Mackeyser
Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 14,534
- Name
- Mack
Why? I'm curious. We don't do that with so many other ventures, using technology to enhance or replace human fallibility. And we already use technology for instant replay and other factors.
And don't let my take stop you from telling me what you think. I really do want to know.
For me, the human element is on the field...the players.
I couldn't care less if they had laser sensors, sensors in the shoes, helmet and padding of players, on the field, tons of cameras, etc and there was no human refs at all or simply some on the field to maintain order and pace of play, but calls would be initiated or validated in a central control room where how games would be officiated would be standardized.
I mean, if they call all the calls according rigidly to the rulebook, then...isn't that the goal of the refs? I have a real problem with the "let them play" route as it becomes subjective and the point of having a season and multiple contests is that we can compare teams and players and have some sort of uniform standard.
Going back to baseball, if you had an Ump with a lower SZ, then if you were a pitcher with a solid sinker, you'd likely have a pretty good night. If you were an "up and in" power pitcher, you'd be seeing walk after walk on belt high fastballs. And that's crap, imho. The strike zone is measurable. There are anchor points (the plate) and from the armpits to the knees of the batter in a standard batting stance. That creates a real zone in 3D space. It's not subject to interpretation or shouldn't be. It's one thing if an Ump slightly shades the outside or inside corner, but games shouldn't be decided on arbitrary judgment calls which differ from game to game.
When that happens in any sport, you don't have uniformity, each win or loss isn't the same and it makes things like a season a farce because in order to succeed, you not only have to win the game based on the written rules, but also win the meta game by unwritten or arbitrarily enforced rules.
We see this with NFL teams that play press man coverage. Some crews allow for more hand fighting than others. This is why some teams even with very good defenses can see their performances go WAY up and down from week to week and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything related to football....not their skill, game plan, execution... just a dentist from Colorado who sees things differently than an accountant from Georgia did the week before.
So, no, I surely don't get the "human element" with respect to refereeing. It seems to me a way to justify uncertainty and reinforcing our inherent fallibility as humans rather than do what we do in every other walk of life and use technology to either make it better or get it right.
That's my take. Why do you want people to still be at the center of calling the games?
