Replacing Sports Referees With Technology? 72
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?"
Photo finish (Score:4, Interesting)
The human factor makes the game (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, 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
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:2)
At least one on every play :)
If you ever have a chance to watch an american football game and consider the close calls that are shown on TV (where they are right most of the time on the field) are done in real time by a small team of people - it's amazing how many of them they get right.
It's the ones that they get wrong (and badly, game-changingly wrong) that suck.
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:2)
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:2)
The rule of thumb is from the belt to the knees (or letters to the knees), and over the plate. This changes for every player. But what about the guy whose wheel house (prime hitting area) is just below the knees or just above the letters. The ump has a little leeway as to what is and isn't a strike.
What about the 41 year old hall of fame bound pitcher who's two strikes away from his first ever perfect game, in a
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:2)
Having a robot that called balls and strikes correctly instead of an ump would not reduce the "human factor" in baseball.
Perhaps if baseball was a brand new sport. The strategies of pitcher trying to expand the zone, catchers trying to make a ball look like a strike, and batters trying to squeeze the zone are all part of the game. It's hard to remove a factor like that in a game that's over a century old. People still argue about the designater hitter 30 years later.
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the humans actually playing the game and competing make the game.
And if anybody was suggesting that, your complaint might be valid. But we're talking about replacing referees. Those aren't the people playing the game.
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:2)
>In theory (the Jetson's universe) watching
>robots play is just a case of waiting to
>see who's bearings wear out sooner.
Now that you mention it, I *do* want to watch robots play sports. (But then, I can't imagine wanting to watch humans play sports. . . so perhaps I'm missing something in this discussion.)
After all, what can you hope to see in a human game? Someone throws a ball a little bit faster than usual, or someone does something dumb but not partic
Re:The human factor makes the game (Score:2)
Spectator Sport (Score:5, Insightful)
By keeping the human element in the officating, we keep the games interesting. You want to keep as much to talk about as you can... entire industries are created around this (Sports Radio is a major one).
You could run the whole game as a computer simulation, but it wouldn't be as interesting.
Re:Spectator Sport (Score:2)
Re:Spectator Sport (Score:1)
FIFA (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an early announcement:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,
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.
Re:FIFA (Score:2, Funny)
You mean soccer?
Re:FIFA (Score:2, Flamebait)
Little girls in the US play "soccer".
"Football", or "fútbol" is the game where you use your feet to kick a ball, and several other parts of your opponent's anatomies (that's one of the differences with "soccer", the kicking).
Re:FIFA (Score:2, Troll)
Since international "football" doesn't have the level of intense strategy found in American football, the speed of hockey or lacrosse, the level of athleticism found in basketball, or the intense one-on-one element of tennis or even baseball, I really don't see its status in the US changing any time soon.
I do like watching it at t
Re:FIFA (Score:1)
And it's boring.
Soccer less popular because... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 coul
Re:Soccer less popular because... (Score:2)
You might be onto something, though. Maybe something like a two point shot from way outside the
Re:Soccer less popular because... (Score:2)
FIFA made many changes in order to gain a more offensive play.
A tie was worth 1 point and a win, 2 points, before.
Now it's 3 for a win, so if you are winning one goal ahead, missing 90 seconds, you still have 2 points to care about.
And you win or lose a championship because of those two points.
Another thing is that in tournaments there is simple elimination, and games have a definition similar to basketball, where you can tie, but play extra time , with sudden death some times, or shoot
Re:FIFA (Score:2)
Surely you jest.
Re:FIFA (Score:2)
>Surely you jest.
Soccer playing males, have the chests of 10 year old girls.
Re:FIFA (Score:1)
Re:FIFA (Score:2)
If nicely built chests is what you want, body building might be your sport.
Re:FIFA (Score:2)
Re:FIFA (Score:2)
It looks like crap on TV. Plus, it has too low scores to keep your attention.
On the other hand, it's a good game to practice. Everybody does it, in South America.
Since we've been playing it since we were kids, we enjoy watching it.
I'm really bad playing it, but I really enjoy playing it.
Of course, it's good to watch the game you like,played by pros. But it's a game for the guy who plays it, not the guy who watches it.
Another advantage it has, compared
We don't need no stinkin' infrastructure! (Score:1)
I have heard that excuse given many times, and I still have to disagree. Soccer needs a ball, and optionally some goal area (only if you want to keep score). Likewise, baseball needs a ball, and a stick. Bases are optional, or can be landmarks (why does second base keep crawling away?) Mitts are very good for hard balls, but not needed (early american baseball didn't use m
Re:We don't need no stinkin' infrastructure! (Score:2)
Futbol is actually very accesible to real poor kids.
