Quote from: DaveBrown74 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:34 AMI wouldn't have an issue with this, provided it's definitely more accurate than human calls. I don't see a good argument for why sports should not use technology to make officiating more accurate. Why allow for human error when you don't have to? Tennis is way better now that they have the technological arbiter on close calls. What is worse than a team losing a game because of a wrong call that could have been avoided with the use of available technology?
Very true. It is currently in use in the Australian Football League (AFL) for scoring reviews. Still, I've witnessed it being used incorrectly which ended up screwing a scoring decision for a team which ultimately cost them a berth in their Finals (i.e. playoffs).
It has the potential to take the subjective out of the reviewing process as long as the process for using it has been made error-proof due to the introduction of human in the loop error of other variables. For first downs, that would mean discernment of "when" the whistle was blown to indicate forward progress was stopped. (Edited to add) In addition, I wanted to recognize all those here who offered other excellent examples which would require other technologies, such as video, or sensors implanted in the ball, or maybe even microphones to hear the referee's whistle!
Let's hope they figure that part out first before implementing it at large.
Peace!