Sporting v. Sport
Has our reliance on AI decisions changed our perceptions of sport?
TL;DR: Yes it has, & not for the better in terms of humanity.
I live in Melbourne, Australia, the putative capital of sport in our country, or even the galaxy. I follow the Aussie Holy Trinity: Australian Rules Football (“Aussie Rules footy”), cricket and tennis (a distant third for me).
As my football team lost to better teams, sometimes on appeal, I pondered the decisions which altered the outcome due to electronic reviews, wondering if the slavish reliance on absolute accuracy was contrary to the spirit of sport. Given the past adherence to an independent referee or umpire (be they competent or not in the eye of the supporter), it was a given there was a certain amount left to chance and whim, as well as the proficiency and training of the officiating person. It was accepted there was always human error involved and although the cause of much contention between those who won and those who lost, the consensus was that the umpire was “always right”, even if not respected or liked (or indeed abused roundly for being blind, deaf, stupid, brain-dead etc — you get the idea).
From prehistory, competition equalled survival of your species, your herd, your family, and yourself. Those least able to physically cope perished — survival of the fittest. Darwinism meant beings learned to fight efficiently to ward off predators or flee danger to ensure safety. As human life progressed, the fight-or-flight instincts were morphed and honed into competition for dominance not just for power or control, but in place of such lethal contests. Speed, agility, and accuracy of movement no longer meant the death of an opponent, but the winning of a competition with the kudos that brought. Breaking the tape, leaping over obstacles, or lifting the heaviest weights became ends in themselves for the glory and prestige such talents presented, hence the Olympic Games. However, before electronics, human judges were the ones who adjudicated, and whose decisions generally were respected and considered final.
While the Industrial Revolution wrought great change in the means of production and use of labour, it also brought efficiencies and accuracies in measurement of manufacture and human work. This metrification trickled through to other forms of human endeavour, least of which was measurement of sporting achievement, permitting intensely accurate measures of time, weight, distance, and speed. Whilst the adjudication of wins and losses were now more precise, the umpire or referee still had the final say, without the absolutism which now exists. In cricket, for example, it was not until the late-20th Century that electronic devices were fitted to the stumps and behind the wickets to note the tiniest of touches, which hitherto would have passed unseen or undetected. The same applied to football goal-posts and tennis line markings. Indeed, in early 2021, human tennis line umpires were completely dispensed with, the irony being the line calls are still announced by a recorded (male!) human voice. Similarly, football goals are open to electronic surveillance and often challenged. Instant replays are shown in slow-motion to ascertain whether the ball was touched on the way through or if it just hit the post. Often the margin is barely a millimetre, but “the camera doesn’t lie!” However, this essay isn’t about the accuracy per se, but rather how we now consume sport.
With the exception of those with OCD, consumers of sport have been content to trust to the vagaries and indeed serendipity of umpire/referee decisions. While most over time have had issues with outcomes based on perhaps “ill considered” umpire verdicts, it was thought part and parcel of the humanity of sporting endeavours and general impartiality of those who presided over the game. While one may have bemoaned the outcome (“…the Ref was blind!…”), it was accepted the verdict stood and errors generally evened out in the long run. Such was the acceptance of sport as part of life and its whims. Fast-forward to now…
All major sporting codes, even those not conditional on microseconds (such as F1 or motorbike races), now rely heavily on electronic accuracy for decision-making. While many will argue this leads to better outcomes and a higher benchmark of sporting excellence (“Higher, Faster, Better”), the dehumanisation of such results strips away the mortal side from the principles of sport. A pastime which embodies human strength, frailty, prowess and success, becomes captive to electronic machinery, and humanity removed from the equation. The contest becomes athlete against machine, rather than against another athlete. One’s opponent is now electronic, not flesh and blood, and one’s wits become subservient to mechanical and electronic wizardry rather than against another of perhaps equal intelligence, skill and will.
Now I’m not a Luddite, but rather one who views with regret the elimination of partially luck-driven outcomes dependent on mortal frailties, with the attendant quirks. It was always the uncertainty principle which was the excitement for me, from the unsolicited character assessment of the umpires to the inexpert advice of a chorus of supporters putatively wronged by a person in authority. Therein lay the joy of spectator sport, with all the blunders and myriad options of endings possible. With little or no electronics, games were as much about chance as anything, although a clearly superior opponent would always shine regardless of umpiring, machinery, or electronics.
It is sadly apparent the genie is now out of the bottle and there is no turning back the tide of electronic game analysis and the ineffable, cold accuracy of millimetre, microsecond or microgram. Going back to a warmer, slightly more inexact time is no longer possible, let alone debatable. Sport has moved on, as have people’s expectations. The communication and computer revolution has changed the way we interact, in my opinion not necessarily for the better. What was once considered friendly contest has become weaponised and a statistical war of beings against machines. This has translated across nations to more frantic searches for dominance and the use of sport as power leverage. The effort to beat the machine has equated to beating rivals and exerting political influence or supremacy.
In this mix, I have not mentioned the gains of gambling and the immense fortunes won and lost on physical performance and winning above all else. That may well be for another time to comment, apart from my observation gambling is intrinsically counter-productive to society and continuing unbridled as it appears, harms more devastatingly than it helps.
In another time, to be sporting was to recognise the principles of fairness and be gracious as winner or loser. It was to recognise the decision of an adjudicator and abide by that ruling, regardless of personal opinion or consequence. It meant the acceptance of a sometimes-fallible view or interpretation with good grace, in the knowledge it would be applied equally to all protagonists without fear or favour. It also recognised there would be times of personal bias or failings which would be seen as part of the chance nature of the game, perhaps grudgingly embraced, but embraced nonetheless. Finally, it was human overseeing human endeavour, assessing according to a set of rules and applying them in human fashion, as imprecise a method as it was. In sum, being sporting was to accept transience and to celebrate win or loss irrespective.
I honestly find elite sport now unpalatable. Whilst admiring the athleticism, I find it impersonal, at times cold and lacking the depth of human involvement, despite the obvious flaws and irregularities of that approach. While financial matters drive accuracy and wins, the guiding principles have been lost in the miasma of money, electronics, power and influence. Perhaps the last two have always been thus, but in gentler times we could afford to savour a challenge of skill without the shade of corporate or fiscal gain underpinning a competition. My assertion is that sporting behaviour and competition have been overshadowed by vested financial interests, which have perverted the “Higher, Faster, Better…” tenets, where winning at all costs is lauded, with the vanquished labelled “losers” or other pejorative epithets, rather than conceding the nobility of the effort of the opponent, if not their dominance as outcome.
I concede being an almost lone voice against the maelstrom of “professional-isation” of sporting achievement, against the “microsecond-isation” of endeavour and accomplishment, and the industrialisation of human striving for sporting excellence. While my argument will intersect with the artificial intelligence (AI) debate, as one schooled in the digital age, I rail against the overburdening of physical contest with electronic excellence, ripping human aspects and attitudes from people to a binary, digital official.
While the plaintive cry of a 19th century story was “I am not an animal…”, perhaps we should revisit that plea with an updated version: “We are not mere integers…”, for otherwise, the game, any game, has lost its soul.
© Anthony M Leong
January 4, 2024
