---
title: "Robo Referees: The Case for Perfecting Sports"
description: "Why, in a modern world where there is a wide range of advanced technology—including sensors, artificial intelligence, cameras with optical zoom, and…"
url: https://www.independentpress.com/article/robo-referees-the-case-for-perfecting-sports
date: 2026-08-01
categories: ["Sports","Technology"]
author: "Matthew Leonard"
---

# Robo Referees: The Case for Perfecting Sports

![Robo Referees: The Case for Perfecting Sports ](https://images.ctfassets.net/ewtdlsoyixc1/5YcGGAbatDnnhI3nwzk64o/b4c7ddebc08cfb00bc48b142bb238c27/photo-1623947453126-3652fc16b2b0.avif)

June 2, 2010. Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga is one out away from pitching  a perfect game and etching his name into Major League Baseball (MLB) history. In the lore of the American major leagues, that stretches back nearly 150 years, there have only been 24 perfect games. 

One out from history, the entire stadium rises to its feet. Galarraga is two strikes away from perfection when he throws a slider to Cleveland Indians batter Jason Donald, who connects and drives the ball toward the gap between first and second base. Miguel Cabrera, Tigers’ first baseman, cuts the ball off, scooping it into his glove. Galarraga sprints to first, knowing he is seconds away from achieving baseball immortality. Cabrera throws the ball, Galarraga catches it, and the entire stadium erupts. Galarraga begins to raise his arms into the air in celebration, until first-base umpire Jim Joyce makes one of the most infamous calls in the history of professional sports. Safe!

[...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfCfjT5BH9o)

In a split-second decision, Galarraga’s perfect game is over. But slow-motion replay confirms that Donald was indeed out. This moment stands as one of the most egregious examples in sports history where a referee altered the outcome of the contest because of human error. So notorious was the call, that Galarraga’s imperfect game would become the primary catalyst in pushing for MLB to further adopt instant replay and challenge review.

Aside from Galarraga’s _almost_ perfect game, other sporting moments such as Diego Maradona’s "Hand of God"   goal against England during the 1986 World Cup quarterfinals, 

[...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-n7lWyM4Vc)

the final 3 seconds of the [1972 Olympic Men’s Basketball final](https://www.reddit.com/r/olympics/comments/1n53dcb/whats_everyones_take_on_the_basketball_final_of/), and Brett Hull’s crease goal to win the 1999 Stanley Cup 

[...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF_LRVuhNa4)

represent some of the most infamous blown calls in the annals of competitive athletics, forever altering the history of their respective sports.

While these four examples all occurred in different sports and different eras, there is something they share: they were caused, not by errors by the players or flaws in the rules, but by the individuals overseeing the game. Whether you call them referees, umpires, or judges, in competitive sanctioned athletic events there is always an arbiter present who is meant to oversee the contest and ensure the official rules and regulations of the contest are followed. There was once a time, before the rise of technological innovation, when these arbiters were the final authority, providing objective decision-making in sporting events. Flawed calls and decisions undoubtedly occurred, but there was no alternative available and so human fallibility became an intrinsic and tacitly accepted part of the game. 

But why, in a modern world where there is a wide range of advanced technology—including sensors, artificial intelligence, cameras with optical zoom, and slow-motion replay—do sports rely on the flawed decision-making of human arbiters? 

MLB has taken a major step towards resolving this dilemma, introducing the [Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) Challenge System](https://www.mlb.com/news/abs-challenge-system-mlb-2026) at the beginning of its [2026 season](https://apnews.com/article/robot-umpires-e7b5b4a38241496d1a94c11a00d98649). The system allows catchers, pitchers, or batters to immediately contest an umpire’s call. According to MLB, every ballpark has [five](https://www.mlb.com/interactive/mlb-abs-system-explainer) “Hawk-Eye cameras” dedicated to tracking the baseball’s movement, allowing the system to pinpoint a baseball’s exact location should a challenge occur. 

