Sport-decision aids and the “CSI-effect”: Why cricket uses Hawk-Eye well and tennis uses it badly

Technologies of visualisation and measurement are changing the relationship between spectators and match officials at sporting events. Umpires and referees find themselves under increasing scrutiny and sports governing bodies are experimenting with new technologies and additional “off-field” officials in order to preserve the legitimacy of decision-making. In this paper, we examine how technologies are being used in a number of sports, paying particular attention to the way in which uncertainty and indeterminacy are conveyed to viewers and spectators. The contrast between cricket and tennis is particularly instructive in this respect as the same technology is used in two very different ways. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations for implementing sports measurement technologies whilst preserving the traditions of individual sports and enriching technological culture.

[1]  W. Bijker.  How is Technology Made?-That is the Question! , 2010 .

[2]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  The Philosophy of Umpiring and the Introduction of Decision-Aid Technology , 2010 .

[3]  Thomas J. Misa,et al.  Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[4]  Norman Balabanian,et al.  The Golem at large: what you should know about technology , 1999, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[5]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[6]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change , 1995 .

[7]  Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes,et al.  Mass media framing of biotechnology news , 2007 .

[8]  Wiebe E. Bijker.  Differences in Risk Conception and Differences in Technological Culture , 2007 .

[9]  The Concept of a Call in Baseball , 1997 .

[10]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[11]  Craig O. Stewart,et al.  Beliefs About Science and News Frames in Audience Evaluations of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell Research , 2009 .

[12]  Barbara L. Ley,et al.  Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[13]  M. Mulkay,et al.  Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse , 1984 .

[14]  J. Edwards,et al.  Rethinking Expertise , 2008 .

[15]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[16]  M. Stanley.  Gravity's Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves , 2005 .

[17]  J. Kitzinger,et al.  The Circuit of Mass Communication: Media Strategies, Representation and Audience Reception in the AIDS Crisis , 1998 .

[18]  Robert John Evans,et al.  You cannot be serious! Public understanding of technology with special reference to “Hawk-Eye” , 2008 .

[19]  D. Mark,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1995 .

[20]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice by H. M. Collins (review) , 1988, Technology and Culture.

[21]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[22]  Mike Michael.  Technoscience and Everyday Life: The Complex Simplicities of the Mundane , 2006 .

[23]  Gill Haddow,et al.  Generation Scotland: consulting publics and specialists at an early stage in a genetic database's development , 2008 .