Great stars _do_ come from very poor places. Maradona, Tevez, are from very (very) poor places. In my country, Uruguay, most of them come from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, and many become stars in Europe. Of course, being poor is an incentive to try and shine in sports so you can make a living out of it, but in this sport I believe the thing that helps is that poor places can produce
Ludditery. (Score:2)
Yeah. It's just not "traditional." You can pour millions of dollars looking into hi-tech ways to improve the players performance and whatnot, but if it doesn't appear on the surface to be the same old game consumers won't buy it. Supposedly.
Re:who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what lets me, in my comfortable easy chair, forget about the bad things I can't do anything about.
If people were constantly stuck in oh-my-god-the-world-is-a-bad-place mode, would the world be a better place? Not likely.
Re:who cares? (Score:2)
Re:who cares? (Score:2)
I used to think this way, too. Lately, though, I'm starting to believe that this is a misconception, common as it may be. Consider, for example, Unger's Living High and Letting Die [oup.com].
Mike
It's been rejected (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's been rejected (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a good idea which wasn't implemented well enough, IMO.
Re:It's been rejected (Score:2)
All games will use technology that's proven and effective, but it always needs a human on top of it to overrule obvious errors. Football (soccer) already has video replays to check on fouls. Cricket has the "third umpire", again for video replays.
But it can't affect how the game works. In the case of tennis and baseball, I suspect the special balls to make this work will behave differently to "traditional" one
Replace? or Augment? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think that you will ever be able to replace referees with computers -- there is too much in sport that requires subjective judgements. In baseball, did the batter step into a pitch in order to get a base, or was he trying to avoid getting hit? In horse racing, did one jockey intentionally jostle another, or not (and remember that horse racing gave us the phrase "photo finish" -- one of the first examples of technology in sport)? In hockey or football, was a certain action within the acceptable bounds of contact, or does it warrant penalty?
Additionally, technology is fallible. For instance, it takes a fair amount of work to keep a foil in order. Springs have to be able to take a certain load; wires break; blades break; screws get lost; and all of these things cost money to replace. I would imagine that the same would be true of any technology. Just how much of a beating can a sensor take before it is useless? How much would it cost to put a sensor in every baseball used in a game? How long would a sensor improved football last? And, would it really be worth it? Sure there are some games that are won or lost on controversial calls (see the White Sox, last week). However, is it worth the cost of putting a sensor in every baseball, when it is only going to really matter once in ten thousand pitches?
Anyway, fans love to hate officials
Re:Replace? or Augment? (Score:2)
Uh, let's break down the costs and income from a ga
Re:Replace? or Augment? (Score:2)
How much would it cost to put a sensor in every baseball used in a game?
I imagine that could get expensive in a hurry, especially if you count all of the balls tossed into the crowd (especially those caught for the third out). If the balls got that much more expensive, players might start feeling pressure to put an end to a great public relations gesture.
The payoff wouldn't be all that great. USUALLY, the ump is pretty consistant about the strike zone (no matter how many claim otherwise). The strike
human element (Score:2)
Besides... if we could replace the ref with a robot, what i want to know is, how soon can we replace some of the players?
Re:human element (Score:1)
WHY?? BECAUSE IT'S AN F'N GAME! (Score:3, Interesting)
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!"
Re:WHY?? BECAUSE IT'S AN F'N GAME! (Score:2)
Then the coaches, then the players, then the fans (Score:2)
1) There is a players union that requires that referees be humans with certain salaries.
2) To a sports nut, the human referees are just as much a part of the game as the coaches. Replacing the referees with machines would be like replacing the players with machines.
Re:Then the coaches, then the players, then the fa (Score:2)
Re:Then the coaches, then the players, then the fa (Score:2)
A robot audience watching a robot marching band, waiting in line at robot run concession stands to purchase artificial food. Robot cheerleaders leading the robot audience in chants. Robots programmed to do "the wave" slightly out of sequence in order to achieve a human-like ripple. Robot bookies taking cash from robot sports betters. Robot mobs violently confronting the robot fans of the opposing team outside in choreographed fights before being handcuffed and carted away by
Give it time (Score:1)
Soon enough technology will replace everything...including you and whatever it is you probably do!
Patience my child! Mwuuuhahahahahaha!
