3 ms·

Yep. I think the most egregious example is in the NFL where you can call a hold ( on offense or defense ) on every play if you wanted to. Of course in baseball,

Yep. I think the most egregious example is in the NFL where you can call a hold ( on offense or defense ) on every play if you wanted to. Of course in baseball, the umpire can "manage" the game by changing their strike zone. I still don't understand why we need umpires to call balls and strikes. Can't they get video imaging system to make the call? This way we know it is objective.

PakG1 8y ago
It's slowly happening. Look at how tennis can have challenges now. But I think a limited number of challenges per match? But I think people like having the human element a bit, and the accompanying controversy. Entire industries are built on discussing this stuff.
Godel_unicode 8y ago
You're assuming that the goal is to be objective. That's not always the case, and even when it is there are often overriding objectives. Two examples are Mike Wilbon complaining that they should "let the players play in the fourth quarter", and Jon Gruden wanting to get rid of video entirely. Jon wants it to be a human game played and officiated by humans, with all the error that entails. See also limits on coaches challenges to keep the game from being bogged down.