Slashdot Mirror
Should Professional Sports Switch To Robot Referees? (hpe.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader Esther Schindler writes: Everyone who watches sports spends some amount of time yelling at the umpire or sports referee. For the past few years we've also been shouting, "Replace that ump with a robot!"
But is it technically feasible? Is the current level of AI and robotics tech up to the job? This article starts with the assumption that someone seriously wants to create a robot umpire or sports referee and then evaluates whether it possible to build an accurate and trustworthy augmented reality solution today.
The article points out that professional tennis matches already apply AI to high-definition video feeds from up to six different cameras to dispense binding judgments on whether a ball was in or out. At the same time, not every officiating decision in every sport is so easily automated, since AI "can't yet handle calls that hinge on judgment of players' intent."
But there's a larger question: do we really want to remove those human watchers from our sports? "Sports is a human activity," argues a professor of social sciences at Cardiff University in Wales, suggesting that human officials continue a cultural tradition which reminds us of who we are. "Humans are imperfect; that's OK."
What do Slashdot's readers think? Should professional sports switch to robot referees?
But is it technically feasible? Is the current level of AI and robotics tech up to the job? This article starts with the assumption that someone seriously wants to create a robot umpire or sports referee and then evaluates whether it possible to build an accurate and trustworthy augmented reality solution today.
The article points out that professional tennis matches already apply AI to high-definition video feeds from up to six different cameras to dispense binding judgments on whether a ball was in or out. At the same time, not every officiating decision in every sport is so easily automated, since AI "can't yet handle calls that hinge on judgment of players' intent."
But there's a larger question: do we really want to remove those human watchers from our sports? "Sports is a human activity," argues a professor of social sciences at Cardiff University in Wales, suggesting that human officials continue a cultural tradition which reminds us of who we are. "Humans are imperfect; that's OK."
What do Slashdot's readers think? Should professional sports switch to robot referees?
Humans might be imperfect, and that's fine. But humans can also be bribed, and that's not fine. When tens of millions of dollars are in play, a referee can cae in to the promise of richness and make a "mistake".
Furthermore, some sports do have certain mathematical rules where the referee can be successfully replaced by automation (not AI, stop using that term, AI doesn't exist yet). For example, in soccer, an automated system can successfully determine whether the ball passed the goal line or not.
I say, replace what can successfully be replaced and leave the referee to decide in all other cases. Oh and we should stop perceiving automation as the enemy, rather we should look at merging the two (humans and automation) from a collaboration perspective. As a matter of fact I am seeing this right these days during the Football World Cup 2018 (the one you call soccer), where video systems are helping the referee make the right choice in deciding penalties.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I asked my fembot and she said the robot referees really get her hot.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Much of the spectator griping is based on their subjective experience. It doesn't matter who makes the call because there will always be someone who views an event differently. If you bring in robots the shout will simply change from "replace that umpire with a robot" to "have that robot rebooted" or similar.
Clearly you need to replace the spectators as well.
Competitive or high stakes games need officiation. Traditionally a human was used because nothing else was available. (e.g. 200 years ago a dog would not ref a boxing match)
The purpose of a human ref is to ensure the goal that game's rules are followed. If that goal can be accomplished with some means better then human, then switch to it.
Of course some games may allow for a bit of slop in the rules which makes the game more enjoyable to players or spectators and cause no real harm, and a tight-assed A.I. ref would kill the greater purpose.
half the fun of watching sports is yelling at the ref. It's not fun yelling at a machine. Hell, we don't need robots, we've had instant replay for decades. Bad ref calls are still a thing because we want them to be.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes. They should switch to robot referees. And robot players. To entertain their robot viewers.
Give it up, guys. It ain't happening.
Tennis - was the ball in, on, or outside the line? It's easy for a camera to have a clear view and reach a conclusion. Objective.
Soccer - Did one player deliberately cause another player to fall or was he going for the ball? Very subjective.
