Why Not Just Computerize Sports Refs And Umps?

from the who-needs-the-human-element? dept

Wed, Sep 3rd 2008 9:59pm — Mike Masnick

Last week, Major League Baseball introduced instant replay for the first time (oddly, MLB rushed the introduction mid-season, with no real testing), which has many wondering if the rather "human" element of umpires making bad calls will be a lost element of the game. While it can suck when such wrong calls go against your team, the umpires' ability to screw up has always been a part of the appeal to many fans of the game. However, Farhad Manjoo over at Slate is wondering about the inevitable next step: moving to completely automated umpires and referees in various sports. He compares the Hawk Eye system that is used in tennis to determine whether a ball is in or out to the efforts in MLB, but points out that computerized systems are far from perfect. In fact, they can lead to some highly questionable results, such as a situation in which every single human observer believed a ball was out, and even television replays showed the ball appeared out -- but Hawk Eye claimed it was in, and that the problem was that human eyes weren't good enough to see if the ball was really in or out. At that point, it makes you wonder whether or not such a machine ruling really makes sense.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: automation, computers, referees, sports, umpires

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:32pm

They're horrendous and lead to ridiculous delays in games and WORSE officiating. Rugby League is a great example; refs are so dependent on video replay and putting players on report that they very rarely make key decisions in games any more. Ref's f***ing up IS part of the charm of sports and should be preserved. Of course, as money becomes the most important part of the game rather than the competition itself, this will be seen as less and less acceptable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ashwin, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:46pm

Comptuters are right
Why, of course, the computer is always right. The rules stipulate that if the ball is out, it is out. Now, if the human eye, at its measly 25 fps capture rate is not in a position to make a call, that does not quite obviate the word of the law. Consider the game of Cricket. Now, computers essentially make the decision for the more crucial kinds of outs while the obvious ones (such as getting Bowled, caught, etc...) are just a matter of rigmarole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dishevel, 4 Sep 2008 @ 12:25am

The real problem
The real problem is in sports like football. Where the refs just don't make bad calls but actually interfere with the plays themselves.
Get the refs off the field.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc, 4 Sep 2008 @ 12:42am

well nothing could be worse
well pretty much nothing could be worse than amateur boxing rules and judges. even in a high level event like the olympics, almost every round was littered with times that legal punches obviously connected and no point was scored. in fact, one of the biggest problems is that even an impartial observer can almost never watch both fighters well enough to be able to score hits on both sides.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 5:56am

I've always kind of liked and hated baseball. With the introduction of instant replay they have now made up my mind. This kids out of here. Good Bye MLB.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 6:30am

Why not just jump all the way in?
Make all sports players robotic too. Then all the money that would have been wasted on grown men playing kiddie games can go to improving the the lives of the general public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ronald Hobbs, 4 Sep 2008 @ 6:45am

Re: Comptuters are right
But Humans are still in charge of calling the 3rd umpire... lots of legit LWB calls get dismissed because the 1st ump underestimates the spin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
james (profile), 4 Sep 2008 @ 7:00am

Read the article
I read the article and they are not using to overide a bad call, it is used to review questionable home runs and fan interference wit the ball only. MLB has stated that it is all it will ever be used for period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 7:14am

Why not simulate it all?
Lets face it computer simulated atheletes could do far better then real ones, even all pumped full of horse testerone. They have benefits beyond performance as well; there cheaper, they wont beat thier wives, kill thier pregant girlfriends, sell crack to children or rape debutaunts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 4 Sep 2008 @ 7:59am

OU vs. Oregon. Watching a bunch of idiots staring at a pile when the ball has popped out and been picked up by the opposing team... only to be called home team ball...

'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 8:57am

Interesting idea . . . not a sports guy, but
. . . I've always thought that the officiating of the sport was part of the sport. It's not perfect for a reason and it forces the players to try to exploit observations they make about the flexibility the refs may be unintentionally giving them.

There's one big problem with computerizing the refs, though. What would the fans and sports commentators have to blame when their team loses an important match? It seems in the sports section the day after every big game, there's some lunkhead complaining about this or that call being wrong, countered by some other lunkhead from the other team complaining about this or that other call being wrong.

Plus, I think they have a union, so they'd probably still have to be employed, but now they'd be the guy that hits the button when the computer catches something wrong. Kind of a waste of energy, if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 4 Sep 2008 @ 11:44am

Bad calls are appealing?
Perhaps it's because I'm not a big sports fan, but I completely don't understand this statement...

the umpires' ability to screw up has always been a part of the appeal to many fans of the game

What could possibly be appealing to a fan about an official screwing up? If a bad call is against your team, then you feel bad because your team was unfairly penalized. If the bad call favors your team, you may feel good, but you shouldn't because your team is unfairly benefiting at the cost of the other team.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abner Doubleday, 4 Sep 2008 @ 12:15pm

Since when have bad calls been appealing? The umpires are NOT part of the game, and they shouldn't be. If you just want people making blind guesses, take down the foul poles, remove the baselines, take away the gloves and go back to the way the game was played 100 years ago. All these things were adopted for a reason, they made the game fairer (except gloves, which made it easier). If McEnroe were playing today, do you think he'd be having arguments with Cyclops (the tennis line judging machine)? Nope, and I don't think anyone out there found his tantrums "charming". The umpires, and rightly so, are afraid of losing their jobs to machines, but they shouldn't be afraid of using machines to ensure they make the correct calls. Checking if a ball is a HR or foul takes less time than the manager arguing it out with the umpire and the umpire throwing him out, AND gets the call correct. These days, when we've got umpires and referees altering the outcome of games due to gambling, I'd rather have a machine verifying the results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje, 4 Sep 2008 @ 2:58pm

Are you all kidding me?
Could there possibly be a topic less worth this amount of attention? Who cares? Both results are sub-optimal. Pick one and live with it. But we are tool-making animals and there will always be someone that thinks you can solve a problem with a tool. As a result technology will always encroach on our lives in one way or the other. Learn to live with it or bow out of the race.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nonuser, 4 Sep 2008 @ 6:24pm

technology has its place
It looks like the major sports are already making sensible use of it. Line judges in tennis seem to be/have been a necessary nuisance, so that's an example of a job that can be replaced by a machine. Ditto for some calls in team sports, such as home runs in baseball and field goals in football.

Machines won't replace baseball umpires or football/basketball refs, though. Baseball is extremely tradition-bound, and umpires calling the strikes and put-outs are very much a part of that tradition (including the entertaining screaming machines they sometimes get into with managers and batters). Refs in football and basketball are constantly making judgement calls about which fouls to call. If that was done by a machine, there would be six fouls called on every play, and the crowd would head for the exits by the end of the first quarter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Court9 Tennis, 14 Oct 2010 @ 8:11am

Hawk Eye works with Tennis
I think Hawk Eye has been a great addition to the professional game of Tennis. Because it's only used on a per challenge basis (and the number of challenges per set are limited) it adds an extra dimension to the game from a spectators perspective. The crowd always seem to love it when a player challenges a call.

There are currently calls for similar technologhy to be used in squash aswell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]