Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics AI

Should Professional Sports Switch To Robot Referees? (hpe.com) 124

Posted by EditorDavid from the bleep-bleep-bloop-play-ball dept.
Long-time Slashdot reader Esther Schindler writes: Everyone who watches sports spends some amount of time yelling at the umpire or sports referee. For the past few years we've also been shouting, "Replace that ump with a robot!"

But is it technically feasible? Is the current level of AI and robotics tech up to the job? This article starts with the assumption that someone seriously wants to create a robot umpire or sports referee and then evaluates whether it possible to build an accurate and trustworthy augmented reality solution today.
The article points out that professional tennis matches already apply AI to high-definition video feeds from up to six different cameras to dispense binding judgments on whether a ball was in or out. At the same time, not every officiating decision in every sport is so easily automated, since AI "can't yet handle calls that hinge on judgment of players' intent."

But there's a larger question: do we really want to remove those human watchers from our sports? "Sports is a human activity," argues a professor of social sciences at Cardiff University in Wales, suggesting that human officials continue a cultural tradition which reminds us of who we are. "Humans are imperfect; that's OK."

What do Slashdot's readers think? Should professional sports switch to robot referees?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should Professional Sports Switch To Robot Referees? More

Should Professional Sports Switch To Robot Referees?

Comments Filter:

  • Slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)

    by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Saturday June 23, 2018 @02:43PM (#56834580)

    Humans might be imperfect, and that's fine. But humans can also be bribed, and that's not fine. When tens of millions of dollars are in play, a referee can cae in to the promise of richness and make a "mistake".
    Furthermore, some sports do have certain mathematical rules where the referee can be successfully replaced by automation (not AI, stop using that term, AI doesn't exist yet). For example, in soccer, an automated system can successfully determine whether the ball passed the goal line or not.
    I say, replace what can successfully be replaced and leave the referee to decide in all other cases. Oh and we should stop perceiving automation as the enemy, rather we should look at merging the two (humans and automation) from a collaboration perspective. As a matter of fact I am seeing this right these days during the Football World Cup 2018 (the one you call soccer), where video systems are helping the referee make the right choice in deciding penalties.

    • But humans can also be bribed, and that's not fine.

      Programmers can also be bribed. In addition to ref-bots, we should also replace the players with robots. That may make sports interesting enough to actually watch.

      • Programmers can also be bribed.

        And their code can also be reviewed. And once the software is compiled, Bob's yer uncle.
        It's much harder to change the software on a per-match basis.

  • Well, I asked... (Score:3)

    by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgwNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday June 23, 2018 @02:50PM (#56834616) Journal

    I asked my fembot and she said the robot referees really get her hot.

  • No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday June 23, 2018 @02:56PM (#56834652)
    half the fun of watching sports is yelling at the ref. It's not fun yelling at a machine. Hell, we don't need robots, we've had instant replay for decades. Bad ref calls are still a thing because we want them to be.

    • No

      Will come a time when AI is way better than humans at almost anything. Get used to it.

    • Hell, we don't need robots, we've had instant replay for decades.

      In baseball, instant replay adds interminable delays to a game many people already think takes too long. Additionally, the circumstances under which it can be invoked are quite limited - you can’t challenge ball/strike calls, for instance. And none of it actually involves tech, unless you refer to humans looking at multiple camera angle views and making a decision based on what they’ve seen as “tech”.

      I’m willing to put up with human imperfection, but I’d also be fine if M

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        There's not much point to automating ball and strike since the machine isn't going to be able to decide if the batsman went around (since there is no hard and fast rule for that, it's left to the umpire's discretion). None of the systems I have seen can decide between a swinging strike and a foul tip. Also never seen anything that can call hit by pitch or decide if the batsman tried to avoid it or leaned in and took the hit.

    • Completely right, which (former) soccer player is called "The Hand of God" and why ...

      If everything in such "games" (aka sport, but focusing on the meaning of game) would be "strikt" ... why would you watch something like olympic ice dancing or even tennis?

      Where do you draw the line between a foul and "well it was ok" ... an arbiter is "forming the game", reacting on the over all "fairness" or "unfairness", a foul that was "ok" in the first half of the game might be "not ok" in the second half because the a

  • YES (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yes. They should switch to robot referees. And robot players. To entertain their robot viewers.

  • Should professional sports switch to robot referees?

    Let's talk when we have something close to AGI, something which is capable of thinking.

    Right now we have pretty stupid and quite rigid algorithms which require tons of coding, colossal amounts of data to be trained, don't take any human conventions into account (unless they are again hard-coded into), and then these algos cannot understand, generalize, think, doubt and make rational conclusions. While the AI hype is extremely strong (because it attracts

  • nobody has ever said this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    >For the past few years we've also been shouting, "Replace that ump with a robot!"

    no. nope. nada. this is something that literally no one has ever shouted.

