Technology in Sport: Killing the Fun?

TECHNOLOGY IN SPORT:

The introduction of technology into the officiating of sports has garnered mixed receptions. Impact’s Daniel Evans invites us to look at how technology, by improving officiation methods, has bettered the experience of sports spectators rather than worsened it.

The joy gained from watching drama unfold, be it on the football field, the tennis court, or the rugby pitch, is beyond compare. The thrill of a late goal, the saving of match points or the satisfaction of a well worked try are among the greatest sources of entertainment out there. There is also the agony of watching the team or player you support fall at the very last hurdle, or the anticipation of waiting for past glories to return. Is technology ruining these things? Has it sanitised sport to the point where stadiums are quiet and enjoyment is a distant memory?

Obviously not. In rugby and tennis, the use of TMO and Hawkeye are widely supported and in the case of tennis, drama has even been added as audiences eagerly await the outcome of a line challenge. It is in football that most of the controversies seem to be concentrated, with haphazard and inconsistent decision making raising the hackles of many fans, players, and pundits. Technology in general is a mixed blessing, although in sport it certainly has the capability to improve. Implementation is no simple thing, however, and when it is done incorrectly, it has the potential to do more harm than good.

In the case of Hawkeye in tennis and TMO in rugby, the impacts have been overwhelmingly positive. Hawkeye first saw widespread introduction into tennis in 2006. It involves ten ultramotion high-speed cameras working at 340 frames per second. This data is then combined with calculations that factor in ball compression and spin to provide a prediction that is accurate to within around 3 mm. The accuracy of Hawkeye is high, being able to capture things that the human eye cannot, and it is supported by most of the tennis world. More recently, there has been a move to phase out human linespeople altogether. This is perhaps contentious, with traditionalists favouring a human touch.

However, it is this writer’s view that the true drama of tennis happens between the players. The complete phasing out of linespeople would not cause harm to the sport as a whole and in many ways, it would streamline it, with players no longer having an excuse to waste time with outbursts. Drama is found in such controversies, but it should not be the goal of sporting bodies to artificially induce disputes, particularly not by stonewalling the introduction of changes that could benefit the game.

TMO in rugby is similarly popular among its fans and players. Rugby has far fewer grey areas in its rules than football, meaning it is easier to use a video system to check decisions. Furthermore, rugby refereeing has a far greater degree of transparency, with the spectators being able to hear the voices of those carrying out the checks, increasing the sense of accountability. The widespread roll out of TMO in men’s rugby has happened over the last five to six years, and it has been met with little opposition due to the competency with which it is used. Checks do not typically take long, and decisions rarely unjustly alter the course of a match. The current main issue is that it is not used within the women’s game – although this in itself is an endorsement for TMO, as the issue is that it isn’t used, not that it is. The altogether more divisive face of technology in sport is certainly VAR in football. It is a fairly recent addition, especially when compared to Hawkeye and TMO, and it is perhaps for this reason that there have been so many issues. Football fans do tend to be ultraconservative when it comes to changes in the game; nevertheless, many were willing to give VAR the benefit of the doubt while kinks were ironed out. After two full seasons with it, however, opposition has only grown, with highly subjective opinions being enforced as law in one game and then ignored in the next. On many occasions, penalties and red cards have been given for the slightest contact, or even non-contact: decisions that have game and league altering consequences. Only recently, Leicester City had a goal ruled out because their forward, Harvey Barnes, was supposedly obstructing the keeper, a decision that seemingly only VAR could rationalise as he was not in the goalkeeper’s line of sight.

The use of goal-line technology and VAR for offside rulings is less controversial, as these are absolutes. A player is either onside or they aren’t, and the use of goal-line technology is undoubtedly positive due to its objectivity and accuracy. The issue with VAR is that it is being used too much. Referees on the pitch must make up their own minds for grey areas in the rules, while VAR should be restricted to where its use will yield a clear and obvious decision. The Chelsea manager Emma Hayes has called for VAR to be added to the women’s game, stating that its lack of introduction turns female footballers into ‘second class citizens’. This is not necessarily an endorsement of VAR but justified anger at the continuing inequality between how the women’s and men’s game are treated. A roll out in the women’s game could increase the test area, either confirming or denying its viability. While VAR is controversial, fans are still celebrating goals, the game still moves on as it has, and you will even hear new VAR-related chants being hurled across the terraces. Whilst it has not destroyed football, something needs to be done to keep the emotions of football pure; waiting for five minutes while an unheard referee checks a decision in a cubicle is not good for the game.

Has technology improved sport? Overall, I would say it has. Greater accuracy in decision making and the successful, while often unequal, roll out in tennis and rugby is undoubtedly positive where done. Its implementation in football has been rockier but has been more successful elsewhere in Europe, such as in the German Bundesliga, showing that it is workable. Fans still cheer, stadiums are still full, and this is unlikely to change as a result of technology.

By Daniel Evans

Page Design by Chiara Crompton