There are some sports, and some parts of other sports, that can benefit from automation. But many sports have too much subjective determination involved to remove human referees. American Football would drive an AI batty in minutes!
Let's talk when we have something close to AGI, something which is capable of thinking.
Right now we have pretty stupid and quite rigid algorithms which require tons of coding, colossal amounts of data to be trained, don't take any human conventions into account (unless they are again hard-coded into), and then these algos cannot understand, generalize, think, doubt and make rational conclusions. While the AI hype is extremely strong (because it attracts a lot of capital and venture capitalists aren't smart enough to see the lies), we have no actual intelligence.
TLDR: Hell, no. Ask in a 100 years. Referees could absolutely use the help of video recordings though.
Why are millennial a such fucking retards?
>For the past few years we've also been shouting, "Replace that ump with a robot!"
no. nope. nada. this is something that literally no one has ever shouted.
Consider this bit of conventional wisdom about the NFL: "The holding rule for offensive linemen is violated on every play." Instead of the rule as written, there is something else that is actually enforced. And the enforced rule is a whole lot more complicated. Grabbing the opponent's jersey is allowed if you don't extend your arm too much. If the opponent doesn't attempt to pull away far enough that the held jersey obviously stretches. And a lot more exceptions.
Don't even get me started on the NBA. An AI referee that called the rules as written would foul out the entire lineup for both teams in the first quarter.
Soccer for instance
- human referee for a long time (had no other choice)
- human referee (video reluctance) (1990~2015)
- human referee with video help (2016~)
- human referee with video help (AI reluctance) (2020~)
- human referee with AI help (2024~)
- AI referee (no other choice, way better than human) (2028~)
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
No.. human referees are part of the game.
But they need to start using video. They can have an A.I. backup and if it contradicts the humans they should consider it's input.
With billions of dollars at stake, corruption of the sport is inevitable. And it only takes one veritably corrupt referee in a major game to ruin the sport with a huge scandal.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No
Will come a time when AI is way better than humans at almost anything. Get used to it.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Next question, please.
Baseball is a perfect example where this is completely feasible. Calling balls vs. strikes when the batter doesn't swing is a matter of where exactly the ball is. Umpires are notoriously inaccurate. The 538 even did a story showing that they biased their calls in favor of ending games that went into extra innings.
But the issue here isn't fairness or doing what is right. Ultimately professional sports are businesses. And they're not in the business of fair games, they're in the entertainment business. Right now, they won't switch to computers because the think it would reduce fan engagement. If fans get fed up with the consistent bad calls, then they'll switch. So when you hear arguments about "human factor," tradition, and fairness, it's all just a smokescreen for what will keep the most fans watching the games.
I'm not a sports fan, but I would prefer whatever solution results in games being decided based on the players, not the referees, and I see that as shifting to more computers. I expect it's just a matter of time before the majority of fans agrees and they make the change.
Human referees might have been ok in the age of wooden rackets etc but I am all in favor of electronic referees now that games are played in high-speed. When will the stupid game auths and audiences realize this ? Humans are so unreliable when it comes to hi-speed decisions based on accuracy.
Yes, because when AI gets to that level, humans will have disappeared. Robots referees will referee robots players.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
No.
And even if that time comes, we will still use humans to make the final call. We make the robots, they work for us.
Get used to it.
Besides by the time they have ref robots, they might as well have ref players. And to finish this equation, bot viewers will watch the games. It's bots and refs all the way down.
Get used to it. LUL
Only if we replace the referees with those South Korean "Aliens" sentry guns. (yes those are actually real things...it's also how AEGIS works, that's the 'networked' version with IFF)
Calling balls vs. strikes is a very clear cut example where a "robot" can do a much better job than a human. But human umpires should still be used for all other calls in baseball.
Hell, we don't need robots, we've had instant replay for decades.
