Why Human Referees Are Getting Replaced



Are AI referees ruining sports? Or making them better? Subscribe to if you appreciate optimistic tech journalism. If you’re watching …

source

47 thoughts on “Why Human Referees Are Getting Replaced

  1. cleo just watch one match of anthony taylor refering you will hate each and evry baldies in the world .Same goes to michael oliver and whole pgmol,these guys are commiting a A rated crime and they escape with robots as excuse

  2. Hahaha… the “fans or supporters” who don’t want accuracy… well, what can I say? I usually refer to the saying “right should be right”!
    I saw a post where a “supporter” wrote “I’m done with football..” Yep! Who cares 😅😂😂😂

  3. I've been a hockey ref for around 10 years now… ain't any way that we're getting replaced. There is so many calls where it's basically impossible for a human or robot to tell, that you kinda have tk let humans decide… most of the rulebook is gray at this point. Take icing for example, almost every liney lets it go if they're almost at the red line. Take that away and players get incredibly mad.

    Okay I need to stop rambling I'm not making any sense.

  4. —–
    The biggest problem up until now with robot and computer accuracy isn't that it's too accurate, but rather the reviewing of every ruling that the system is making takes up too much time.
    If and when they reach the point that people actually start trusting the system to make the correct ruling, that is when people stop getting so up in arms about this being a thing.
    I totally understand that getting second guessed for every ruling you make and the validity thereof, but I personally find it rather hypocritical that now people are doing the exact same thing to this system.
    As the speed and accuracy of this system increases over time, this type of ruling is ultimately the most fair.
    —–

  5. This really Serves things up!
    It's a tricky thing, getting more precise with being able to see every detail of a game and tracking everything is such fine details with no margin of error based on the rules of the game. Someone else mentioned a sport using the Hawkeye system but the referee/umpire getting the final say, which seems fair, but I think another solution might be this. Before the game starts, both teams agree from the beginning if there should be a margin of grace and what that is. It could be a measure of distance or, likely better, a percentage of grace, so both sides know and have agreed on the accuracy of the system being used. This way something like the edge of a shoe barely crossing an imaginary line doesn't cost a team from winning a game.

  6. Its so hilarious people think this can replace ball spotting tech in football.

    Newsflash people, we need more than the element of the ball spot to be determined.

    This tech cannot determine when a play is dead and therefore we cannot utilize the tech to replace ball spotting in football as it will still require human intervention to cross reference time points.

    Also, in Tennis and basketball, you have perfect lines to define the boundaries, footballs yardage markers are eyeballed on the field and nowhere near close to perfect, thats where a chain gang is more effective as the chain will measure the distance of 10 yards whether the on field yardage markers are not entirely accurate.

    Due the 100+ yardage markers on the field including the goalines and out of bounds boundaries, this would require an insane amount of cameras and tech to be remotely close to accurate.

    This will not work with the NFL.

  7. I watch the premier league all the time. The irritating part is that they take years to come up with a decision. Also sometimes the corruption gets in the way of the game. For example Liverpool V Tottenham. In that game Liverpool's Left Winger Luis Díaz scores but its flagged as offside when he was in fact onside. They didnt even draw lines to see if he was onside.
    So sure it is useful to have VAR but the referees don't use it correctly and its always faulty.
    They should allow it if a small inch of the players toe is offside because that doesnt give them a big advantage.

  8. Im dissapointed that there was no quote from the immortal inventor Professor Hubert Farnsworth, "No Fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!" …Wich is also a gag on quantum mechanics 😛

  9. Huge miss by not tackling baseball. I’ll explain.

    The sport has been around for so long without tech to help call Balls and Strikes, but now people want tech to do just that. But here’s the thing. A great player is somewhat defined by how good they technically play the game but also how they adjust to the umpires. How a pitcher/hitter understands the Umpire’s strike zone and adjusts.

    So sure, a computer could ensure that by the rules a ball/strike is always to the letter of the Rule. But it would take away something that has made the elite players the elite players. Therefore, it would harm the game—as we know and understand it—itself.

  10. The whole purpose of a referee and umpire and linesmen in certain sports is to be impartial judges of where the ball landed.
    If they had cameras when these sports were invented, linesmen and other such would not have been employed.

  11. For me, any automated system sucks when the game is paused. Let it decide and let the game continue. It's very frustrating to watch the same thing over and over again and wait for the referees to make a decision, in some cases for up to 5 minutes. It makes people frustrated and the players get disconnected from the game, both mentally and physically.

  12. technology makes it fair. It might not be 100% accurate but the margin of error is equal to everyone. Same event is called always in the same way so nobody can take advantage of the mistake exclusively.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optimized by Optimole