The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Referees and umpires are a fundamental crux to ensuring that sport is being played in a fair and just manner. However, with the rapid rise in technology, is the stereotypical referee figure soon to be extinct?
Danny Baker was renowned for losing his job on Radio 5 temporarily after a damning statement over the football referee Mike Reid. Reid made a crucial mistake which proved costly as the game in question swung the other way. Baker remarked that the referee is outdated in the modern world, and technology should be used to make the controversial decisions. It strikes an all to familiar note to see hear game commentators criticise referees for making a bad decision where the action replay shows otherwise. If technology such as action replays are readily available to the sports world, would it make more sense to use this technology to make the game fairer?
Athletics has been mediated by the instant replay for a long time now. And it easy to see why. Decisions in atheletics require pinpoint accuracy in many of the events, for example the 100m sprint. It would be wholly foolish to let a close-cut finish be adjudicated by a human being. The speed at which the sprinters move would make it impossible to judge the winner in most cases, let alone fairly award gold, silver, and bronze. Thus the instant replay technology is utilised by a board of officials, and the result is unarguably a fair and just decision.
Cricket was arguably the first refereed sport to take this step, however not by replacing the umpire, simply supplementing him with a 'third umpire', or TV replay. This way, if the umpire is slightly unsure of the decision, he can consult the TV adjudicators, and recieve the correct decision. This practice unarguably makes criticism of a decision obsolete in the cricket world, and makes way for more attention to be diverted to the sport in hand. This was a bold, and brilliant, step in the right direction for the sport, making use of technology which is available to make the game fairer.
Moving back to sport in which referees are criticised most in this country, football. The referee in a football match is only human, and he cannot always be relied upon to make a decision that is factually correct. The referee is also pressured to make a decision quickly, whilst not sacrificing fairness. Decisions made by the referee can, in some situations, turn violent. This in effect turns an enjoyable game of football into a moiety of a boxing round. It must be stressed that every result in the football world is a product of the referee. Is this fair on the players? Should a professional game of football be mediated by just one man? In this modern era the answer would have to be no, it is possible to enforce rules and preserve fairness by using modern technology.
If such technology is to be utilised in a football match, how would it be implemented? Would we replace the referee in entirity, or simply supplement the referee as in cricket? To replace an entire referee would be a controversial practice, the players would have to constantly be checking a screen which would display the status quo of the game. However, supplementing the referee seems to be an altogether sensible concept. The human referee would be able to make quick decisions, and minor decisions, while the iffy and crucial aspects of the game would be mediated by replays and angular TV views.
So, modern technology would be an advantageous practice in ensuring fairness and retribution are conserved in the spirit of fair-play. Bad decisions would arguably be a thing of the past, and the players can concentrate on playing well, and not having to accomodate poor adjudication. In my opinion, Danny Baker was correct in his analysis, and it may only be a matter of time before the FA implement this into mainstream football.
Football would gain advantage from this, but is this true of all sports collectively? Possibly yes, if money was no object, it is hard to comprehend how technology such as this would detriment any sport. If the technology is there for the taking, then we must embrace it to improve the game. My opinion is that officials should extricate themselves from the archaic traditional values and stereotypical expectations of the sport, and concentrate on plausible routes to advantage the sport. Technology such as instant replays are the perfect route in this day and age to advantage most sports, so we need to take heed to ensure fairness to players, officials, and fans alike.
Anyone have other opinions? Do you think the referee is a central concept in the sports world and should not be replaced? Or do you agree with my post and think that sports should take steps to remove unfairness in decisions. Anyhow, thanks for reading, and I welcome any comments.
Danny Baker was renowned for losing his job on Radio 5 temporarily after a damning statement over the football referee Mike Reid. Reid made a crucial mistake which proved costly as the game in question swung the other way. Baker remarked that the referee is outdated in the modern world, and technology should be used to make the controversial decisions. It strikes an all to familiar note to see hear game commentators criticise referees for making a bad decision where the action replay shows otherwise. If technology such as action replays are readily available to the sports world, would it make more sense to use this technology to make the game fairer?
Athletics has been mediated by the instant replay for a long time now. And it easy to see why. Decisions in atheletics require pinpoint accuracy in many of the events, for example the 100m sprint. It would be wholly foolish to let a close-cut finish be adjudicated by a human being. The speed at which the sprinters move would make it impossible to judge the winner in most cases, let alone fairly award gold, silver, and bronze. Thus the instant replay technology is utilised by a board of officials, and the result is unarguably a fair and just decision.
Cricket was arguably the first refereed sport to take this step, however not by replacing the umpire, simply supplementing him with a 'third umpire', or TV replay. This way, if the umpire is slightly unsure of the decision, he can consult the TV adjudicators, and recieve the correct decision. This practice unarguably makes criticism of a decision obsolete in the cricket world, and makes way for more attention to be diverted to the sport in hand. This was a bold, and brilliant, step in the right direction for the sport, making use of technology which is available to make the game fairer.
