This blog post examines whether advances in video review technology can replace the role of referees, and the resulting changes in fairness and authority.
Today’s scientific technology advances daily and has deeply penetrated modern society. Among these, high-speed camera technology captures split-second moments in sports that are difficult for the human eye to judge, aiding in accurate decisions. For judgments that are nearly impossible to distinguish with the human eye—such as 100-meter track rankings, whether a strike landed in combat sports, or tennis line calls—review technology provides a level of reliability no referee can match. This technology now plays a pivotal role beyond being a simple tool, ensuring fairness in sports and providing spectators with a better viewing experience.
Yet, despite having this technology that is more accurate and faster in judgment than humans, most situations are still controlled by referees. This might be because the technology hasn’t yet advanced enough to independently determine whether a rule violation has occurred. But what if, driven by the recent resurgence in machine learning-based AI research, this technology becomes intelligent enough in the near future to completely replace referees? If such technology becomes feasible, would referees truly become unnecessary? This question demands a deeper philosophical discussion about how far science and technology can replace human roles.
Before answering that question, let’s consider what science and technology, and specifically engineering, are. Engineering has evolved to resolve inconveniences in daily life and create more convenient and efficient living. To enable conversations across great distances, the telephone was developed. Then, as it progressed from mobile phones to smartphones, countless engineers worked tirelessly to improve call quality and increase data transmission speeds. Throughout this process, engineering has served not merely as a tool for solving problems, but as a vital force guiding human life toward greater improvement. Similarly in sports, video review technology has advanced to capture split-second moments impossible for the human eye to follow. This provides extremely strong support for officiating decisions and prevents unnecessary disputes.
Consequently, disruptions to game flow have decreased, reducing the burden on referees, allowing spectators to enjoy smoother viewing, and enabling athletes to avoid unnecessary conflicts. This significantly contributes to preserving the pure competitive spirit of sports. But can this technological progress solve every problem? The more technology advances, the more we ponder how far we can replace human judgment and emotion.
But just how far can and should this engineering progress? Recent technologies have advanced so much that one might wonder if further development is even necessary. Until now, engineering technology has replaced tasks that were inefficient, unnecessary, or dangerous for humans to perform. But future advancements may even replace tasks humans should do, or even tasks humans want to do. What happens when machines perform tasks originally meant for humans? We must reflect on whether such technological progress truly serves humanity or turns humans into its subordinates.
For referees, the greatest advantage of video review is that they no longer bear responsibility for ambiguous calls. In other words, the responsibility that should rightfully belong to the highest authority within the game is being shifted to an inanimate object—a machine—that cannot be held accountable. While it’s true that reviews still have many errors and cost limitations prevent the overuse of high-performance cameras, meaning the machine’s reliability isn’t yet absolute, there’s no guarantee this will remain the case. This raises the possibility that the heavy responsibility of controlling the flow of a sporting event could shift entirely from humans to machines. This signifies a complete transfer not only of responsibility but also of authority. This process prompts us to reconsider the referee’s role: it extends beyond merely applying rules to encompass the crucial function of maintaining human judgment and fairness.
No matter how absolute a person’s authority may be, they are still human. But if absolute authority becomes the domain of machines—in other words, if systems come to dominate humans—what becomes of the meaning of human existence? ‘Brave New World’ is a novel depicting a world where all lives are controlled by ‘the system’. There, humans exist solely as cogs in the system, assigned explicit roles at birth and living under constant indoctrination. Consequently, conflict ceases to exist globally—no wars, no frustrations, no injustices. Everything flows solely through the system. Whether people truly desire such a world may vary from person to person. And perhaps the novel’s author, Aldous Huxley, offered one answer to this question? The people in the novel live without questioning or contemplating anything, thinking only of momentary pleasure and stability. The intention behind depicting such a world as a dystopia is precisely because he never wanted it. He is saying that such a world is no longer a world for ‘humans’.
Even if the replacement of sports referees with video review technology doesn’t signify the arrival of a new world, when the ultimate authority within a game becomes a system rather than a human, we will feel that level of instinctive fear. Arbitrating situations involving conflicting interests is fundamentally difficult, no matter how correct and accurate the judgment may be. For instance, in soccer, the criteria for penalizing a tackle—even in identical foul situations—vary based on the player’s intent, and the penalties differ accordingly. Such situations are difficult to accept without a process of mutual agreement between the offender, the victim, and the referee. The system ignores this process of consensus, leaving us with no choice but to despair at a system incapable of understanding the human heart or the essence of being human.
As a result, players may gradually lose sight of the meaning behind why they play the game. Faced with emotionless, razor-sharp judgments, they might feel less like athletes challenging human limits through practice and fair competition, and more like puppets dancing within the confines of a system’s monitor. We already see this trend in modern society, where many people, dominated by an increasingly perfected capitalist system, can only faintly perceive the meaning of their own lives and begin to watch advancing technology and society helplessly. If video review technology completely takes over the game, a similar phenomenon might begin in the sports world too.
Ultimately, even in such a scenario, it must be people who can overturn the system. In sports, referees must continue to exist as vital intermediaries connecting players from both teams. In the future, the referee’s role may be somewhat reduced to ensure accurate and dispute-free judgments. However, the system itself must never be allowed to become the ultimate authority by eliminating the referee’s very existence. Sports competitions, where the blood, sweat, tears, and passion of the athletes bear fruit, must never be left entirely to the judgment of a system utterly detached from such human effort.
