Should AI Work Alongside Human Referees?

[Hazink]

I don't think a full replacement will happen, since a human will still have to double-check what the AI decides. But if AI ever gets independent enough to do this job on its own, the real question is what will be going on with humanity by then  

I don't even think we need a complete replacement. Ai takes the job from human referee. What should work better is human and AI working hand in hand so that they can help each other cross-check instead of the tool being completely dependent on human which will make no difference from when humans, referee is handling the whole thing.

[Powerjumboo]

I dont mind AI assistance but I would not like to see the human referee replaced by a robot.

Continue down this line and very soon we will be cheering to robots playing and not humans. Make that a separate genre and I will make sure to never visit that game.

I think the referees who are there well experienced and their experience counts against the fees they take. Let them use assistant services but the final decision should come from their heads, not a robot.

I don't think anyone has any objections to AI assistance, but the objection will remain when robots take the place of humans. Because when robots are taken, humans may not be able to enjoy the game as much. Moreover, even if robots can run in the same corner as humans, if they collide with a player, they may need to be lifted. Humans can always come up with the best solution with their own thinking, but this AI may not be able to give that solution. However, I don't want a game to have the maximum amount of AI. I want a game to have the maximum amount of a human referee. Maybe AI can be used for a little help.

[OgNasty]

It is just a matter of time before all game reffing is done by computers. Especially now that the depths of the gambling problem has become more clear. It might take a while for them to figure out the camera and things needed to do a better job than humans, but it is needed and it is coming quickly.

[serjent05]

AI is a good assistance fore reviewing calls, if the referee is good with changing his calls if he commits a mistake then it is good but if the referee is arrogantly stubborn, then AI assistance is worthless.  I believe AI is good for assisting call reviews.

For being a real-time field referee, it is either replace the human with an AI system completely or just let the human play its part.  After all, a human referee will look terrible if compared with an accurate AI system's call.

[Curious T]

It is just a matter of time before all game reffing is done by computers. Especially now that the depths of the gambling problem has become more clear. It might take a while for them to figure out the camera and things needed to do a better job than humans, but it is needed and it is coming quickly.

I don't think AI will completely take over referring. There are certain things that need human interpretation. In football, there are semi-automated offsides, there is VAR, there is goal line technology, and sensors in the ball. I think this is how it would be. The difference is these technologies will keep getting better and easier to use, but they will only be there to assist referees. AI won't be able to tell when a player is having a head injury and needs urgent medical attention, or if he is just faking to get the referees' attention. This is why I feel the technology will help improve the officiating, but it won't replace it entirely.

[ArabBTC]

Ever since the invention of AI there have been significant reduction in human task, life in different areas have become relatively easier because what took humans hours to do can be achieved by AI in few minutes, however, AI still have a lot of limitations, especially the fact that it is a computer which works on the basis of garbage in, garbage out.

Replacing humans with AI will only make referee decisions faster and precise but such decisions will be easily influenced because AI will work as it is programmed, the opponent might even take advantage of AI by manipulating its programming, and AI is so gullible that since it is a computer it will find it difficult to notice that it is being manipulated and also make those slight on-field decisions that humans normally take during difficult times when a particular decision is in contention. I will prefer if AI are only used by humans to minimize time delay but i wont want AI to completely replace humans.

[icebar]

In cases where several referees are required to conduct a match, a human referee must be kept as the main referee. If there is no human referee, then trust in that game will also be lost. If the game depends entirely on AI, then it will seem artificial. We can take the help of AI for any decision on the screen, but in the actual situation that is happening on the field, the decision given by the human referee should be accepted as the correct decision. If there is confusion after taking any decision, then we must try to give the correct result there with the help of AI and AI should be used in the game, but human refereeing will have to be done, otherwise the general spectators will lose interest.

[OgNasty]

It is just a matter of time before all game reffing is done by computers. Especially now that the depths of the gambling problem has become more clear. It might take a while for them to figure out the camera and things needed to do a better job than humans, but it is needed and it is coming quickly.

I don't think AI will completely take over referring. There are certain things that need human interpretation. In football, there are semi-automated offsides, there is VAR, there is goal line technology, and sensors in the ball. I think this is how it would be. The difference is these technologies will keep getting better and easier to use, but they will only be there to assist referees. AI won't be able to tell when a player is having a head injury and needs urgent medical attention, or if he is just faking to get the referees' attention. This is why I feel the technology will help improve the officiating, but it won't replace it entirely.

