The use of technology is ruining sport!
By Prof Dr Steve Cornelius, Sports Law Centre, University of Pretoria, South Africa
The development of intricate video technology and so-called artificial intelligence (AI) has led to more widespread use of these technologies in sport. More than 30 years ago, cricket was one of the first sports that turned to technology to assist the on-field umpires with split second decisions. Rugby union soon followed suit. On the other hand, association football resisted the calls for the use of technology to assist with off-side and goal decisions. However, eventually football also succumbed to the pressure and resorted to the use of video technology to assist referees.
While cricket has developed quite a complex system of AI-supported video technology, which tracks the trajectory of the ball and the bat and can, with surprising accuracy, determine whether a player has, in fact, hit a ball or whether a ball would have hit the stumps, in the case of a leg-before-wicket appeal. Other elements of play, such as whether a ball cleared the boundary for a four or a six, can also be reviewed using this system, which has become known as the Decision Review System or DRS. The on-field umpires can refer a decision for review, while there is also limited possibility for players to call for the review of a decision. One notable element of DRS in cricket is that it immediately registers the correct on-field decision of the umpires and then uses all of the available technology to determine whether the on-field decision was correct or whether it should be overturned.
DRS has not been without controversy. Most notably, in 2016, during a match between South Africa and Australia, batsman AB de Villiers was clean bowled by Josh Hazlewood. However, the review systems seemed to indicate that the ball would have gone over the top of the wickets. As a result, some players and the media questioned the accuracy of DRS. However, the controversy ignored the fact that DRS was not called on to review the decision against De Villiers. Secondly, any system will inevitably have a margin of error and it would make sense that the margin of error would be set up in favour of the batsman.
On the whole, it would seem that DRS is a huge success and demonstrates how technology can be utilised to ensure that correct decisions are made on the field of play.
On the other hand, the systems in use in association football and rugby union have recently met with much more skepticism and even incredulity. Football uses a system known as the Video Assistant Referee or VAR where a match official sits in a video operation room and reviews video footage to advise the on-field referee with clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents that should be corrected. This system has been controversial ever since its introduction in 2018. From the outset, it has been said that VAR creates as much confusion as clarity. Most recently, in an English Premier League match between Liverpool and Tottenham, Luis Diaz was ruled offside when he beat the goalkeeper to put the ball in the back of the net. A replay showed that the assistant-referee had made an error and that Diaz was actually onside and a goal should have been awarded. Incredibly, the VAR came to the same conclusion, but failed to register the on-field decision as off-side, with the result that the referee was not advised to overturn the decision. Registering the incorrect on-field decision is a simple matter and it is inconceivable how such an error could have been made. In fact, since its introduction in the English Premier League in 2019, the use and success of VAR has, at best, been inconsistent. Former manager Tony Pulis succinctly explained the problem in an interview with BBC radio (Does Premier League have a problem using VAR after day of controversy? - BBC Sport): It is not the technology that is failing – it is the people using the technology that is failing. While VAR is intended to reduce the element of human error in a football match, it has actually introduced a further level of human error that seems to have clouded matters even further.
Rugby union has not faired much better either. Initially, the use of the Television Match Official or TMO was limited to try-line decisions referred by the on-field referee. While there were instances where decisions by the TMO were debated, such as the decision to rule that England's Mark Cueto had gone into touch and did not score a try against South Africa in the 2007 Rugby World Cup final, the overwhelming perception of the TMO has been quite positive – that is until 2023, when World Rugby introduced the TMO Bunker and extended the role of the TMO.
The TMO is now much more involved and can now advise the on-field referee, without the referee calling for a review, on matters such as clear and obvious foul play and errors committed that resulted in tries being incorrectly awarded or not awarded. Even before the World Cup, the system was already embroiled in controversy when English flyhalf Owen Farrell was given a yellow card for a head-on-head collision, which was upgraded to a red card in the bunker, which was then reduced to a yellow card at the disciplinary hearing, only to be reinstated as a red card on appeal. This inconsistency has permeated the World Cup.
Can one honestly say that the tackle, which earned Eben Etsebeth a yellow card in the South Africa quarterfinal against France, was at the same level of severity as the tackle by Tonga scrumhalf Augustine Pulu, which fractured Makazole Mapimpi's cheek? Etseneth went in very low and slow, while Pulu went in much faster and higher. The end result is clear, but the discrepancy in officiating is glaring. In the pool match between Samoa and England, Samoa had reason to be unhappy about two tries that were disregarded, based on some borderline calls by the TMO, and Fiji could similarly feel aggrieved after their quarterfinal loss to England.
One has to agree with Tony Pulis that the problem with technology in football and rugby is not the fault of the technology. It is the humans that operate the technology that are failing. Certainly much of the blame must be levelled at FIFA and World Rugby. In spite of the controversies, both have been deafening in their silence with not obvious indications they either intend to improve the situation. How hard can it be to conduct proper training and regular workshops to ensure that all off-field officials have a common understanding of how the rules will be applied?
Sports fans deserve better from international sports federations!
Prof Dr Steve Cornelius may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
