03.04.2025 19:40
Professor John Eric Goff from the University of Virginia Lynchburg, known for his work in the field of sports, evaluated the pros and cons of artificial intelligence. Goff stated, "Algorithms are not yet advanced enough to read facial expressions or analyze hand gestures." Noting that referees experience anxiety, the professor said that artificial intelligence will not completely replace referees.
The rapidly growing artificial intelligence, which is becoming involved in every aspect of life, continues to increase its impact in all branches of sports, especially in football. Recent developments have raised concerns among referees managing the matches.
THE SUPPORT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN SPORTS IS SIGNIFICANT Especially in important and fast-paced matches, some decisions made by referees can lead to controversies that determine the fate of tournaments. Artificial intelligence has become one of the elements guiding referee decisions, from goal-line technology to the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system. The role of artificial intelligence in referee decisions is not limited to football. The Hawk-Eye technology, which started to be used in tennis in the 2000s, has replaced line judges in many tournaments today. In basketball, AI-supported cameras are used to detect whether the ball has gone out of bounds and to track player movements.
In 2009, the referees' failure to notice Thierry Henry's handball led to France eliminating Ireland and qualifying for the 2010 World Cup. This incident highlighted the need for video support in decision-making. The semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) was implemented during the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This AI-supported system aimed to make offside decisions faster and more accurately, ensuring that the game remains fair and fluid.
"NOT YET AT THE 'REFEREE' LEVEL" John Eric Goff, a professor at the University of Virginia Lynchburg known for his work in artificial intelligence in sports, stated that AI is not yet at the level to make decisions by reading players' facial expressions or evaluating hand gestures like a referee on the field. Goff noted that while AI is successful in making objective decisions, it falls short in reading emotions.
Pointing out that AI struggles to understand human emotions, Goff said, "Evaluating a situation that requires a red or yellow card in a football match is usually a decision made by a human referee, as determining the player's intent is often subjective. Algorithms are not yet advanced enough to read facial expressions or analyze hand gestures."
Goff mentioned that fans still struggle to adapt to AI-supported technologies like VAR because they do not fully trust VAR, and adapting to changes may take time.
In the current context, Goff conveyed that fans do not believe a robot will referee without a human element, but in the long run, they may have to get used to some decisions being made by AI instead of human referees.
Goff emphasized that when the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system technology becomes sufficient and precise, AI could provide more accurate results and its decisions could be accepted with less controversy.
Professor John Eric Goff, University of Virginia Lynchburg IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE A TOOL OR A THREAT? From an ethical perspective, Goff pointed out that the biggest concern is the danger of AI taking away people's jobs, stating, "We still hope for the existence of human referees in the sports world. However, with digitalization, playing sports in a virtual world may become more attractive. I hope that real sports do not completely replace artificial intelligence-supported simulations."
"REFEREES ARE EXPERIENCING UNCERTAINTY" Goff explained that AI has also brought job loss concerns in many sectors, stating, "Referees are also experiencing uncertainty about the future of their profession due to the advancement of technology."
He conveyed that the situation is not limited to sports and affects different sectors as well, noting that experts working in the sports field believe that AI will not completely replace referees, but a model where they work alongside referees is more likely.
"I HOPE OUR REFEREES ARE NOT ELIMINATED" Expressing that he is not pessimistic about the future, Goff concluded his evaluation by saying, "I hope we still have referees on the field."