  • Depends on the sport, probably (Score:3)

    by michael_cain ( 66650 ) on Saturday June 23, 2018 @03:06PM (#56834708) Journal
    Consider this bit of conventional wisdom about the NFL: "The holding rule for offensive linemen is violated on every play." Instead of the rule as written, there is something else that is actually enforced. And the enforced rule is a whole lot more complicated. Grabbing the opponent's jersey is allowed if you don't extend your arm too much. If the opponent doesn't attempt to pull away far enough that the held jersey obviously stretches. And a lot more exceptions.

    Don't even get me started on the NBA. An AI referee that called the rules as written would foul out the entire lineup for both teams in the first quarter.

    • Don't even get me started on the NBA. An AI referee that called the rules as written would foul out the entire lineup for both teams in the first quarter.

      Shouldn't that mean that either the players play according to the rules or change the rules? Saying that "The refs can't call the rules as the players play and that's just how it is" seems a bit silly to me. I'd be happy if they would start calling traveling and palming again.

      • Don't even get me started on the NBA. An AI referee that called the rules as written would foul out the entire lineup for both teams in the first quarter.

        Shouldn't that mean that either the players play according to the rules or change the rules? Saying that "The refs can't call the rules as the players play and that's just how it is" seems a bit silly to me. I'd be happy if they would start calling traveling and palming again.

        Having played and later refereed; the ref's job is to control the game without inserting themselves into it. If you make every ticky tacky call the game stops being the game. Call the big ones, penalize the flagrant, but let the players play the game. The players understand the bounds beyond the rules and generally stay within them; when they don't they get called for it.

  • Soccer for instance
    - human referee for a long time (had no other choice)
    - human referee (video reluctance) (1990~2015)
    - human referee with video help (2016~)
    - human referee with video help (AI reluctance) (2020~)
    - human referee with AI help (2024~)
    - AI referee (no other choice, way better than human) (2028~)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fisted ( 2295862 )

      So AI to arrive within the next two years? That's a pretty tight schedule but I like your optimism.

  • No.. human referees are part of the game.

    But they need to start using video. They can have an A.I. backup and if it contradicts the humans they should consider it's input.

    With billions of dollars at stake, corruption of the sport is inevitable. And it only takes one veritably corrupt referee in a major game to ruin the sport with a huge scandal.

  • No (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Next question, please.

  • Strikes/Balls in Baseball (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Saturday June 23, 2018 @03:13PM (#56834746) Homepage Journal

    Baseball is a perfect example where this is completely feasible. Calling balls vs. strikes when the batter doesn't swing is a matter of where exactly the ball is. Umpires are notoriously inaccurate. The 538 even did a story showing that they biased their calls in favor of ending games that went into extra innings.

    But the issue here isn't fairness or doing what is right. Ultimately professional sports are businesses. And they're not in the business of fair games, they're in the entertainment business. Right now, they won't switch to computers because the think it would reduce fan engagement. If fans get fed up with the consistent bad calls, then they'll switch. So when you hear arguments about "human factor," tradition, and fairness, it's all just a smokescreen for what will keep the most fans watching the games.

    I'm not a sports fan, but I would prefer whatever solution results in games being decided based on the players, not the referees, and I see that as shifting to more computers. I expect it's just a matter of time before the majority of fans agrees and they make the change.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fred911 ( 83970 )

      "Baseball is a perfect example where this is completely feasible."

      Not a sports fan either but along the same lines, football ('merkin) is probably an example of a sport where it isn't. How could AI determine if a receiver had "control" of a reception before hitting the ground? Even with perfect video telemetry what time period determines "control"? Seems like human judgement will always be necessary for application of "fuzzy" rules.

      • Seems like human judgement will always be necessary for application of "fuzzy" rules.

        Reminds me of a joke about the Turing test: if it can explain the offside rule consistently, it's a computer.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )

          Seems like human judgement will always be necessary for application of "fuzzy" rules.

          Reminds me of a joke about the Turing test: if it can explain the offside rule consistently, it's a computer.

          Definitely wasn't said by someone knowledgeable about sports. Offside is one of the very few rules that's pretty simple across sports. Now if they could explain what a foul in basketball is, that would be a computer.

          • Now if they could explain what a foul in basketball is, that would be a computer.
            No, it would not.
            What a foul is in a beginners league is just proper usage of body contact in a professional league.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        I would argue that if the call is still a judgement call with full information, then there's something wrong with the rules. I like my sports objective. Of course, I don't always get what I like.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      The strike zone is only a small part of it. Did the batsman offer at the pitch? There is no hard and fast rule to decide. Was he hit by the pitch? Did he make a reasonable effort to avoid it? Was it a swinging strike or a foul tip? Did he interfere with the throw to second?

