Football fans and the impact of technology

Hi,

As part of my university dissertation I have to distribute an online survey to gather perceptions of sports fans on the impact of technology on sports spectatorship, both on TV and live event.

I would be VERY grateful if you could spare a couple of minutes to fill in the survey for me. It would really help with my dissertation.

Please click the link to access the survey:

https://strathbusiness.qualtrics.com...iVWtVvi9guiqhf

Cheers and really appreciate it!

Nick

 

I was unable to access the survey at the link you provided. Computer says "No". So I will have to provide my feedback this way.

Personally, I don't like the use of technology in the in-game decision making process. That doesn't mean that I don't think it should be used, but that it should be used ONLY where its use does not affect the flow of the game as in the goal line technology that helps a referee to either give or not give a goal when there is doubt over whether the ball has crossed the goal line. We all know how this works by now. The cameras are linked to a computer that can instantly buzz an accurate decision to the referee's wristwatch monitor and he either gives a goal or calls "play on". Fair enough.

What I dislike very much, is the situation in some sports such as cricket, rugby and tennis where technology is encroaching more and more into playing time and long hold ups occur. In cricket, just about every run out or stumping call is "sent upstairs" often leading to very long delays. Umpires now check every wicket for, at the very least, to see if a no-ball should be called. This nit-picking has led to batsmen hanging around hoping for a reprieve if one millimetre of the heel of the bowler's boot was behind (not on... behind) the line of the bowling crease. For Christ's sake, man... your middle stump was knocked clean out of the ground. You're out. Get off so the next man can come in and we can get on with the game.

In rugby, more than 50% of tries scored in televised matches are referred to the Television Match Official (TMO) to see whether the ball was grounded, or it was knocked on in the process of scoring or some such. Referees are now even asking the TMO to run the TV sequence back to open play to see if a forward pass occurred or a player's foot touched the touchline some three or four phases of play before the try was scored. Ridiculous.

At least in tennis, a player has only so many challenges to line calls that can be made in a match and the technology is quick and reliable but it is still an irritation to me to have to stop the game for this.

In rugby, the players have become quite savvy with the technology and at, say, a try scoring situation a defending team may heap players all around the ball in the melee in an attempt to obscure the cameras and prevent a clear enough view of the grounding or whatever, in the hope that an indecisive TMO will lead to their team getting the benefit of the doubt. It happens. When players find a way to frustrate the use of cameras, how can anybody say the game has been improved by their use?

It is the delays that are the most frustrating. I have known a TMO in cricket to take nearly ten minutes, using umpteen camera angles to decide whether or not a batsman was run out. Ditto rugby at a try scoring situation. In that time, players are standing around getting cold (which can lead to muscle strains, pulls or tears when the game restarts) and losing their match concentration which can lead to mistakes which can easily cost a team the game. Whilst all this technological gadzookery is being employed, spectators get bored and restless which, should this ever happen in a tense football match, could lead to a volatile crowd situation.

The only people who benefit from such incidents are the TV people. They love a "controversy". They love to have something they can pull to pieces.... dissect down to the nth degree and, usually, blow out of all proportion. It is their bread and butter. They feed off it because it justifies their existence. Without "controversy" there would be no need for all these superfluous pundits who take up hours of airtime for no real good purpose at all, in my opinion.

TV pundits already take up many hours of airtime chewing over every little detail, no matter how insignificant. Imagine what they would be like if they had more decisions referred to technology. Death by Alan Shearer is too horrible a prospect to contemplate.

Of course, it has to be said that we all want to see a fair result. That decisions are correctly made and those who cheat and connive are caught and penalised. Cheats should not prosper (what a pity nobody ever told Diego Maradona that). But isn't the sheer unpredictability of the outcome a major part of the attraction of sport? Knowing that referees can and do make errors which can have an effect on the game.? That is part of what makes sport what it is and without this it can become sterile and devoid of that most human of attributes: Fallibility.

If we introduce more and more technology into the decision making process the officiating of the game becomes less a human experience and more a forensic exercise. Devoid of emotion or humanity, the game ceases to be sport and becomes instead a "process".

The ultimate end-game for technology would be for sport to do away with on-field officials altogether and simply have as many TMO's as are needed, sitting in a control room somewhere, each watching a monitor and deciding on a designated aspect of the game as it occurs... offside... ball out of play etc. Decisions could be transmitted to the players and crowd via a big screen with a whistle or klaxon going off to alert them that play is stopped. There would be nobody on the field for the players to argue with so dissent would be a thing of the past. You'd get a fair result. Well, mostly. Certainly more than occurs with on-pitch officials making split second decisions in the heat of the moment. This would be manna from heaven for the techno-geeks and TV pundits.

But oh.... those delays. Each incident being dissected and mulled over by each official. And what happens when, say, a player handballs in the penalty area, but another official says somebody else was pulling a jersey and yet another tries to make an offside call, and all this happens at the same time. Who takes precedence..? How long must we all wait while the various TMO's argue it out amongst themselves...?

I am a firm believer that good luck and bad, good calls and bad decisions, all even themselves out in the end. What goes around comes around and some you win, some you lose.

For me, for better or worse, the current situation is best. One referee in charge. He makes a decision. Whether it is right or wrong, the players and supporters have to put on their big boy panties and live with it.

Then we can just get on with the game.