In past eras, prior to the introduction of the ABS Challenge System, umpires had complete authority and discretion over calling balls and strikes. Despite having this immense power over the sport, umpires have historically been quite inaccurate. In [2016](https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48305998/ex-ump-garcia-worries-impact-overturned-robot-ump-calls), umpires averaged 16.58 missed calls per game. While they have seen substantial improvement, averaging only 10.88 missed calls per game during the [2025](https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48305998/ex-ump-garcia-worries-impact-overturned-robot-ump-calls) season, umpires are still far from being perfect. A single incorrect strikeout or walk can change the entire course of a game, possibly an entire series, yet fans have been forced to accept the fallibility of umpires who average nearly eleven incorrect calls per game. 

While the ABS Challenge System is a step in the right direction, teams are only allowed two challenges per game. If a system exists that can guarantee accuracy and fairness for both teams, why does MLB largely constrain its use in favor of imperfect and outdated umpires? 

In an article on MLB’s website, MLB.com columnist Anthony Castrovince explained the reason why ABS is limited to two challenges per game [stating](https://www.mlb.com/news/abs-challenge-system-mlb-2026), “fans and baseball people still desire a human element of umpiring that involves feel for the game,” rather than full implementation of the ABS officiating system. Testing in Minor League Baseball (MiLB) found that games “dragged on” as walks became more common due to ABS introducing a smaller and more precise strike zone. MLB also explained that pitch framing, a technique catchers use to influence umpires into making incorrect calls, would be eliminated if ABS were fully implemented. 

Maybe the sports world is merely afraid to make a large-scale jump to Robo Referees. The opportunity to ensure contests are officiated with complete perfection is readily available, yet sporting leagues such as MLB have chosen otherwise. MLB instead cites the desire for a human “element” and preservation of pitch framing as reasons why fully automating ABS would be bad for baseball. Do baseball fans truly desire a human element if it is unnecessary to the game? Fans of the Detroit Tigers and Armando Galarraga would likely say no. As for the preservation of pitch framing, it makes no sense why MLB would preserve a technique that catchers use to artificially influence umpires rather than guarantee that an incident like Galarraga’s _almost _perfect game never happens again. 

Baseball is not alone in its goal to preserve its roots and the human element. In the modern era, advanced technology is available to all sports that can ensure competitive athletics are officiated as fairly and precisely as possible, yet no major American sports league has made a widespread transition to Robo Referees. 

The National Football League (NFL) recently implemented [Hawk-Eye](https://www.nfl.com/news/sony-s-hawk-eye-innovations-selected-by-nfl-to-revolutionize-line-to-gain-measurements)—the same technology used by MLB, professional world soccer leagues, and professional tennis grand slams and tours—in its own officiating. The NFL now [uses](https://www.nprillinois.org/2025-04-01/say-goodbye-to-chain-crews-the-nfl-will-use-camera-technology-to-measure-1st-downs) Hawk-Eye technology to provide accurate and efficient on-field measurements, replacing outdated chain crews to measure first downs. While this is a small change, it represents a major step in the right direction. When it comes to objective yes or no calls, such as where the football should be placed, there is no reason why professional sports leagues should rely on human decision making. The implementation of Hawk-Eye technology in the NFL has eliminated an aspect of football that is highly susceptible to human error. While this represents a positive step forward, the league still relies on human officiating for most other aspects of the game.