      Meanwhile, there is a great dynamic in play where the batsman tries to "shrink" the strike zone and the battery tries to expand it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        Agreed. But the basic question of whether the pitch was over the plate can certainly be automated. They could have the computer indicate in the umpire's ear whether the ball was good, outside, inside, low, or high, and the umpire could then just focus on the other aspects you mentioned.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          Certainly the machine can call over the plate or not, but I'm not so sure how they do with high or low, since the marks are set by the batsman as he is prepared for the pitch. But note how many batters shift their position a bit as the pitcher is in motion. Which exact moment defines the strike zone? That is left to the ump's judgement.

          All major league fields are equipped with a system to track the pitched ball, and umpires are graded for performance against the system after the game. That did get rid of a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Leuf ( 918654 )
            There is no way that the umpire can determine with any real accuracy whether the ball is above or below a reference point that has moved by the time the ball gets there. Player uniforms could be designed with a mark on them for the top and bottom of the strike zone, similar to the way motion capture is done. The automatic system would know exactly where the strike zone was when the ball was released. Whatever quirks the system might have they would be the same quirks for everyone, which is all anybody wa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rjr162 ( 69736 )

      Baseball balls and strikes may be harder than you think. The strike zone is NOT a fixed item but varies as it's technically based over the plate and between the knees to around the arm pits. Each batter based on height and stance style has quite a varied strike zone height.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Baseball balls and strikes may be harder than you think. The strike zone is NOT a fixed item but varies as it's technically based over the plate and between the knees to around the arm pits. Each batter based on height and stance style has quite a varied strike zone height.

        No, technology to identify that area exists today. It's even consumer level technology (costing around $150) - Kinect could easily do skeletal analysis of the captured 3D image, so knees to armpits is trivially easy to identify. It's a so

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by epine ( 68316 )

      But the issue here isn't fairness or doing what is right. Ultimately professional sports are businesses. And they're not in the business of fair games, they're in the entertainment business.

      This runs much deeper than that.

      Why it's so much harder to predict winners in hockey than basketball [vox.com] — 5 June 2017

      The NHL has a fairly high luck factor, and it's deliberate policy by the NHL to keep it this way. Lower scoring means that games remain undecided until the final minutes (preventing channel hoppers). I

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by unimacs ( 597299 )

      Baseball is a perfect example where this is completely feasible. Calling balls vs. strikes when the batter doesn't swing is a matter of where exactly the ball is. Umpires are notoriously inaccurate. The 538 even did a story showing that they biased their calls in favor of ending games that went into extra innings.

      Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure anyone really wants more than an extra inning or two. And to me that's why having humans involved makes sense because they don't strictly apply the rules. The good ones keep control of the game while letting the players play. And when everyone is sick of watching the players play, and the players want to be done playing, they work to end the game while still keeping it fair.

      AI applies the rule without always understanding why the rule is there. Without that understandin

    • What he said: the game should be about the players, not the refs.

      In tennis, for example, the "hawkeye" system allows players to challenge a limited number of referee calls. This works really well: the players cannot challenge every call they dislike, but if they're convinced the call was wrong, they can.

      Football (soccer) provides a counterexample: the offsides rule is difficult for the referee to enforce, and nearly impossible for a fan to genuinely see - you have to be looking in too many places at once. T

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rolgar ( 556636 )

      Baseball's replay has already significantly curtailed the controversies concerning calls that are reviewed, although it has raised a previously non issue where if the player touch a bag before being tagged, but then lost contact with the base due to how hard the player hit it (perhaps the leg or arm might lose contact by being pushed up and off for a split second. Previously, the umpire would be concerned with the initial contact, and making sure the player didn't completely overshoot the bag. Now, if video

  • Human referees might have been ok in the age of wooden rackets etc but I am all in favor of electronic referees now that games are played in high-speed. When will the stupid game auths and audiences realize this ? Humans are so unreliable when it comes to hi-speed decisions based on accuracy.
  • Yes, because when AI gets to that level, humans will have disappeared. Robots referees will referee robots players.

    • Bender: Clem Johnson? That skin bag wouldn't have lasted one pitch in the old Robot Leagues! Now Wireless Joe Jackson, there was a blern hitting machine!

      Leela: Exactly! He was a machine designed to hit blerns! I mean come on! Wireless Joe was nothing but a programmable bat on wheels.

      Bender: Oh and I suppose Pitch-O-Mat 5000 was just a modified howitzer.

      Leela: Yep.

      Bender: You humans are so scared of a little robot competition you won't even let us on the field.

