The same people who unquestionably accept autopilot landing an aircraft or robotic surgery are uneasy about technology ruling on a sporting outcome.
Introduction
Technology has been introduced into many professional sports to reduce referee error. It has transformed the way games are officiated across a range of sporting competitions. However, controversy over its use remains.
In the National Rugby League (NRL), the bunker was introduced to assist referees in making more accurate decisions by reviewing incidents through video technology. While the bunker was designed to reduce mistakes and increase fairness, many coaches have criticised the system. Most recently, the coach of South Sydney called for a return to the traditional referee-only approach.
Undoubtedly, the bunker can disrupt the flow of the game. However, this usually derives from the inefficiency of the review process rather than any inadequacy of the technology itself. Coaches often argue that interruptions break a team’s rhythm and reduce the entertainment value of the match. They point to a traditional system in which referees were required to make immediate decisions on the field, allowing play to continue without lengthy delays caused by video review.
Other criticisms of the bunker relate to concerns about consistency, referee authority, and the spirit of the sport.
The use of technology does not always eliminate controversy. The bunker provides numerous camera angles and slow-motion replays; however, many decisions remain open to interpretation. Coaches frequently complain that similar incidents can produce different outcomes in different matches. This inconsistency creates the perception that technology has not solved the problem of disputed decisions but has merely shifted the debate from on-field referees to bunker officials.
In addition, some coaches argue that technology undermines the authority of on-field referees. Traditionally, referees were responsible for making decisions based on their judgement and experience. The bunker can overrule those decisions, potentially weakening referee confidence and authority. Some believe that players and fans lose respect for referees when every major decision is subject to review by an off-field official.
Finally, supporters of the referee-only system argue that human judgement adds character, spontaneity and unpredictability to sport.
Examples of Technology in Sport
There are numerous examples of technology being introduced to assist officials and review decisions.
Cricket introduced the Decision Review System (DRS) in 2008, allowing players to challenge umpiring decisions using technologies such as Hawk-Eye, Ultra Edge and ball-tracking. While DRS has significantly improved decision accuracy, it remains controversial because of the “Umpire’s Call” rule, under which the original on-field decision can stand despite technology indicating the ball may have hit the stumps. Critics argue that this creates confusion and inconsistency.
Perhaps the closest comparison to the NRL bunker is football’s Video Assistant Referee (VAR). VAR was introduced to correct “clear and obvious” errors involving goals, penalties, red cards and mistaken identity. However, it has generated significant criticism due to lengthy delays, controversial offside rulings and inconsistent interpretations of incidents.
As in the NRL, some football coaches have argued that VAR interrupts the flow of the game and removes spontaneity from goal celebrations. Some managers have even suggested that football should rely more heavily on the referee’s judgement rather than technology.
Tennis adopted Hawk-Eye technology to determine whether balls land in or out. Although generally accepted as highly accurate, controversies still occur. Players, including Roger Federer, have questioned decisions, and technical failures at major tournaments such as Wimbledon have reignited debate about removing human line judges entirely.
Do Coaches and Fans Actually Want Accuracy?
Historically, there have been many instances where later examination has shown referee or umpire decisions to be incorrect.
Tennis player Serena Williams appeared to be on the wrong end of several umpiring decisions that, with the benefit of technology, appeared both incorrect and crucial to the outcome of the match.
In her 2004 US Open quarter-final against Jennifer Capriati, several line calls went against Williams. Television replays suggested that a number of those calls were incorrect, including balls called out that appeared to be in and vice versa. At the time:
- Players could not challenge line calls.
- Chair umpires relied entirely online judges.
- Television audiences could see errors that officials could not correct.
The incident became one of the best-known examples of why tennis needed a more reliable review system and helped drive acceptance of Hawk-Eye technology.
Rugby league has its own examples. Billy Slater’s famous chip-and-chase try in State of Origin sparked ongoing debate about whether he was onside. In that case, the controversy was not about the accuracy of the technology but rather the rules governing its use, as the bunker was not permitted to rule on offside decisions at the time.
These are merely well-known examples. Countless historical sporting contests almost certainly contained referee decisions that would have been overturned had modern technology been available. Perhaps the most famous example is Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal in the 1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final between Argentina and England.
Given the prevalence, and in some cases severity, of referee errors, why do some coaches appear to prefer less scrutiny rather than more?
In some cases, the explanation may be technophobia and status quo bias. It is difficult to sustain the argument that technological review, working alongside referees, is less accurate than a split-second decision made by a single official who may be unsighted. The process may be slower and less clear-cut than many hoped, but on average it is almost certainly more scientific and accurate.
Coaches and commentators frequently criticise the use of slow-motion replay. “Judge it in real time,” they argue, often without defining precisely what “real time” means. Slow-motion bias is the recognised term for errors in judgement that can arise when incidents are reviewed at reduced speed. Such bias certainly exists, but it can be significantly reduced through experience, training and proper review protocols.
The emerging consensus among officiating experts suggests that:
- Technology greatly improves objective decisions.
- Slow motion can distort subjective decisions.
- The best systems combine real-time judgement with technology used primarily for factual verification rather than assessing intent.
As professional sport increases in economic value, the cost of referee errors will continue to grow, as will the pressures and moral hazards faced by officials.
While this may not be a popular view, the future of sports officiating is likely to involve more technology, not less. Sophisticated artificial intelligence systems may significantly improve both accuracy and speed while reducing one of the persistent challenges of human officiating: unconscious bias.
This will not appease all traditionalists and technological sceptics. If their team suffers from a technological error, criticism will remain inevitable. Yet the same people who unquestioningly accept autopilot systems landing aircraft or surgeons relying on robotic technology often remain uneasy about technology determining a sporting outcome.
Controversies will undoubtedly continue. However, as technology becomes more advanced and incorporates greater amounts of information and contextual understanding, it will almost certainly deliver decisions that are more accurate than the ad hoc, instantaneous judgements of a single referee.
