Technology should be embraced, not blindly rejected, and sports should evolve with technology. It's true that sports may become different, but it's also important to remember that fans have also become different. Now armed with instant replay at home and the ability to see the validity of calls, fans have become significantly more critical of officiating than they've ever been. Officials should always be the most informed, never the least-informed, viewers of any sporting event. The following are some myths and realities of the integration of technology and officiating, and in this post are some of the possible applications of the ideas shared below.
Myth: Using more technology in sports will decrease the "human element" of the game
Sports often pride themselves in the "human element" of the game. In baseball, this usually refers to the strike zone and how different umpires have slightly different strike zones. In basketball and soccer, this usually refers to the standard of what a foul is and how tightly a game is with respect to fouls called. Though the fear of the elimination of the human element of games is legitimate, the reality is that it is still possible to incorporate more technology in refereeing games without compromising the human element of sports. After all, it is humans that look at replays and humans that even decide if replays are needed on the first place! Also, using replay won't eliminate the need for human officials- in most cases there will be an increase to the number of officials for sports matches, even if not all the officials are actually on the field of play.
Will the strike zone ever be replaced by computer software? Maybe. Will fouls ever be called by robots? I doubt it. Even though how tightly a game is called with respect to both fouls and a strike zone are supposedly objective, the reality that everyone recognizes is that they are the subjectiveness of these aspects of the game that give sports their "human element." Nobody is calling for replays of strikes or fouls, but why not make the more objective parts of games like buzzer-beaters, goals, and home runs completely objective by video replay? The only human element taken away from subjecting objective calls to video replay is the human element of mistakes, which should not be desired in the first place. The human element that everyone cries for isn't about the black and white calls that most instant replay is used for but the grey areas that video replay probably wouldn't clear up anyway.
[After instant replay, Jay Cutler was dismissed for public intoxication]
Myth: Technology will destroy the flow of the game.
The destruction of the flow of any game is the biggest fear of sports' self-declared "purists." While technology and replay done wrong can definitely destroy the flow of a game, as we can often see in the NFL where flow is not as important, technology used correctly can really add to the game. I truly believe that with careful planning, there is a way to make integration of most technology and replays nearly unnoticeable. The following is an example of a working system:
NBA 2, 3-point shot reviews - Most of us now take the review of 2 and 3 point shots for granted and don't give it a second thought when a three-pointer is changed to two points fifteen seconds after the shot. There is no change in the flow of the game and no one really pays attention to it. The NBA took great lengths to make these replays as seamless as possible, as you can read here. It's also interesting to note that Phil Jackson was skeptical of the change, but probably has no current objections to the new system.
Most reviews take only a few seconds to make and if an extra official is added in front of a television to watch a replay and communicate to the on-field officials via earpeice, on-field officials won't need to waste time walking to and from replay booths. It might take a while for officials to get used to the system, but I'm confident that this is a viable long-term solution for many issues such as soccer offsides and baseball foul/fair balls.
Reality: Accountability without technology is unnecessarily painful
Proponents of more instant replay say that referees would be in favor of it because their first priority is to get calls right while its opponents claim that instant replay takes away from the authority and importance of referees. We don't really know what referees think about instant replay, but I can say with certainty that it's unfair for a league to discipline its officials without providing the maximum tools to succeed. Yesterday, FIFA dismissed four referees that either missed big calls or made wrong calls. FIFA itself recognized that officials make mistakes and that it was all part of the game, so to dismiss them is both inconsistent and unfair. FIFA should take some responsibility for the wrong calls because their refusal to use the basic instant replay that soccer leagues around the world have already adopted. Similarly, it will be difficult for leagues to keep their officials accountable for incorrect calls they make if they don't put them in a place to succeed.
[After replay, I'm pretty sure that's a home run]
Reality: There is no perfect system
The system now is imperfect, and future systems that include more technology and instant replay will also be imperfect. A great example of this is occurred in the NBA finals a month ago when, in the last two minutes of the game, Rondo fouled Lamar Odom, causing him to lose the ball out of bounds. Replays clearly showed both the ball going off on Odom and Rondo's foul, which had previously been missed by the officials. However, because officials can't use replay to call fouls (which I agree with), the officials had no choice but to award the ball to the Celtics, which was the right decision given the rules of the game but not the ideal, correct outcome.
But even if there's no perfect system, it doesn't mean that we can't continue to improve the current system.
Reality: It is foolish to reject the advancement of technology
In an era where we can carry around the internet in our pockets and it's possible to view replays in 360 degrees for every possible angle, why can't referees watch a simple replay of a play? While I can sympathize with the sentiment of tradition and keeping the integrity of sports, I think that dismissing all attempts at reducing human error in officiating is foolish and irresponsible. Sports have gotten better over the years as leagues look to appeal to fans more. Can you imagine the NFL without free substitution or playoffs or basketball without the shot clock or free throws? Similarly, the addition of more technology to correct calls needs to happen to appease fans who have access to more footage than they ever have. Fans can no longer just take referees at their word and are horrified when incorrect calls are made. It's not just about getting the call right; it's about communicating to fans that leagues are committed to good officiating.
Does anyone really believe that sports will look the same 50 years from now? Sports have been evolving and the games now don't look the same as they were even just ten years ago. The culture of sports have been constantly evolving. It wasn't very long ago that all basketball players wore short-shorts and baseball players wore only knee-breaches. The NFL has been going through a quest to improve player safety while the MLB is working hard to end the steroid era. Sports will never remain the same, so to dismiss the use of more technology because of a fear of changing the game is foolish. Proper use of technology will only improve the playing of games and increase the enjoyment of games for fans.
As technology advances, all of society evolves with it. We can try and fight it (we all know people who do), but in the end, there's no way to avoid its effect in society, especially in sports.
No comments:
Post a Comment