6 ms·
MLB umpires calling balls/strikes instead of machines. Probably the most absurd situation as viewers at home can see clearly when they are wrong/right immediat
by fullshark 4y ago
MLB umpires calling balls/strikes instead of machines. Probably the most absurd situation as viewers at home can see clearly when they are wrong/right immediately.
I'm sure there's lot of other (better) examples where unions are strong and/or experimental technology carries risk and the market is heavily regulated (e.g. healthcare).
- mjr00 4y ago> MLB umpires calling balls/strikes instead of machines. Hah true but this is more of a "spirit of the game" rule than anything. Same idea with football/soccer, there's certainly no technological barrier preventing the use of an accurate game clock to get an exact amount of stoppage time, or even pausing the clock during play, but they keep on out of tradition I guess.
- tremon 4y agoA predetermined game time is much easier for TV broadcasts: they don't have to schedule filler content for when the game ends earlier or later than anticipated. I've already been hearing complaints around the last World Cup that all the VAR-induced injury time was eating into the ad blocks.
- SoftTalker 4y agoWhy not have a pitching machine? And a hitting robot?
- fullshark 4y agoDo you watch baseball for the umps? To see them show their 99percentile talent at calling balls/strikes?
- williamcotton 4y agoJoe West thinks you do!
- WalterBright 4y agoHuman error just makes the game more interesting and less predictable.
- int_19h 4y agoHuman error in judgment doesn't.
- WalterBright 4y agoYeah, it does. F1 also has their disputes with rulings by their committee. All part of the game.
- throwaway675309 4y agoRidiculous. You're conflating human error as part of the skills in the game itself (failing to catch a pop fly) versus human error that results in inconsistencies of rules (marking a pitch as a strike when it is quantifiably outside the strike zone). One of these makes the game more interesting, the other one makes it more frustrating. Can you guess which one is which, or should I call for a ref?
- WalterBright 4y agoThe solution is to win by a wider margin. Or schmooze the refs!
- williamcotton 4y agoOr a robot crowd? Or a robot watching the game at a robot bar? Or a robot talking about the good old days of human umpires in the comment section of a tech blog for robots?
- MisterTea 4y agoThis sounds like a scene from Futurama.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoRight. The same goes for other sports. I'm sure one could build a machine that would bowl strikes all day long, and if bowling were part of an industrial manufacturing process, that would be awesome. But it isn't... bowling is a sport. The whole point of sports is the challenge. No challenge, no sport.
- dntrkv 4y agoExcept nobody plays or watches sports for the refs. They are a necessity because that’s been the only possible way to enforce rules. I play a sport at a pretty competitive level and would love it if we didn’t have a human ref. Refs can be assholes and they make bad calls all the time. It can really ruin a game. Having a machine make the calls removes a lot of the bias (and genuine mistakes) in those calls.
- WalterBright 4y agoFormula 1 racing has lots and lots of wild, random things happening that totally change who wins vs who "deserves" to win. For example, a rookie driver might pop a tire and take out the race leader. These things happen all the time, and make the game more interesting rather than a completely predictable sure thing.
- Kbelicius 4y agoThat has nothing to do with what is being talked about or is there, in F1, some commit which decides whose tire will pop today?