The officials, smartly dressed in navy blue jackets and grey trousers, with white hats atop their heads sit in one line above the finish line with stopwatches in their hands. This image illustrates the state of technology in sports back in the 1970s.

Males filled up the majority of seats at prestigious events held in stadiums. The problem was that they were not there as spectators. They performed official jobs like keeping track of the runners' times and assigning the winners.

In effect, it was up to them to decide who would be crowned champion and who would take up other places on the podium. This was not always easy, especially in sprint runs when a fraction of a second could mean the difference between a gold or a silver medal.

The stopwatch was manually started with the push of a button at the sound of the starter pistol. Even when the refs had 20/20 hearing, there was always a delay of about 0.25 seconds. For this reason, results measured by hand were unlikely to be precise. And they were frequently not.

For example, in the 1960 Olympics, Armin Hary set a world record of 10 seconds for the 100-meter sprint. His time would have been 0.25 seconds slower if a more accurate electronic measurement had been used. But such was the technological state of the time. And the troubles did not end there.

The officials’ eyes were part of the basic toolkit at the time. The starter ruled on who had committed a false start and who had not. Meanwhile, the officials at the finish line were in a similar situation. Picking out the winner was apparently the easiest part, although not always. Mistakes still happened a lot in athletics, despite the fact that there was one referee for each competitor.

Needless to say, athletes’ careers depended on the verdict of the officials. Not only was their place in the rankings on the line, but so was their funding. And this was not only a matter of becoming rich from the sponsorships. In some cases, it also meant whether those athletes would be able to put food on their tables. Because in many sports, especially athletics, competitors who failed to take part in the top events did not even get paid by the club.

In short, the lack of progress in sports technology led to worse results and careers, and not always in a fair way. The times we live in are a period of accelerated growth, or rather a technological revolution, both in the world and in sports. Is this revolution somehow radically transforming sport?

The cushy life of a modern-day referee

In modern athletic stadiums, electronics rule the day. At least at major international events. It rules the officials’ verdicts because humans are completely dependent on it for all necessary measurements.

There are sensors in the starting blocks that measure 4,000 times per second how hard someone steps on them and sends that information to the computers of the officials. The permitted reaction time after a shot is 100 milliseconds.

All competitors hear the starting shot at the same time through loudspeakers mounted in the blocks. This sound triggers the chronometer and sends data to the timing computers.

Two cameras at the finish line, which record at 10,000 frames per second, are responsible for the photo finish. Along with the cameras, there are also four photoelectric cells that make it easier to figure out where the runners are.

    SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE 
  When one or more athletes block the view of a camera, another can give clear footage from a different angle. Thus, the officials do not have to rule anything with their “naked eye”, because they observe events with eyes armed with electronics.

But that's not all. The fact that you can connect a wind sensor to the photo-finish camera is an undeniable plus. It is then immediately clear whether or not the result of the run can be chalked down as an official record. If the tailwind is faster than two metres per second, the result is not a record on any level.

The job of an official has changed from one that was casual to one that is comfortable. Not only in running but also in jumping and throwing, where the precision of measurements is flawless thanks to laser and video technologies.

The new solutions are not only useful for the officials, who need a second-perfect set of data, but also for the people watching at home. Technologies such as RTTS (Real Time Tracking System), which monitors even split times in runs, have become useful tools in the industry.

But camera and sensor technologies are not the only ones shaping the sport. Miniature, ultralight chips placed on the back of race numbers provide valuable information to coaches in assessing athletes' tactics and form.

“Big data” devices, as they are called, are also used by other disciplines. For example, in football, they are used to measure the distance covered by players during a match. In tennis, such a technology can be used to determine the speed of the ball following a serve.

All power in the hands of AI

In the case of tennis, electronics could eventually mean the end of umpires as we know them. It all started in 2020, after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. Back then, the decision was made to replace line umpires in some tournaments with the Hawk Eye Live system.

AI (artificial intelligence) technology research began in the 1970s. In tennis, it was intended to assist line umpires. The system works with numerous sensors and cameras operated by dynamic algorithms.

Its job is to track the movement of the ball and where it hits the ground. This is a seemingly simple function, but it is actually quite complicated. The software requires complex calculations. Firstly, you need special balls, which are either magnetised or electrically conductive.

You also need pressure sensors, infrared laser beams, and multiple cameras set at different angles. From this information, the algorithm makes a three-dimensional image of the ball's path around the court.

A significant testing ground was the 2021 Australian Open. The linemen were no longer required since their work was done by the AI system. Its margin of error is just 3.6 mm (with a ball diameter of 67 mm), so about the length of the fuzz on the ball.

The human eye is unlikely to make such a precise assessment. A total of 12 high-speed cameras follow the ball at close range, while six cameras cover other angles. And it's all based on triangulation principles that are accurate to the millimetre.

Perhaps in time, someone will come to the conclusion that the main umpire is also unnecessary on the courts. Already today, an automated machine issues key messages such as “out”, “fault” or “foot fault”. So the current state of affairs seems very transitional at the moment.