Nah, people will be removed from the equation completely to remove fears of them being paid off to influence the event. It is literally only a matter of time. I don’t think this is a debatable topic. Sure, it might be 10, 20, or 50 years, but I’m 100% certain it will happen. There is no reason to use humans. They will be worse than SI at literally everything.

[2Pizza410000BTC]

I've been watching local volleyball and there's a scenario where the a referee made a wrong call. It got me thinking, now that AI is everywhere, is it possible for AI to replace human referees to reduce bias and avoid questionable or wrong calls? For regular fans, it's frustrating to see a questionable calls but for most bettors, one wrong call could mean losing money.

If I am not mistaken, AI are already beting used in some sports such as tennis for line calls and football for offside decisions withe the help of VAR. Right now, I realized that replacing a human referees are not completely possible. Instead, AI could work alongside them. For instance, calling a foul in basketball or other contact sports, giving penalty due to the behaviour of the player, etc. requires human judgement and AI alone won't be able to determine something like that.

So my questions is, if AI could reduce incorrect calls and make decision more consistent, wouldn't that make sports betting and the sports itself fairer? What you guys think?

AI has made human work much easier and many tasks that are difficult and time-consuming for humans are being done accurately by AI in a short time, but that does not mean that all human tasks can be done by AI. No matter what you say about football, volleyball or cricket, I think there is definitely a need for a physical referee or umpire. Yes, referees or umpires can make maximum use of AI to make decisions accurately, but it does not mean that an entire match will be conducted by AI without any human.

A few days ago, I saw a video where a robot was put on a running track and I saw that the robot was losing control while taking turns. So in terms of decisions, I think AI can be used to help but AI cannot be completely relied on.

Hey brother, we think this AI is as perfect as it is, but it is not as perfect. A few days ago I was watching a video where a boy was riding a scooty and a guitar was hanging behind the boy, and the AI camera mistook the guitar for a passenger. If it cannot detect the guitar behind the bike, then how will AI solve a football match correctly? I don't think AI will solve a football match correctly without a human. I have given the video so everyone can watch it.

Video link: https://youtu.be/X_0YHX2t49I?si=l5XKt03ugsgHWBiE

[JunaidAzizi]

Yeah, AI can be used or it is already in use, as you said, in different sports. It's already working, and I am willing that it should be introduce into volleyball, it will be so easy. In volleyball, there are always clashes on line touches and net touches. If AI is introduced, then it would be easy for the referee to make a clear decision. However, I don't think that referees can be replaced by AI, as there are still some decisions that only a human referee can make. So, AI can work with human referees, but it can't replace them.

[Ryu_Ar1]

So my questions is, if AI could reduce incorrect calls and make decision more consistent, wouldn't that make sports betting and the sports itself fairer? What you guys think?

AFAIK AI has also been introduced to volleyball and at the paris Olympics some time ago also this has been used in volleyball sports but do not know for other competitions because I rarely follow this sport.

https://www.fivb.com/the-fivb-and-paris-2024-announce-best-in-class-officiating-technology-partnership-for-the-olympic-games-paris-2024/

But if indeed this has not been realized to all tournaments then it would be great if the FIVB immediately realized this for all volleyball tournaments because as you said that in the end the referee also sometimes makes mistakes and with the AI this can minimize a little so that one team is not harmed.  Although sometimes AI also has error conditions or sometimes controversial decisions the same as for VAR in football but in the end I feel this to be a fairly effective step if AI is used as an assistant referee in other sports such as volleyball.

[Davidvictorson]

So my questions is, if AI could reduce incorrect calls and make decision more consistent, wouldn't that make sports betting and the sports itself fairer? What you guys think?

The question I would ask is what do you define as fair in sports betting?
Is it where the winnings betting the operator and the player is 50/50.
Because what is fair to you as the player may not be fair to the operator.
The odds is always not in the favor of the player and that itself is not.
While there is real life value of using AI as a support during sports game for fair judgement and officiating it may not be what the gambling operators of sports books need in that sense.

[Sunshine1525]

It's already existing in football, i believe it should be used in other sports too but I'm more familiar with football. Have you heard about semi-automated offline tech (SOAT). It's an AI powered camera installed into the ball to help track players body parts during am offside call, I believe the camera for the goalline tech is also powered by AI.

Sports betting can't be completely fair cause the referee has the final call, if AI was making the final call it could've been possible but no, the AI camera might show a player is offside or not but then the refree makes a wrong decision and favour the opposite team.

