|
 On 29 June, Kevin Roberts, Editorial Director, SportBusiness International (pictured right), moderated a panel at Sport and Technology: The Conference 2007, addressing the on-going debate regarding how technology has been utilised to replace or assist referees, whether technology will completely take the place of referees and how fans and referees reacted to the use of technology. His panel comprised of Stuart Cummings, match officials director, Rugby League; Chris Kelly, umpires and match operations manager, England and Wales Cricket Board; Martin Bland, head of refereeing services, ProZone Sports ; Dr Mike Caine, director, Loughborough University Sports Technology Institute; and Sam McCleery, executive vice president, sales and marketing, PVI. Louise Williams, a PhD student at the Centre for Sport and Dance Studies, Liverpool John Moores University, was there to report on proceedings…….
Moderator Kevin Roberts kicked off the panel by commenting that “technology is available, technology is used in sports to reinforce or disprove the views of the human officials, however without referees or umpires, there is no sport.”
Roberts asked Stuart Cummings (RFL) about how technology is deployed in Rugby League, considering how the sport has been viewed as one of the ‘pioneers’ in applying technology. Cummings outlined that in 1996, the video referee was introduced, the first invasion game to do this. The move brought about scepticism from people who thought it would highlight errors, but as Cummings pointed out: “During my time as a referee, refereeing at an international level, I always enjoyed the game better from my point of view when the video referee was in place. I always felt confident in my own decisions and that the video screen would prove me right, Technology is great to have and it’s important that we are seen to have the right outcomes.”
Cummings then referred to the four way open microphone system (two touch judges, one on-field referee and one video referee) which can have problems, citing an instance in Cardiff this year, where the video referee came and gave a call in live play, but it generally works well, for example for offside judgements which has cleaned up an area of the pitch for the referee.
After trialling Head Cams (first in 1998), which proved too heavy, Neville Smith (executive producer for Rugby League) wants to trial a new Scrum cap for referees to wear which would be lightweight, which Cummings questioned could help with decision making, or was it more applicable as viewer entertainment purposes? The clear message from Cummings in this segment of the panel was that as a sport, Rugby League embraces technology, stating: “I don’t personally see it as conflicting, I see the referee using technology to enhance his decision making.” Does cricket embrace technology?  Roberts then turned attention to cricket and asked Chris Kelly (England and Wales Cricket Board) whether cricket needs technology for one of the most complex decisions that takes place, the LBW (leg before wicket). Kelly said: “Cricket embraces technology and has spent many hours and much money trying to find the best technology to use, especially at the highest level.”
Kelly outlined certain conditions which technology should be adopted:
(1) The game is played and officiated by humans, therefore technology should not take away any of the theatre of the game.
(2) Technology must not change the way the game is played, for example, if Hawkeye was introduced, five day test matches would become three days.
(3) Technology needs to have a high percentage of accuracy (98-99%). “It is no good embracing technology if you only get a 60-70% accuracy rate,” commented Kelly.
Kelly detailed four international trials that have been carried out to date; in 2002 in the Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka (umpire able to consult with television officials), in 2004 in England with a stump microphone and umpires with an ear piece, 2005 in the Super Series in Australia where the umpire could consult the television officials regarding any decision and a trial in England which is currently concluding that allows players the opportunity to appeal a decision. The summary from the trials was that in some aspects, the sport is not ready to embrace the technology, technical problems were evident, e.g., time delays and the most interesting from the recent trial is that players did not actually want this technology (being able to appeal).
Kelly’s thoughts were that for line decisions, it is excellent providing there are enough cameras, for thin edges it is not available, for clean catches it does not help and for LBW decisions, whilst some aspect is based on fact, the prediction is an opinion and “technology does not help informing opinions”.
Kelly questioned that: “If cricket was to embrace technology, who would be responsible for providing the equipment for the technology? The TV directors don’t want responsibility for decision making.” Kelly referred to the point that it is the education and development of officials, which was more important as technology is not advanced enough to make such calls.
