WE all appreciate a good conversation. This year, Wimbledon certainly had its share of amusing moments. Initially, news broke that 300 judges had been substituted with AI robots. Soon after, it was revealed that the technology had its own unexpected glitch. Since Roger Federer switched from the Wilson racket, the sweet spot hasn’t made much of an impression in the last two weeks at Wimbledon.

To start with, the new electronic line judging system struggled to recognize Sonay Kartal’s swift sledge against Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova during a match. Interestingly, this issue arose because the staff unintentionally powered down the system.

Moreover, a forehand from Taylor Fritz was mistakenly called out, even though it landed four feet inside the baseline. During his serve, the system was baffled by the ball boys still present on the court.

In comparison, this was less problematic than Kartal’s situation. Regardless, a narrative has emerged suggesting that technology is eroding our traditional practices while implying that machines cannot fully replace human judgment.

What went unnoticed amidst all the backlash is that Wimbledon actually implemented an upgraded version of the Hawkeye system it adopted back in 2007. This tech performs much better than the human eye, resulting in significantly fewer errors. The difference is not even debatable.

Historically, studies have indicated that umpires made mistakes about 8% of the time with close calls. However, players’ judgment tends to be even poorer.

When I inquired with IBM about players’ accuracy in calling lines at Wimbledon last year, my expectation was a rough parity of 50/50. Yet, out of 1,535 challenges in men’s and women’s singles matches in 2024, only 380 were successfully overturned—less than 25%. In simpler terms, players often guessed wrong about three out of four times when a ball was out.

Furthermore, Wimbledon officials emphasized the importance of technology in maintaining the integrity of sports. Unlike in the past when decisions led to shoulder shrugs from fans and gamblers, the current landscape sees players and officials targeted on social media with accusations of conspiracy.

During the last Rugby World Cup, Wayne Barnes shared his experience of severe online abuse targeted towards his family, asking, “Is this really a sport?” He is not alone in these concerns. In such a hostile environment, anything that aids officials is a welcome addition.

Even when umpires strive to be fair, they can be unconsciously swayed by crowd reactions. In one study involving 40 qualified soccer referees analyzing 47 incidents from Liverpool-Leicester matches, those who reviewed footage with crowd noise penalized Liverpool significantly less (15.5%) compared to a control group watching in silence.

Further research in Norway indicated that successful teams were more likely to receive advantageous penalty calls. Psychologists attribute this effect to cognitive biases. Regardless of opinions about machines, they remain impervious to these influences.

Critics of sports technology often resist change while demanding perfection. However, as Voltaire noted, perfection is the enemy of good. Instead, we ought to ask if the technology offers improvements and enhancements over previous systems.

The accuracy of Hawk-Eye has improved since its inception in 2007 and will continue to evolve. Although VAR has its critics, FIFA’s implementation during the World Cup and Club World Cups has been less controversial, allowing fans to witness the same replays that officials see. Hopefully, the Premier League is taking note.

Nevertheless, one thing remains certain: change is inevitable. As per Matt Drew of Statsperform, a leader in data and sports integrity, “There isn’t a flawlessly perfect system, but the technology is evidently more reliable than solely human decision-making.” He emphasizes that sports bodies believe technology aids in making more accurate decisions while safeguarding officials and players from harassment. The best sports like tennis and cricket manage to preserve the fan experience while integrating technology.

Consider this: at last year’s International Olympic Committee’s Artificial Intelligence Conference, we demonstrated divers in real-time. Judges were promptly informed of jump height, rotations, and distances as the athletes performed. Each dive was analyzed in less than a tenth of a second, allowing referees to more accurately assess dive quality and ensure fair scoring. Who could oppose that?

Meanwhile, as technology progresses, more traditions may fade away. Starting in September, for instance, the NFL will replace the traditional “chain gangs” used to mark first downs with Hawk-Eye technology. I personally will miss them, but it’s certainly more accurate than relying on methods from the 18th century.

Do you have any thoughts on the issues discussed in this article? If you’d like to submit a response of up to 300 words for publication consideration, please click here.