At some point, the person in charge of the artificial intelligence system will be the only job available. Provided, of course, that he or she doesn't touch anything, as the artificial intelligence could get really angry because it is the one wielding the power.

Football with a human face

Compared with the developments in tennis, the new technologies in football have a more human face. They were also introduced gradually, which gave fans time to get used to the changes. Although fans do not necessarily accept everything at first glance.

The initial phase was goal-line technology. This included video verification and other referee-assistance tools. It was a simple plan that only looked at one specific area of the game: whether or not the ball had crossed the goal line.

Another development was the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) system. Its possibilities were significantly expanded. And it's even summed up in a simple maxim: "minimum interference, maximum benefit."

In practice, this just means that serious refereeing mistakes need to be fixed quickly. This usually happens when a penalty kick is given to the wrong team or when it's not clear which player committed a foul.

The VAR technology has been humanised by its collective name: video assistant referee. The monitor staff, which consists of qualified football referees who assist the referees on the field, grants VAR human status.

There are usually several such referees, and their tasks are divided. They work in a special room or in a VOR (Video Operation Room) vehicle. To be faithful to the minimum-maximum rule, they only react in specific situations. These include: when it is necessary to recognise or not recognise a goal; to allow a penalty kick – or not; or to show a red card (a second yellow card is not subject to review). Finally, target the correct recipient of a yellow or red card.

In football, unlike in tennis, people are partners with technology, which does not replace them but helps them. The final decisions are made by a large group of professionals. Overall, electronics make this sport more job-friendly, not less, so a robot revolt in football is not likely.

There is no room for romanticism

There are no two ways about it. The impact of the latest scientific advances varies among sports. It really depends on the specifics of the sport, how refereeing needs to adapt to make it fairer and how to make the competition more entertaining, which is the priority objective.

Contemporary competitive sports, or better yet, professional sports, should be classified as commercial products. The essence of any change, whether in rules or technology, is to increase the quality of the commodity and, therefore, its market value and potential profits.

It is naive to think otherwise. There is no room for romanticism in this industry. There is no space for flamboyant idealists. This is business, brutal, and greedy. Whichever changes are made are only to make more money.

Any video verification, even with lasers or the use of triangulation, serves to improve the fluidity and dynamics of the entertainment, which makes it look better on television and therefore brings in more advertising revenue. Modern sport is a mirror of the world, even though it was supposed to be the other way around.

In this world, fair play does not work. Sport is supposed to entertain and excite, and pleasures cost money. Technology amps up the excitement and entertainment. And unfortunately, of course, at the expense of the rules.

Technology so fast… it's too fast

The latest plague in sports is “technological doping” which has recently taken off in many sports. Unlike the previous “pharmacological doping” where athletes took banned substances to make them leaner, faster, and stronger, these tools help athletes shave seconds off their times and discreetly beat the competition. The problem is that there are no effective countermeasures.

Sports officials, in particular, have a huge job to figure out what makes some athletes seem like they can do anything. It took a year or two for paralympian Oscar Pistorius to first start raising eyebrows with his running prosthetics.

The South African sprinter's carbon fibre blades seemed so fast that something was certainly amiss. However, no athletics official in the world had any idea how to confirm these suspicions. Apparently, there were some general rules. But again, they were so general as to be too general.

The technological advances in this field are incredible. The South African runner was not equipped with off-the-shelf prosthetics. They were made to order. They might have looked similar, but the secret was in how they were made. The subtle improvements could not be seen, but they could be measured with a stopwatch. However, a record-quick run was not proof that something was amiss.

The Paralympics are judged by the same officials who work at events for able-bodied athletes. They do not have sufficient knowledge of prosthetics and are therefore unable to judge whether a runner is playing fair or using technological advantage.

These kinds of technologies have caused a lot of confusion throughout the world of sport. Discussions about what can be considered doping and what can be allowed have reached a fever pitch. In the end, money makes the world go round. And the lightening pace at which these developments are happening, it seems that all officials will have to one day face this headache of an issue.

A bicycle with a motor hidden in the frame is something like a moped. So a battery-powered cyclist is basically a fake cyclist. A motor in a bicycle is clearly cheating, and there is no issue there. However, it is not always so obvious and easy to diagnose.

Every winter season, officials brawl on the ski slopes. One year it's over the boots, other times because of the suits. The need to measure the inseam might seem funny, but this is no joke. A millimetre this way or that could mean the difference between a medal and a failure. Everyone argues with everyone else.

Footwear fever has recently taken hold on treadmills and marathons. And this is because of the “super spike”' and the “miracle shoe” for running on asphalt. The secret is in the soles and insoles. Supposedly, both improve performance.

Some say that they can shave off as much as 18 seconds over a marathon. The athletics federation issued a statement saying that there was no evidence of technological doping.

All in all, new technologies don't change sports, because only people can do that by the way they use them. They can do it for good or bad purposes. And referees are there to oversee that.

At least until they are replaced by robots.

– Marek Jóźwik

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and journalists

– Translated by Robeto Galea