umpires, all of the officials, all of the teams, all of the games now.
Why can't
In many spectator sports, hating the ref is a big part of the fun; baseball in the USA, ice hockey in Canada, soccer in Europe (especially Italy).
Having a flawless robot instead of a ref would be like an episode of 24 where Jack Bauer is not slowed down by people of the FBI trying to arrest him while he is trying to find a nuclear bomb hidden by terrorists in downtown LA. The "enemy" would still be there but the spectator would feel cheated.
lucm, indeed.
Give the umpire behind the plate some sort of augmented reality HUD headset that shows the strikezone and highlights the ball as it comes over the plate. The feed from the Umps headset could also be used in broadcasts. Uses technology without removing the human element of the game. I'll start working on it if MLB wants to pony up the cash...most (if not all) of it would just be COTS hardware.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
It would certainly be funny to see a red-faced coach screaming at a camera that it should get its lenses cleaned and sensors calibrated.
~Syberz
As someone that has attended one of the two professional umpire schools in Florida and had conversations with the umpires actually working in MLB, I'd like to bring some perceptive to this. These umpires are highly trained, high paid individuals that are the cream of the crop in their profession. They are under constant scrutiny from the Umpire Supervisor (who is Charlie Reliford, an excellent umpire in his own right) and his observers who ensure they are performing to the best of their ability. Obviously, mistakes are made and with instant replay, we can relive them over and over again. Umpiring is about being in the right spot at the right time to see the play and make the call. It is 95% positioning and 5% actually calling what you see. If you aren't in the right position, that is when you get in trouble.
Back to robots and their place in the field of umpiring. I think monitoring fair/foul like in tennis and similar things is a valid application, but anything beyond that is not very feasible as proper positioning is very subjective to the situation. I'd think that some sort of eye piece with a HUD that was able to track the ball and allow the umpire to reply what he saw would be the best option for baseball. Not sure if it at all feasible, but I don't think you'd get too much opposition for the umpire association. Instant reply has problems with when should it be used, how long should it take, and the like. Nearly all plays in baseball have significance and have the chance to alter a game, especially during a close game. Baseball can already be a long game and IR would just add to it.
(goddamn it, I wasn't logged in) The official rule: Strike Zone is the area over home plate, the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball. What if the robot can't see the top of my pants? (My shirt is loose and blouses over) What if my shoulders are angled? (Where's the 'top'?) What if I have loose pants and a locked knee stance? (Where's my knee, and thus the hollow below the cap?) When does the robot determine the boundaries of the zone? (If it's at the windup, I'll crouch during it then stand up. If it's as the pitch comes in, I'll squat on high strikes) A living, breathing umpire makes all these subjective decisions on every pitch. There's no way to trick the umpire into giving you a smaller or undefined strike zone. You have to keep umpires, even if there's instant replay. For another example: on a large fraction of 6-4-3 and 4-6-3 double plays, the infielder making the play at second base doesn't actually tag the bag. Umpires are very generous on the player touching the base on the turn. Relying on a robot to make that call would be incredibly disruptive with the way that call has been made for over a century.
Padres struck out Jeeter, he even began walking away from the plate. The ump called it foul. All video replays showed essentially a perfect pitch. Even the commentators couldn't see how it was a foul.
It essentially turned the tide of the world series as Jeter would go on to hit a home run. The Yankees had hitherto been getting their butts kicked. But when you have to pitch 4 strikes, it changes all the odds. This will eliminate a LOT of bought off umps as well.
Jeter didn't have any home runs in the 1998 World Series. Other than that, good story.
What you may be referring to is the 2-2 pitch to Tino Martinez in the 7th inning of game 1. With the bases loaded and two out, Tino took a pitch that was probably a strike. The umpire called it a ball and then Tino hit the next pitch in the the upper deck giving the Yankees a 9-5 lead. Of course at that point, the game was already tied. The Yankees ended up sweeping the Padres so it may be difficult to blame 1 pitch.
Don't the human umpires rely on optical sensors?
To comment on a point you made on the double play, the umpires allow the player to not touch the base to avoid injury from the incoming base runner. In the umpires judgment, the player would need to have been able to touch the base. Players, umpires, and managers all agree on this point and would rather short cut the touching of the base than risk a serious injury to a player.
Hating the ump is not the “fun: part of the game – it’s a defense mechanism called Self Serving Bias.
Remember, the fan is the “10th player” – they contribute to the success or failure of the game. When the picture pitches and fails, the fan has two choices.
Rationally ascribe the failure to their team – and thus themselves – and recognize that they are a failure. Or they can protect their ego and blame the Ump.
A much better way to improve umpiring is a challenge/replay system like other sports have implemented for the purpose of reversing the most egregious calls. There is already a system in place to use replay to check home run calls but nothing else.
There are a lot of issues that would have to be considered in order to implement a system in baseball. Foul balls called fair can easily be reversed since everything resets back on a foul ball but you can't always go the other way and reverse a fair ball (in the case of a home run but that is already addressed now) that was called foul since the foul call stopped all action at that point. Reversing a call at first is trivial in many situations but not always (a third out will stop all action but if it is reversed and others are on base, they could have moved to other bases or scored on a safe call).
Football has some of the issues but usually the thing that is challenged are play stoppage issues anyway (was the ball carrier down before the fumble, was the receiver in bounds, did the ball cross the plane of the goal line).
No matter where you go, there you are.
I assumed you were aware, I just wanted to let other people know the reason behind allowing the fielder to not tag the base. I don't think a robot could handle the flexibility and abstractness of the baseball rule set (or nearly any complex team sport in general). There are so many situations in baseball that a robot couldn't handle. Think about the balk rules, it is difficult for even an experienced umpire to see some balks, which is why you have four umpires looking for them. Interference and obstruction are also subjective to the situation. Did you the batter lean into the pitch to get hit? Did the batter get in the way of the catcher trying to throw out a runner stealing third? Did the batter offer at the pitch (a subjective item that commentators try to define, though it isn't)? Did the fielder drop the ball on the transfer from glove to throwing hand or on the catch?
Robots couldn't handle any of these situation because they are all subjective and need judgment to decide. When I was in umpire school if an argument ensued, the statement we always give is the call was made in my judgment, because judgment calls can't be challenged. If you mistook the rules though, the manager could protest the game. If they won the protest, that was basically your pink slip.