Embodying technology in sports equipment Roberts asked Dr Mike Caine (Loughborough University) about his role, and Caine outlined that he is much involved in embodying technology into NPD, working from a research development and validation process point of view, currently with 25 active projects worth circa £15m. Caine referred to placing chips in footballs which may appear simple as a concept, however: “What is seemingly simple is difficult to embody, not from a chip, telecommunications or motion tracking point of view, but the actual implement,” he commented. “You cannot be serious”? Are most governing bodies on a continuing programme of evaluation in this area, or is it more of a knee jerk reaction wondered Roberts? Caine remarked that there is a conflict between manufacturer and governing body and cited the example of client Calloway Golf who had its most successful golf club banned as it hit the ball too far, with the governing body reasoning that it did not want to change the courses or the nature of the game, and subsequently regulating against such equipment.
“Regulations or adaptations of regulations come to preserve the character of the game,” remarked Caine. “The manufacturer wants to sell more and gain brand prestige through innovation.” Caine cited another example from the ITF, after the ball size was changed to slow down play at Wimbledon, the manufacturer paid a substantial figure for this, it gained criticism from ex-player and commentator John McEnroe and the manufacturer was later told by the ITF that the ball was being phased out. Caine summarised by commenting, “There are 101 examples of mismanagement of communication, however stakeholders are now recognising the benefits of working together rather than in conflict.” Technology for engaging audiences  Roberts informed how he was struck by how the crowd at Wimbledon embraced Hawkeye with an audible gasp on the outcome of the call, referring to this as a good example of adding to the fans experience. Roberts asked McCleery what else we could expect to see and what else is already working?
This brought Sam McCleery (PVI) into the discussion who agreed that Hawkeye is great in engaging audiences, similarly, citing an example of the yellow first and 10 line in American Football and of K-Zone which chart/plots pitches in Baseball, and one thing that PVI is working on which is a 360 degree camera array (Spincam -composed of 100 cameras) to break down play. Also mentioned was player tracking using virtual/visual recognition not chips, which in the US is a players’ association issue.
McCleery suggested: “Most innovation is coming because broadcasters want to see it for enhancements because they are trying to differentiate the content for their different platforms.” In identifying who is driving such technology involvement, McCleery thought that there has been a change from being driven by broadcasters, now to the leagues, where “the leagues are taking a more direct involvement in encouraging these developments and in some cases funding them.”
Roberts questioned whether in baseball if a pitch is out, do umpires correct the decision? McCleery clarified that the MLB uses a different system to grade out the umpires called QuesTec, ESPN developed its own (K-Zone) which is a more colourful version, but “there is not the collaboration that is required to get these things to move faster”.
Technology in football (UK)  Attention was then turned to ProZone, which provides data and information to assist referees, for which Martin Bland (ProZone Sports) commented that technology in football [soccer] wants to be embraced, but most is done pre and post-game, not during.
What ProZone does is to track players and referees, not interfering with the decision-making because the information is fed back post-match. Bland pointed out “that it is based on training and developing excellence.”
Bland extended his discussion to explain how the technology used in professional football is “minimal” with communications systems being used, however the fourth official cannot give a decision, they are responsible for monitoring the technical area (International Football Association Broad regulation).
Interestingly, Bland outlined how a lot of decisions are not as simple as yes or no, they are often open to interpretation, and technology used in football, as determined by IFAB, only allows for use for goal line technology, as you have to be 100% accurate. Bland cited the example of Hawkeye in football, which has recently been tested [at Reading FC] and was proved to be very accurate boasting shots at 300 frames per second, three cameras around the goal and a three second decision turnaround.
IFAB states that a decision must be made instantaneously. However costing is an issue with a price tag of £250,000 per stadium, with the responsibility for payment being contentious and subject to political wrangling between the governing body (Premier League), referees and clubs.
Bland commented how an uninterrupted signal would have to go the referee and the referee only as IFAB wants the control of the game to stay with the referee.
The full review of this panel and the rest of the day’s proceedings from Sport and Technology: The Conference 2007 can be purchased at http://www.sportandtechnologyconference.com/index.php?pageId=0129 along with audio from the day.
This article was seen first by people who receive the monthly newsletter, join them.
|