Automated Refs will have a paper trail... (Score:2)
Do we yell at the programmers now? (Score:2)
Else printf "You're Out!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, in football (American-style), an couple of sensors can determine whether the football was advanced ten yards or whether it broke the plane of the goal line, but you'd need an army of them to determine whether a runner was down by contact before fumbling, when a play ended exactly based on halting a runner's forward progress, whether a penalty like roughing the passer or holding or pass interference occurred. Computers aren't well suited to judging human behavior, so it may be difficult for them to determine whether to determine whether a foul was "flagrant," a player deserves a red card vs. a yellow card. If human beings are still necessary on the field of play in order to make judgement calls, then why bother bringing in technology in the first place?
Now, there are some avenues in which technological innovations could improve officiating. I generally like the use of instant replay in sports, and think systems like the NFL and NBA have in place (that in essence leave the mundane calls to refs on the field, but make video review available for important plays or last-second shots) work well, but they can only reduce, not eliminate bad calls. I think embedded sensors in a few places on the playing field could offer a trove of useful information for making calls- for example, if there were a sensor embedded in the dirt in front of home plate that checks for the ball making contact with the ground on strike three, that Pierzynski play in Game 2 of the ALCS may have been called differently. Or maybe not. The more electronic technology you put on the playing field, the more likely it becomes that a call gets screwed up due to something like low sampling rate in a sensor, transient electromagnetic interference, or an error in a computer program. Besides, as other posters have already pointed out, the occasional disputed call is a part of sports themselves- and we get far more to talk/argue about from blown calls than for perfect ones.
No Just update tech (Score:3, Insightful)
Also what about the chains for football, that is all dog & pony. You're gon'na sit there and tell me that a guy trotting down the field holding a chain is better than GPS? I know the ball placement is more art than science but not measuring distance.
Fastrax was dumb but the idea of cameras following the puck autonomously was freak'n cool and highlighting against the close boards was ok just not a good as a talented director switching camera angles. The other highlighting was ugly and annoying.
Re:No Just update tech (Score:1)
Also, as far as the chains go, the chain guys don't screw up. There is a marker they put on a yard line to set the chains properly. What's ludicrous about that whole proc
Re:No Just update tech (Score:2)
As someone else stated, it's not the chains that are ludicrous backwards technology, it's ball placement. Unfortunately, that is not replaceable by machines yet. Can it measure exactly where the football is? Of course. But you have to know where the ball is
Sports? Slashdot? (Score:1)
I'm still not understanding... Anyone help me out? What is this... "Physical activity"?
technology and hockey (Score:2)
If a goal is disputed, the goal judge watches the video (usually from several angles) and decides if the goal is valid or not.
Sometimes a ref misses a call and the game goes on, but the player is punished after officials had a chance to review the tapes [foxsports.com].
Find the *truth* with video replays; no new "tech" (Score:1)
We're all forgetting here...we've been using technology in sports for decades! Sports have always been caught on tape. That process has been fine tuned pretty well all this time. I conceed that they could up the frame rate (as mentioned above). But come on; look at the progress since Mikey Mantle's day, when all was black and white and the score board on the bottom of the screen was just a group of white letters and numbers. Now we've got the little fox logo with the animated chart that shows you the entire
strike calling tech in baseball (Score:4, Informative)
The system works by lining up tracking devices/cameras around a predetermined zone. Big problem. The strike zone is defined "from the bottom of the batter's knees to the midpoint between his shoulders and belt as he stands in a habitual crouch." This varies from batter to batter, it varies by the batter's stance; it can't be predetermined. Even instantaneously, it's a judgement call when a 90+ mph pitch is passing by. Then there's the matter that the strike zone is meant to be called as the ball goes over the plate. The strike zone isn't a plane at the front of the plate like many casual fans think. It's a solid volume floating above the pentagonal home plate. When pitchers are throwing good curveballs and sliders, that's very tough to get right, even for a machine.
When the system first came out, it was only in a handful of parks (7? out of 30). Umpires immediately tried to adapt to the system, trying to predict what their zone needed to be to agree with often-flawed calibrations. Games in those parks were way out of the norm for awhile. Players threw tantrums (and Curt Schilling actually broke a machine) protesting the system. Now the system is in many more parks (~23) and the system is no longer in the spotlight. I believe the umps actually negotiated on what the system could and couldn't be used for (ie, personnel decisions) in their last labor agreement.
There's an editorial from the original roll-out at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,59284
Hawkeye (Score:1)
In cricket it shows the path of each ball from the bowler's hand to the ground and from the ground to the bat. It can measures the velocity at any point too. It's used quite often in tests by the 3rd umpire for LBW decisions. It works really well.
But this is a human game (Score:1)
Physics changes... (Score:2)
Take a tennis ball for example. Any electronics placed in it would modify the physics of the ball tremendously, and the players would be playing an entirely new game.
It depends on the game (Score:1)