Moving back to sport in which referees are criticised most in this country, football. The referee in a football match is only human, and he cannot always be relied upon to make a decision that is factually correct. The referee is also pressured to make a decision quickly, whilst not sacrificing fairness. Decisions made by the referee can, in some situations, turn violent. This in effect turns an enjoyable game of football into a moiety of a boxing round. It must be stressed that every result in the football world is a product of the referee. Is this fair on the players? Should a professional game of football be mediated by just one man? In this modern era the answer would have to be no, it is possible to enforce rules and preserve fairness by using modern technology.
If such technology is to be utilised in a football match, how would it be implemented? Would we replace the referee in entirity, or simply supplement the referee as in cricket? To replace an entire referee would be a controversial practice, the players would have to constantly be checking a screen which would display the status quo of the game. However, supplementing the referee seems to be an altogether sensible concept. The human referee would be able to make quick decisions, and minor decisions, while the iffy and crucial aspects of the game would be mediated by replays and angular TV views.
So, modern technology would be an advantageous practice in ensuring fairness and retribution are conserved in the spirit of fair-play. Bad decisions would arguably be a thing of the past, and the players can concentrate on playing well, and not having to accomodate poor adjudication. In my opinion, Danny Baker was correct in his analysis, and it may only be a matter of time before the FA implement this into mainstream football.
Football would gain advantage from this, but is this true of all sports collectively? Possibly yes, if money was no object, it is hard to comprehend how technology such as this would detriment any sport. If the technology is there for the taking, then we must embrace it to improve the game. My opinion is that officials should extricate themselves from the archaic traditional values and stereotypical expectations of the sport, and concentrate on plausible routes to advantage the sport. Technology such as instant replays are the perfect route in this day and age to advantage most sports, so we need to take heed to ensure fairness to players, officials, and fans alike.
Anyone have other opinions? Do you think the referee is a central concept in the sports world and should not be replaced? Or do you agree with my post and think that sports should take steps to remove unfairness in decisions. Anyhow, thanks for reading, and I welcome any comments.
i think we still need referees
Referee's have a hard time they are only human. I can't believe people have a go at them. They may make mistakes, but until you have been a referee you cannot say a word against them.
Referee's do need more help, by means of 4 linesmen or TV replays.
Referee's do need more help, by means of 4 linesmen or TV replays.
Referees and umpires are a fundamental crux to ensuring that sport is being played in a fair and just manner. However, with the rapid rise in technology, is the stereotypical referee figure soon to be extinct?
Danny Baker was renowned for losing his job on Radio 5 temporarily after a damning statement over the football referee Mike Reid. Reid made a crucial mistake which proved costly as the game in question swung the other way. Baker remarked that the referee is outdated in the modern world, and technology should be used to make the controversial decisions. It strikes an all to familiar note to see hear game commentators criticise referees for making a bad decision where the action replay shows otherwise. If technology such as action replays are readily available to the sports world, would it make more sense to use this technology to make the game fairer?
Athletics has been mediated by the instant replay for a long time now. And it easy to see why. Decisions in atheletics require pinpoint accuracy in many of the events, for example the 100m sprint. It would be wholly foolish to let a close-cut finish be adjudicated by a human being. The speed at which the sprinters move would make it impossible to judge the winner in most cases, let alone fairly award gold, silver, and bronze. Thus the instant replay technology is utilised by a board of officials, and the result is unarguably a fair and just decision.
Cricket was arguably the first refereed sport to take this step, however not by replacing the umpire, simply supplementing him with a 'third umpire', or TV replay. This way, if the umpire is slightly unsure of the decision, he can consult the TV adjudicators, and recieve the correct decision. This practice unarguably makes criticism of a decision obsolete in the cricket world, and makes way for more attention to be diverted to the sport in hand. This was a bold, and brilliant, step in the right direction for the sport, making use of technology which is available to make the game fairer.
Moving back to sport in which referees are criticised most in this country, football. The referee in a football match is only human, and he cannot always be relied upon to make a decision that is factually correct. The referee is also pressured to make a decision quickly, whilst not sacrificing fairness. Decisions made by the referee can, in some situations, turn violent. This in effect turns an enjoyable game of football into a moiety of a boxing round. It must be stressed that every result in the football world is a product of the referee. Is this fair on the players? Should a professional game of football be mediated by just one man? In this modern era the answer would have to be no, it is possible to enforce rules and preserve fairness by using modern technology.
