Sports
In December of 2003, the New York Times reported on what would be a controversial advance for the 2004 Major League Baseball season. “Major League Baseball officials tried to turn [umpires] into scientists using the Umpire Information System, a technology made by a Deer Park, N.Y., company called QuesTec,” wrote Hugo Lindgren. And though the QuesTec devices would never be used to call balls and strikes, baseball executives would use them “to measure the overall reliability of its human umpires” — effectively creating a technological check on an umpire’s strike zone. The most human component of the game — a sometimes arbitrary enforcement of a key, otherwise-neutral factor was, after more than a century, facing the prospect of becoming standardized. It was an early manifestation of what will almost assuredly be a key sporting debate over the next few decades: If the technology exists to really, truly make the calls that can turn a team or player into or away from glory a neutral factor, why not replace those eminently fallible umpires, referees, and line judges with as many computer-based devices as possible?
More recently, the drama caused at the U.S. Open by Serena Williams would seem to argue for some kind of breakthrough in tennis-umpiring technology; if the line judge that so pissed off Williams had been an invisible hard drive, one could argue that the confrontation that handed the match to her opponent would have never taken place. And as perfectly calibrated and emotionless as such a machine might be, it would also — thanks to all of that — erase what so many of us like watching sports for: the unpredictable outcomes. Obviously, computerized officiating would likely have very little effect on, say, something like the BYU over Oklahoma upset that sent shockwaves through the college football world on the first weekend of the 2009 season. Nor is it likely that iRef would have stopped the Golden State Warriors from beating the Dallas Mavericks in the 2007 NBA playoffs. But it would iron out a few other kinks, without which sports fans would lead less rich lives.
Game three of the 1975 World Series: Carlton Fisk, Fred Lynn, and the Red Sox against Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, and their Big Red Machine. Before Fisk’s iconic home run wave, he was involved in another game-winning play — only there, he wasn’t on the victorious side. The Wikipedia run-down goes like this: “In the 10th inning, Cincinnati Reds hitter Ed Armbrister laid down a sacrifice bunt, and then collided with…catcher…Fisk who was trying to field the ball. Fisk committed a throwing error on the play after colliding with Armbrister, which led to the Reds’ winning run. [Umpire] Barnett declined to make an interference call on Armbrister, despite Boston’s pleas. Barnett’s failure to call an interference was criticized by some as wrong-headed and indefensible.” And, in this Red Sox fans’ eyes, they were — and it most certainly impacted the course of the series. But (and this is, admittedly, easy for someone who’s only ever seen this series on tape to say), it is part of the game.
Besides, not only does this stuff eventually even out (thanks, Joe West), it adds an element of unpredictability to the event. If the Sox had won in ‘75, it would have been a surprise: The Reds had won 108 ballgames, featured an imposing line-up, and were squaring-off against a Sox team that was short on quality pitching and, for the series, a key hitter in the recently injured Jim Rice. But it wouldn’t have been a totally unpredictable happening. On the other hand, no one — no one — could have figured on Armbrister, Fisk, and Barnett.
Let’s face it: Most of us watch sports for the drama — the storyline. And though we’re sometimes satisfied with the unchecked slaughter of a blow-out, if we’re honest with ourselves, most sports fans would prefer to be perched on the edge of their seats, ringing our sweaty palms about the smallest of margins. (There’s a reason we call the close ones great games.) When those impartial judges add to our anxiety — or worse, single-handedly bury our team — we hate it. We call for blood. And we are rewarded with the rush of adrenaline that we were after when we turned on the television. A balls-and-strikes verification system might ensure fairness, but it also makes things that much more boring.
Comments
One Comment
Buy:Accutane.Prednisolone.Valtrex.Nexium.Synthroid.Mega Hoodia.Actos.Prevacid.Arimidex.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Zovirax.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension.Retin-A.Lumigan.Zyban.Human Growth Hormone….
Add a Comment