[EricH]

Originally Posted by gblake

Folks,

This interesting article can probably be used to bolster the positions pn all sides of this topic. It has some info about how sensors and computing are (and aren't) being used to supplement/replace human refereeing in some big league sports.

I enjoyed reading it.

Blake

Did you forget a link?


That being said, for a number of reasons automated scoring can be very useful. Ball scoring has been almost completely automated on several occasions ('10, '12, '16--'06 was automated but required manual backup due to system design). It's GREAT to not have to worry about scoring balls with the barrage that most alliances can unleash. OTOH, the DOGMA penalty in '10, which was automatic, was kind of a nuisance--and on at least one occasion, a team did exactly what they were supposed to and still got a penalty series from that (ball missed the counter on the way down). '08 had automatic robot lap counting, if that actually worked--I don't recall hearing anything either way on that.

But there are still a number of cases that automation would make particularly "interesting". Here's a couple related ones: Could a sensor detect whether a boulder crossed legally this year, under the case where a robot did not finish (or start) a Crossing but the boulder went across? I think so... but I would argue that that would have to be a very good sensor system to detect that, particularly live on the field. The question is, is the added cost* worth it for a system that would only need to be used some small portion of the time, for a non-profit competition system? And that I would say that it depends.

Many things can be automated. Some things cannot be automated. I happen to like the MLB replay model where it's basically a second set of eyes, detached from the game in question, looking at the various viewpoints, and not everything is actually reviewable.

*Not necessarily money--time, training, etc are all factors in the cost.