In baseball, instant replay adds interminable delays to a game many people already think takes too long. Additionally, the circumstances under which it can be invoked are quite limited - you can’t challenge ball/strike calls, for instance. And none of it actually involves tech, unless you refer to humans looking at multiple camera angle views and making a decision based on what they’ve seen as “tech”.
I’m willing to put up with human imperfection, but I’d also be fine if MLB suddenly decided it was going to automate ball/strike calls. The tech is already in place for that. But the current challenge-invoked rules are the worst of both worlds, in my opinion.
#DeleteChrome
Baseball could use cameras or other tech to judge balls/strikes but other parts of the game wouldn't work. On a double-play, the second baseman isn't required to touch the base before throwing to first.
Bender: Clem Johnson? That skin bag wouldn't have lasted one pitch in the old Robot Leagues! Now Wireless Joe Jackson, there was a blern hitting machine!
Leela: Exactly! He was a machine designed to hit blerns! I mean come on! Wireless Joe was nothing but a programmable bat on wheels.
Bender: Oh and I suppose Pitch-O-Mat 5000 was just a modified howitzer.
Leela: Yep.
Bender: You humans are so scared of a little robot competition you won't even let us on the field.
Fry: What are you talking about? There's all kinds of robots down there.
Bender: Yeah doing crap work! They're bat boys, ball polishers, sprinkler systems. But how many robot managers are there?
Fry: Eleven?
Bender: Zero! [He throws his bottle on the floor and it breaks. A small robot comes out and cleans it up.] And what a surprise! Look who's scraping up the filth! Is it a human child? I wish!
#DeleteChrome
apply AI to
The chiropractors of CS.... the "AI appliers".
The old school solution of "have you tried turning it ON and OFF" has finally transformed into "have you tried AI"
I've been talking about this a lot lately-- the refereeing in the NBA attracts a lot of complaints.
Right now there's just way too much stuff for referees to look for, at once. There are some things that computers could do very well (3 seconds in the key, lane violations, calling player/ball in/out of bounds, backcourt violation, midcourt 8 second timer). This would free up referees to look for traveling, off-ball contact, etc, so that the overall quality of officiating could improve.
There's not much point to automating ball and strike since the machine isn't going to be able to decide if the batsman went around (since there is no hard and fast rule for that, it's left to the umpire's discretion). None of the systems I have seen can decide between a swinging strike and a foul tip. Also never seen anything that can call hit by pitch or decide if the batsman tried to avoid it or leaned in and took the hit.
There's a saying in American football that you could probably call holding on every play. It's just about true, just watch slo-motion replays. Refs can't see everything all the time*, so most holding isn't called. It's part of the game. With robot refs there would be a flag thrown on just about every play and the game would grind to a halt.
*It's hard to see around or through players who are the size of giants, plus the field has a crown so it's hard to see from one sideline to the other. Ever play the game? You know what I mean.
Nobody goes to a sporting event see umpires or referees. The umps are there, like police, as a necessary evil to ensure rules are followed.
If the umpire gets every call correct he has not made the game better. But every call he gets wrong means the outcome is being decided by something other than the competing players. That diminishes the game.
But say a handheld fob which could buzz if the ball was in the strike zone. Then itâ(TM)s up to the umpire if the batter swung or not etc. but the issue is whether it was a strike in the first place, and the other calls are easy by comparison.
The best way to get rid of mistakes is to use a system that's consistent. At some point the robots will be more consistent than the humans.
There's not much point to automating ball and strike since the machine isn't going to be able to decide if the batsman went around (since there is no hard and fast rule for that, it's left to the umpire's discretion). None of the systems I have seen can decide between a swinging strike and a foul tip. Also never seen anything that can call hit by pitch or decide if the batsman tried to avoid it or leaned in and took the hit.
OTOH, there has yet to be a human umpire that calls the strike zone as in the rulebook and consistently for every pitch.
So maybe automation for some things and not others. The machine can decide if the ball went through the strike zone or not. The human umpire can then decide if it was actually a strike, or one of the conditions you mentioned overrules that.
n/t
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Within reason, bad calls increase engagement with the fans.