      Fry: What are you talking about? There's all kin

  • Only if we replace the referees with those South Korean "Aliens" sentry guns. (yes those are actually real things...it's also how AEGIS works, that's the 'networked' version with IFF)

  • Baseball could use cameras or other tech to judge balls/strikes but other parts of the game wouldn't work. On a double-play, the second baseman isn't required to touch the base before throwing to first.

  • apply AI to

    The chiropractors of CS.... the "AI appliers".

    The old school solution of "have you tried turning it ON and OFF" has finally transformed into "have you tried AI"

  • I've been talking about this a lot lately-- the refereeing in the NBA attracts a lot of complaints.

    Right now there's just way too much stuff for referees to look for, at once. There are some things that computers could do very well (3 seconds in the key, lane violations, calling player/ball in/out of bounds, backcourt violation, midcourt 8 second timer). This would free up referees to look for traveling, off-ball contact, etc, so that the overall quality of officiating could improve.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Nobody goes to a sporting event see umpires or referees. The umps are there, like police, as a necessary evil to ensure rules are followed.

    If the umpire gets every call correct he has not made the game better. But every call he gets wrong means the outcome is being decided by something other than the competing players. That diminishes the game.

  • The best way to get rid of mistakes is to use a system that's consistent. At some point the robots will be more consistent than the humans.

  • Entertainment, you know. Even if a lot of $ is involved, sports are fundamentally about humans performing, under performing, making errors, screwing up, cheating, etc. Let's just call the referee another yet another part of that.

    If you have money riding on a game, that's on you. The outcome is always subject to the fickle finger of fate.

    If it's corruption of the referee you're worried about, what about corrupt players, management, etc? Make them into robots, too?

  • Sports with robots as players have already arrived both physically [google.com] and virtually. The E-Sports industry is expected to surpass the $1 billion income mark next year. Though not autonomous or physical robots, this is still virtual robotics. And their viewership routinely surpasses professional sports.

    Sports have long been a reflection of military activities. If we developed new sports to reflect the current battlefield, wouldn't they have to use robotics? Drones are robots and critical on the modern battlefie

  • Sports are meaningless. But they should replace cops, judges and politicians with AI as soon as it's possible.

    • Who cares?

      Lots of people apparently.

      Sports are meaningless.

      So's everything else, ultimately.

      But they should replace cops, judges and politicians with AI as soon as it's possible.

      They're trying an it's gone about as well as could be predicted:

      https://www.wired.com/2017/04/... [wired.com]

      Whereas some professional sports (cricket, tennis, fotball) have adopted ball tracking for some refereeing tasks. The rules are straightforward (does the ball cross the line) the physics of ball flight is complex but easy enough to mo

  • Anything judged by people instead of being measured (time, distance, counts, yes/no) should be out of The Olympics. End of conversation.

  • Best Core Java Training in Bangalore [infocampus.co.in] Marathahalli & BTM Layout Core Java Training 45 Hours Duration Core JAVA,Database,SQL,Inheritance,Packages,Threads, Interfaces and Abstract Classes Classes available on weekend and weekdays Trainer Profile as 10 Years Industries Experienced Java Training in Bangalore [infocampus.co.in] Java Technologies for Web Applications [arrowtricks.com]
  • In boxing intent is not an issue. An accidental foul and a deliberate foul are handled the same way. But having multiple cams at different angles would be wonderful and if AI can be used to detect punches as will as fouls a much higher quality decision can be made. As it stands there are severely corrupt actions created by the judges in matches. They hide under the notion that boxing is subjective which is nonsense. Judges tend to see what they want to see for various reasons.
  • Weren't the fans replaced with robots decades ago?

  • They should go the other way and totally re-introduce the random human element by banning instant replay.

  • I was just thinking about this while watching the (tennis) final at Queen's Club. Why should we care so much about a game that we have to apply AI to rulings?

    It all goes back to McEnroe's baby-tantrums in the 80's when a guy being paid big bucks to knock a ball about a lawn with no risk to himself whatsoever demanded that he be treated as some sort of superhero.

    Screw that. It's just a game - dry your eyes and get on with it, or we'll send you down a Chilean mine for minimum pay and you can see if you can di

  • As soon as they also start playing the sports.
  • Who the hell comes up with this shit? So-called self-driving cars are a disaster, you still can't program a robot to fold laundry correctly, and some moron wants to have a robot officiate over sporting events? People are dumb and getting dumber all the time. Enough of this 'robot' and 'AI' meme bullshit already.
  • There is a third option. Use a robot to augment a human ref. One option would be to have the robot evaluate the referee's performance. If a referee is performing poorly, they get taken out of the game.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you do something right once, someone will ask you to do it again.

Close