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
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/
>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.
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...
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.