If I had to change one thing about the NHL, I'd make intentional illegal hits a career-ending move for the offender. None of this 5 minute penalty or 5 game suspension for something that stunted or ended the other guy's career.
Entertainment, you know. Even if a lot of $ is involved, sports are fundamentally about humans performing, under performing, making errors, screwing up, cheating, etc. Let's just call the referee another yet another part of that.
If you have money riding on a game, that's on you. The outcome is always subject to the fickle finger of fate.
If it's corruption of the referee you're worried about, what about corrupt players, management, etc? Make them into robots, too?
Robot players are not allowed. Robot Referees must not be allowed either. There is no difference.
I dislike the referrees consulting video playback too.
Sports is about human competition. Refereeing must be all human too.
If the ref makes a bad call, so be it. The ref gets to live with the consequences. Too many bad calls and he is out of a job.
Sports is a human entertainment, that has rules and other human's (referee's) are there to enforce. Its not perfect by any shape or form but so what. I think robot referee's may be just a vulnerable to bad calls as humans. Its boring to be perfect all the time.
Grading umpires against a machine after the game has actually resulted in the strike zone being close to rulebook and much more accurate. That seems to be a reasonable step, but I'm not so sure we would see much improvement if the machine actually made the calls in game. I'm sure they are quite accurate in deciding if it was over the plate, but the upper and lower bounds of the zone vary from batsman to batsman.
Sports with robots as players have already arrived both physically and virtually. The E-Sports industry is expected to surpass the $1 billion income mark next year. Though not autonomous or physical robots, this is still virtual robotics. And their viewership routinely surpasses professional sports.
Sports have long been a reflection of military activities. If we developed new sports to reflect the current battlefield, wouldn't they have to use robotics? Drones are robots and critical on the modern battlefield. Guided missiles are robots. Homing missiles are more advanced robots. There is so much automation going on in planes (many of which can't be flown without a computer to stabilize them) and tanks these days that they should be considered manned robots. Even a landmine is an autonomous mechanism that kills without command.
Also, with the introduction of a few sensors in the equipment that we probably should have anyway for safety reasons, big gains in the judgement accuracy of the systems can be made. It isn't fair to artificially limit the system to work with video just because we have to use eyes and ears.
Sports are meaningless. But they should replace cops, judges and politicians with AI as soon as it's possible.
Completely right, which (former) soccer player is called "The Hand of God" and why ...
If everything in such "games" (aka sport, but focusing on the meaning of game) would be "strikt" ... why would you watch something like olympic ice dancing or even tennis?
Where do you draw the line between a foul and "well it was ok" ... an arbiter is "forming the game", reacting on the over all "fairness" or "unfairness", a foul that was "ok" in the first half of the game might be "not ok" in the second half because the arbiter wants to calm down the players ... and that again is a point for discussion for the watchers, so more stuff to talk about.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"We" didn't write the article, and if you actually read the comments, I think you'll find your impression is mistaken.
However, "we" can spell "Star Trek" correctly.
Sports would be far more interesting if the players were bots.
FTFA
Video games are a human activity, doesn't mean we need a human to confirm who got the kill shot first.
The real question is if we can actually product an AI that does a better job then a human referee.
Anything judged by people instead of being measured (time, distance, counts, yes/no) should be out of The Olympics. End of conversation.
Roger Federer is beyond human.
Best Core Java Training in Bangalore Marathahalli & BTM Layout Core Java Training 45 Hours Duration Core JAVA,Database,SQL,Inheritance,Packages,Threads, Interfaces and Abstract Classes Classes available on weekend and weekdays Trainer Profile as 10 Years Industries Experienced Java Training in Bangalore Java Technologies for Web Applications
In boxing intent is not an issue. An accidental foul and a deliberate foul are handled the same way. But having multiple cams at different angles would be wonderful and if AI can be used to detect punches as will as fouls a much higher quality decision can be made. As it stands there are severely corrupt actions created by the judges in matches. They hide under the notion that boxing is subjective which is nonsense. Judges tend to see what they want to see for various reasons.