Similar to MLB, the NFL, and the National Hockey League (NHL), the National Basketball Association (NBA) has [instituted a challenge system](https://www.nba.com/news/nba-adopts-coachs-challenge-on-full-time-basis) that was implemented in the 2020-21 NBA season. The NBA has also used Hawk-Eye technology [since the 2023-24 season](https://pr.nba.com/nba-sony-hawk-eye-innovations-partnership/), though it currently only utilizes it for data tracking purposes. Only a few months ago, league commissioner Adam Silver revealed that the NBA plans to [adopt an AI-based automated system](https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/article/adam-silver-says-nba-will-eventually-adopt-ai-automated-system-to-review-out-of-bounds-calls-014337959.html) to review out-of-bounds calls. Silver said the system would take “objective calls out of the hands of the referees.” These plans were revealed the day after a [blown call contributed to a pivotal Game 5 loss for the San Antonio Spurs](https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/nba-officiating-controversy-hands-thunder-161259083.html) and the NBA’s biggest rising star, Victor Wembanyama, in the NBA Western Conference Finals. If the NBA does go through with these plans, it will ensure objective yes or no calls are officiated as accurately as possible, preventing incorrect calls from influencing a game or playoff series.

In many non-contact sports—like MLB, tennis, track and field, and swimming—it can be argued that there is little need for a human to officiate competitions in the modern era. This conclusion results from the fact that in most non-contact sports, the vast majority of calls revolve around objective scenarios that are either true or false. For example, in tennis, the determination of whether there was a double-bounce, a fault, or if a ball went out of bounds, is either yes or no. Tennis understands this reality and has not been afraid to adapt. Of the four major tennis tournaments, only the French Open (Roland Garros) has not yet adopted Hawk-Eye to automate its officiating system. Officials at the French Open have cited concerns about whether the technology would work effectively on Roland Garros’ clay courts which act like a “[live](https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/clygxnkddg9o)” surface shifting during play. While human officials still work most professional tennis tournaments, their duties now revolve around enforcing game rules and player conduct, leaving the objective calls to be made by automated officiating systems.

Sports that rely heavily on subjective officiating are a different story altogether and probably will never be able to automate their rules and regulations. Examples of sports that fall within this category are figure skating, diving, gymnastics, and combat sports like boxing and mixed martial arts (MMA). Robo Referees are useful in moments where a decision can be definitively ruled either yes or no. But in sports based on judgment and degree, the case for automated adjudication does not exist. The same goes for situations in more traditional binary competitions where contact or fouls occur. In open-ended sports like figure skating that rely on officials to score competitors, the use of Robo Referees would be questionable because of the multitude of possible scenarios and outcomes. For example, in the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), referees need to understand and spot the smallest details, ensuring the match not only flows smoothly, but also that each competitor's health is not at risk. Sports that fall outside of binary true or false outcomes typically have qualified judges to determine conclusions. While some decisions made by referees and judges in these sports may be controversial or seem biased, they are not necessarily wrong—they are based on the human element of judgement that encompasses much of human culture and civilization. The subjective  nature of non-binary outcomes present in sporting events means that there will always be some room for human adjudication. 

While sports leagues have largely resisted sweeping implementation of automated officiating, the reality is that Robo Referees are the future. In an era when technology continues its rapid advance, and artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow in prevalence, it will soon be nearly impossible for these leagues to justify a refusal to adapt with the times. Sports or sporting situations that are determined by objective binary-like yes or no, true or false outcomes should be largely governed by Robo Referees to remove human error. In sports or sporting situations where grey areas exist that rely on subjective non-binary decision making, the human element will remain extremely important and is unlikely to be replaced by automated officiating. The wide-scale implementation of technologies like Hawk-Eye in professional sports will eliminate the majority of officiating errors and largely remove controversies surrounding blown or missed calls. 

Some may argue that the widespread adoption of Robo Referees is bad for sports—that by removing the human element we are losing an intrinsic part of the game. However, even if Hawk-Eye, ABS, or some other form of Robo Referees is implemented to regulate your favorite sport, human officials will still be fundamental for adjudicating non-binary subjective aspects of the game, such as enforcing the game’s rules, regulating fouls and player conduct, and monitoring the operational side of Robo Referees. Sports are one of the purest forms of competition we have in this world to gauge winners from losers and determine who is the best. Robo Referees have the power to ensure that competitive sports are as fair as possible and that when all is said and done the victorious are indeed the most deserving.