If such technology is to be utilised in a football match, how would it be implemented? Would we replace the referee in entirity, or simply supplement the referee as in cricket? To replace an entire referee would be a controversial practice, the players would have to constantly be checking a screen which would display the status quo of the game. However, supplementing the referee seems to be an altogether sensible concept. The human referee would be able to make quick decisions, and minor decisions, while the iffy and crucial aspects of the game would be mediated by replays and angular TV views.
So, modern technology would be an advantageous practice in ensuring fairness and retribution are conserved in the spirit of fair-play. Bad decisions would arguably be a thing of the past, and the players can concentrate on playing well, and not having to accomodate poor adjudication. In my opinion, Danny Baker was correct in his analysis, and it may only be a matter of time before the FA implement this into mainstream football.
Football would gain advantage from this, but is this true of all sports collectively? Possibly yes, if money was no object, it is hard to comprehend how technology such as this would detriment any sport. If the technology is there for the taking, then we must embrace it to improve the game. My opinion is that officials should extricate themselves from the archaic traditional values and stereotypical expectations of the sport, and concentrate on plausible routes to advantage the sport. Technology such as instant replays are the perfect route in this day and age to advantage most sports, so we need to take heed to ensure fairness to players, officials, and fans alike.
Anyone have other opinions? Do you think the referee is a central concept in the sports world and should not be replaced? Or do you agree with my post and think that sports should take steps to remove unfairness in decisions. Anyhow, thanks for reading, and I welcome any comments.
Danny Baker was renowned for losing his job on Radio 5 temporarily after a damning statement over the football referee Mike Reid. Reid made a crucial mistake which proved costly as the game in question swung the other way. Baker remarked that the referee is outdated in the modern world, and technology should be used to make the controversial decisions. It strikes an all to familiar note to see hear game commentators criticise referees for making a bad decision where the action replay shows otherwise. If technology such as action replays are readily available to the sports world, would it make more sense to use this technology to make the game fairer?
Athletics has been mediated by the instant replay for a long time now. And it easy to see why. Decisions in atheletics require pinpoint accuracy in many of the events, for example the 100m sprint. It would be wholly foolish to let a close-cut finish be adjudicated by a human being. The speed at which the sprinters move would make it impossible to judge the winner in most cases, let alone fairly award gold, silver, and bronze. Thus the instant replay technology is utilised by a board of officials, and the result is unarguably a fair and just decision.
Cricket was arguably the first refereed sport to take this step, however not by replacing the umpire, simply supplementing him with a 'third umpire', or TV replay. This way, if the umpire is slightly unsure of the decision, he can consult the TV adjudicators, and recieve the correct decision. This practice unarguably makes criticism of a decision obsolete in the cricket world, and makes way for more attention to be diverted to the sport in hand. This was a bold, and brilliant, step in the right direction for the sport, making use of technology which is available to make the game fairer.
Moving back to sport in which referees are criticised most in this country, football. The referee in a football match is only human, and he cannot always be relied upon to make a decision that is factually correct. The referee is also pressured to make a decision quickly, whilst not sacrificing fairness. Decisions made by the referee can, in some situations, turn violent. This in effect turns an enjoyable game of football into a moiety of a boxing round. It must be stressed that every result in the football world is a product of the referee. Is this fair on the players? Should a professional game of football be mediated by just one man? In this modern era the answer would have to be no, it is possible to enforce rules and preserve fairness by using modern technology.
If such technology is to be utilised in a football match, how would it be implemented? Would we replace the referee in entirity, or simply supplement the referee as in cricket? To replace an entire referee would be a controversial practice, the players would have to constantly be checking a screen which would display the status quo of the game. However, supplementing the referee seems to be an altogether sensible concept. The human referee would be able to make quick decisions, and minor decisions, while the iffy and crucial aspects of the game would be mediated by replays and angular TV views.
So, modern technology would be an advantageous practice in ensuring fairness and retribution are conserved in the spirit of fair-play. Bad decisions would arguably be a thing of the past, and the players can concentrate on playing well, and not having to accomodate poor adjudication. In my opinion, Danny Baker was correct in his analysis, and it may only be a matter of time before the FA implement this into mainstream football.
Football would gain advantage from this, but is this true of all sports collectively? Possibly yes, if money was no object, it is hard to comprehend how technology such as this would detriment any sport. If the technology is there for the taking, then we must embrace it to improve the game. My opinion is that officials should extricate themselves from the archaic traditional values and stereotypical expectations of the sport, and concentrate on plausible routes to advantage the sport. Technology such as instant replays are the perfect route in this day and age to advantage most sports, so we need to take heed to ensure fairness to players, officials, and fans alike.
Anyone have other opinions? Do you think the referee is a central concept in the sports world and should not be replaced? Or do you agree with my post and think that sports should take steps to remove unfairness in decisions. Anyhow, thanks for reading, and I welcome any comments.