[New Judgement]

These little mistakes are what make the sports interesting. It gives the fans and analysts something to talk about. If you take away the human referees you kill the fun of the game. The VAR in football are not actually AI, they are humans that watch the flow of the game in a bigger screen. They take a closer look at every incidents that the central referees couldn’t see and they make recommendations to the referee to go have a review on the screen. It’s actually AI doing the jobs as you are thinking.

[Smack That Ace]

There is no reason to use humans. They will be worse than SI at literally everything.

Suppose any issue arise during match, perhaps with AI’s camera feed, sensor data or decision making model. In such case, who would recognize that system is making error and who would challenge that decision? We would still have to rely on people who design, maintain and control data and access to these AI system. Removing referee does not mean that human influence disappear entirely. It simply shifts elsewhere.

Moreover, not all sports decisions are of same nature.
Determining whether any ball has fully crossed goal line, as with goal line technology is relatively objective. However, in situation involving physical contact, such as whether contact was intentional, severity of foul or whether play was dangerous, context is crucial.

So, once AI accuracy reaches sufficiently high level, it might be logical to fully automate certain type of decision. But it would be mistake to impose same model across every sport and for every type of decision.

[r_victory]

Yet another technology to disrupt the flow of the game...
I have no doubt that, with the advances AI has made, it will start to be used more frequently in these cases to assist referees in their decision-making, but I think VAR already fulfills this role very well.

[Woodie]

I've been watching local volleyball and there's a scenario where the a referee made a wrong call. It got me thinking, now that AI is everywhere, is it possible for AI to replace human referees to reduce bias and avoid questionable or wrong calls? For regular fans, it's frustrating to see a questionable calls but for most bettors, one wrong call could mean losing money.

If it's fairness we want, then we need to remove human error from the equation, and considering this AI technology can be taught from so many simulated scenarios and real life scenarios, am certain AI will compliment humans in decision making and unfortunately AI can't be left to do everything without supervision...if anything most sports have it on semi automated systems for this very reason!

So my questions is, if AI could reduce incorrect calls and make decision more consistent, wouldn't that make sports betting and the sports itself fairer? What you guys think?

In a way yes, but the threat now will come from hackers who will likely find ways to hack such systems and that is another reason to have a human to override bad calls..

[Ayers]

While there is real life value of using AI as a support during sports game for fair judgement and officiating it may not be what the gambling operators of sports books need in that sense.

Reducing referee error will not benefit all bettor equally. Some might win bet they would have otherwise lost due to any incorrect decision. Conversely other might lose winning bet as result of that same correction. However I believe that consistent officiating will, in long run enhance integrity of sport.

In my view, purpose of AI should be to ensure accurate decision making on field. It is not its role to increase or decrease profit of bookmaker. Sportsbook will adjust their odds based on market condition. But officiating technology should not be evaluated through lens of commercial interest of betting operator.

If AI reduces error in referee decision then it is positive development for integrity of sport. Although, there is no guarantee that this will increase expected profit for any individual bettor.

[Bitcoin Maxi]

As you have already said, AI assistant is already been use to assist the referee in football and in most sport, but replacing humans is what I disagree with because it can be easily gamed or cheated, since such machine is programmed in a certain way.

One thing we humans are very good at is to game any system that is programmed, so it would be a very bad idea to be officiating a game that is an emotional game with something that has no emotions or psychological thinking, the results wouldn't ends well.

The idea of replacing human as referee does not sound good at all or does op want robots to be running around the pitch trying to blow whistle against a player? Human being should be the one officiating and not AI. AI can be use as assistant like we have been seeing the VAR doing the assistant job for checking if a goal was offside or what a player really deserves.
We don't have to over rely on AI for everything we are doing. We'll have brain and it has to be out into work.

[Oasisman]

So my questions is, if AI could reduce incorrect calls and make decision more consistent, wouldn't that make sports betting and the sports itself fairer? What you guys think?

Yes, absolutely. Incorporating AI to help the referee make the right calls can make the game more fairer and less suspicion about referees who make bias calls.

The NBA are already testing some "smart basketball" that can detect some of the crucial calls like out of bounds, and who touches the ball last before it go out of bounds. This will speed up the game by lessening the official reviews, especially on the crucial moments.

I wouldn't want AI to make decisions on how to call for a personal foul as it'll surely make basketball and other contact sports soft.