Sporting Chances: Robot Referees and the Automation of Enforcement

• In Event: Science, Technology and Sport III

Abstract

In Major League Baseball, the strike zone--the volume of space over home plate, between the midpoint of the batter’s torso and his knees--seems to be well-suited for automation. Automated enforcement of the strike zone--that is, evaluation of whether pitches are balls or strikes--has been technologically and economically feasible for years. In fact, at-home spectators are aided by the “box,” a visual representation of the strike zone, and ballparks are equipped with cameras that are used to evaluate umpires’ long-run accuracy. Yet umpires are still human, at least for now. Despite statistical evidence about their greater error rate, and the availability of an automated and precise enforcement system, the MLB--backed by its fans--has opted to retain human decisionmakers as arbiters of the rules.

This paper examines controversies about automated enforcement technologies in professional sports. Sports offer unmined insight to discussions about automation and law, and merit serious inquiry by academics interested in these issues. The sports field is a contained legal world, in which the rules of play are explicit and endlessly discussed, and their implementation routinely contested. Consistent, impartial enforcement is ostensibly paramount for fair play. Thus, we might view the sports field as a legal microcosm, and the controversies that arise related to automation here might inform our understanding of broader scenarios.

In addition, sports offer unparalleled insight into public understandings of, and attitudes about, automation. While members of the public may have limited visibility into the risks and virtues of, say, algorithmic risk modeling, many people have strong opinions about the deployment of a robot line judge in a tennis match. Indeed, people do some of their most explicit, informed thinking about rules and technologies in sports contexts. If we want to know how public attitudes about automation develop and what factors might impact them, we ought to look, as so many Americans do, to sports.

As the strike zone illustrates, sports might seem like clear contexts for automated enforcement. Robot refs are within reach technologically—in fact, they are often used for unofficial purposes—yet have faced strong resistance as substitutes for human judgment. Why? Perhaps justifications are sentimental: heartstrings and custom win out over efficiency. Or ontological: the game just wouldn’t be what it is were it officiated by robots rather than people. Or sometimes based on integrity: using instant replay may disrupt the gentility of sports like golf, consider the “gentleman’s game” (in which players traditionally call their own penalties). These sorts of sociocultural factors tend to be undertheorized in emerging contexts of automation, and we might look to sports to help us recognize them.

We survey these debates across a range of sports. We look closely at automation and augmentation of human referees, and the role of instant replay technologies in providing technological accounts that justify or contradict on field determinations. We consider what types of rules are most likely to be automated, and what avenues are contemplated for override. Finally, we show how debates about robot refs in sports can further more complex, nuanced conversations in robotics policy.

Authors

• Meg Leta Jones, Georgetown University

• Karen Levy, Princeton University