This site is probably THE worst site to have a sports discussion...
Weren't the fans replaced with robots decades ago?
They should go the other way and totally re-introduce the random human element by banning instant replay.
I was just thinking about this while watching the (tennis) final at Queen's Club. Why should we care so much about a game that we have to apply AI to rulings?
It all goes back to McEnroe's baby-tantrums in the 80's when a guy being paid big bucks to knock a ball about a lawn with no risk to himself whatsoever demanded that he be treated as some sort of superhero.
Screw that. It's just a game - dry your eyes and get on with it, or we'll send you down a Chilean mine for minimum pay and you can see if you can dig up a sense of fucking proportion.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
That is all.
I feel about the same way for spectator sports. But I think I know the way they will die, at least televised ones: CGI sports.
With 1000s of hours of video for any specific team there's more than enough raw material to generate a CGI version of any team playing any other team. With a high-quality simulation of teams and players it would be possible to orchestrate any outcome. More important, it would be possible to not just arrange a game to have team A or team B win but to build up the tension with one barely defeating the other in the final seconds, or a total blowout.
The markets for fantasy sports and e-sports together show that human players in an actual game are not necessary to have an audience.
Sports Illustrated reports the highest grossing sports films:
1. The Blind Side: $256million
2. The Waterboy: $162million
3. The Longest Yard (2005): $158million
4. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby: $148million
5. Rocky IV: $128million
6. Rocky III: $124million
7. Seabiscuit: $120million
8. Blades of Glory: $119million
9. Remember the Titans: $116million
10. Unbroken: $115million
This suggests there's already plenty of money to be made in made-up sports. With the mechanics in place, a group of writers/choreographers could program a whole season.
As soon as they also start playing the sports.
It's not an insane idea for many sports. A lot of the touching in football would need to go away, and the same for basketball. But the palming that goes on today is ubiquitous. Probably every player dribbles with their hand on the side of the ball regularly when moving through opposing players, but they never get called for it. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a player called for palming or carrying the ball?
In short, they would either have to change the rules or not use the robots.
Will come a time when AI is way better than humans at almost anything. Get used to it.
AI? Automated Industry? :p
Reffing has been getting worse the past decade it seems, at least in the US. They let a lot of things slide for Bball in the US, which is why you see our guys play almost a different game internationally. And even with replays, they seem to just rely on it too much when it is convenient so when a "unreviewable" play comes in, they just half ass the call. It is hard to retroactively give a penalty if you miss something, small or completely obvious, but at least something should be done, not just completely ignore it.
Who the hell comes up with this shit? So-called self-driving cars are a disaster, you still can't program a robot to fold laundry correctly, and some moron wants to have a robot officiate over sporting events? People are dumb and getting dumber all the time. Enough of this 'robot' and 'AI' meme bullshit already.
That still leaves bunts.
But there will be a lot of resistance to nailing the rules down for the sake of the machines. More than other professional sports, baseball is about judgement calls. When the unexpected happens due to imperfections in the field or just unlikely random events, the rules actually call for the umpire to decide what would most likely have happened without the odd event and declare that to be the result of the play.
Consider, the ground rule double is nothing more than the observation that if the ball takes a hop deep in the outfield and caroms off the top of the wall, the batsman will get a double practically every time. The Home run is likewise a recognition that if the ball goes over the fence and into the weeds, everyone will get home before the ball can be thrown back in.
Baseball doesn't moan and groan about every field being a bit different, it celebrates it.
There is a third option. Use a robot to augment a human ref. One option would be to have the robot evaluate the referee's performance. If a referee is performing poorly, they get taken out of the game.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
The world cup of robot football was just held in Montreal, and has been going for more than 20 years.