Conor here: An abomination, IMHO. And that’s just for the game. What goes unmentioned in the following piece is the labor issue. There are 76 umpires in the Major League Baseball Umpires Association who combined earn roughly $22.8 million per year, as well as per diem and travel, full medical, dental, and vision insurance, life insurance coverage, strong pension plans, etc. For now, MLB says robot umps are intended to aid, not replace, humans, but we’ll see how long that lasts. What would happen if the umps go on strike, for example, as they did in 1979, or resign en masse as they did in 1999 in an attempt to get a new labor agreement?
By Arthur Daemmrich, Professor of Practice in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University, and Eric S. Hintz, Historian, Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation, Smithsonian Institution. Originally published at The Conversation.
Baseball fans tuning into spring training games may have noticed another new wrinkle in a sport that’s experienced a host of changes in recent years.
Batters, pitchers and catchers can challenge a home plate umpire’s ball or strike call. Powered by Hawk-Eye ball-tracking technology, the automated ball-strike system replays the pitch trajectory to determine whether the umpire’s call was correct.
To minimize disruptions, Major League Baseball permits each team a maximum of two failed challenges per game but allows unlimited challenges as long as they’re successful. For now, the technology will be limited to the spring exhibition games. But it could be implemented in the regular season as soon as 2026.
Count future Hall of Famer Max Scherzer among the skeptics.
“We’re humans,” the Toronto Blue Jays hurler said after a spring training game in which he challenged two calls and lost both to the robo umps. “Can we just be judged by humans?”
Technological advances that lead to fairer, more accurate calls are often seen as triumphs. But as co-editors of the recently published volume “Inventing for Sports,” which includes case studies of over 20 sports inventions, we find that new technology doesn’t mean perfect precision – nor does it necessarily lead to better competition from the fan perspective.
Cue the Cameras
While playing in a cricket match in the 1990s, British computer scientist Paul Hawkins fumed over a bad call. He decided to make sure the same mistake wouldn’t happen again.
Drawing on his doctoral training in artificial intelligence, he designed an array of high-speed cameras to capture a ball’s flight path and velocity, and a software algorithm that used the data to predict the ball’s likely future path.
He founded Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd. in 2001, and his first clients were cricket broadcasters who used the technology’s trajectory graphics to enhance their telecasts.
By 2006, professional tennis leagues began deploying Hawk-Eye to help officials adjudicate line calls. Cricket leagues followed in 2009, incorporating it to help umpires make what are known as “leg before wicket” calls, among others. And professional soccer leagues started using the technology in 2012 to determine whether balls cross the goal line.
Reaction to Hawk-Eye has been mixed. In tennis, players, fans and broadcasters have generally embraced the technology. During a challenge, spectators often clap rhythmically in anticipation as the Hawk-Eye official cues up the replayed trajectory.
“As a player, and now as a TV commentator,” tennis legend Pam Shriver said in 2006, “I dreamed of the day when technology would take the accuracy of line calling to the next level. That day has now arrived.”
But Hawk-Eye isn’t perfect. In 2020 and 2022, the firm publicly apologized to fans of professional soccer clubs after its goal-line technology made errant calls after players congregated in the goal box and obstructed key camera sight lines.
Perfection Isn’t Possible
Critics have also raised more fundamental concerns.
In their 2016 book “Bad Call,” researchers Harry Collins, Robert Evans and Christopher Higgins reminded readers that Hawk-Eye is not a replay of the ball’s actual position; rather, it produces a prediction of a trajectory, based on the ball’s prior velocity, rotation and position.
The authors lament that Hawk-Eye and what they term “decision aids” have undermined the authority of referees and umpires, which they consider bad for the games.
Ultimately, there are no purely objective standards for fairness and accuracy in technological officiating. They are always negotiated. Even the most precise officiating innovations require human consensus to define and validate their role. Technologies like photo-finish cameras, instant replay and ball-tracking systems have improved the precision of officiating, but their deployment is shaped – and often limited – by human judgment and institutional decisions.
For example, today’s best race timing systems are accurate to 0.0001 seconds, yet Olympic sports such as swimming, track and field, and alpine skiing report results in increments of only 0.01 seconds. This can lead to situations – such as Dominique Gisin and Tina Maze’s gold medal tie in the women’s downhill ski race at the 2014 Sochi Olympics – in which the timing officials admitted that their equipment could have revealed the actual winner. But they were forced to report a dead heat under the rules established by the ski federation.
With slow-motion instant replays, determining a catch or a player’s intention for a personal foul can actually be distorted by low-speed replay, since humans aren’t adept at adjusting to shifting replay speeds.
One of the big issues with baseball’s automated ball-strike system has to do with the strike zone itself.
MLB’s rule book defines the strike zone as the depth and width of home plate and the vertical distance between the midpoint of a player’s torso to the point just below his knees. The interpretation of the strike zone is notoriously subjective and varies with each umpire. For example, human umpires often call a strike if the ball crosses the plate in the rear corner. However the automated ball-strike system uses an imaginary plane that bisects the middle – not the front or the rear – of home plate.
There are more complications. Since every player has a unique height, each has a unique strike zone. At the outset of spring training, each player’s height was measured – standing up without cleats – and then confirmed through a biomechanical analysis.
But what if a player changes their batting stance and decides to crouch? What if they change their cleats and raise their strike zone by an extra quarter-inch?
Of course, as has been the case in tennis, soccer and other sports, Hawk-Eye can help rectify genuinely bad calls. By allowing teams to correct the most disputed calls without eliminating the human element of umpiring, MLB hopes to strike a balance between tradition and change.
Fans Have the Final Say
Finding a balance between machine precision and the human element of baseball is crucial.
Players’ and managers’ efforts to work the umpires to contract or expand the strike zone have long been a part of the game. And fans eagerly cheer or jeer players and managers who argue with the umpires. When ejections take place, more yelling and taunting ensues.
Though often unacknowledged in negotiations between leagues and athletes, fan enthusiasm is a key component of whether to adopt new technology.
For example, innovative “full-body” swimsuits contributed to a wave of record-breaking finishes in the sport between 2000 and 2009. But uneven access to the newest gear raised the specter of what some called “technological doping.” World Aquatics worried that as records fell simply due to equipment innovations, spectators would stop watching and broadcast and sponsorship revenue would dry up. The swimming federation ended up banning full-body swimsuits.
Of course, algorithmic officiating differs from technologies that enhance performance and speed. But it runs a similar risk of turning off fans. So MLB, like other sports leagues, is being thrust into the role of managing technological change.
Assessing technologies for their immediate and long-term impact is difficult enough for large government agencies. Sports leagues lack those resources, yet are nonetheless being forced to carefully consider how they introduce and regulate various innovations.
MLB, to its credit, is proceeding incrementally. While the logical conclusion to the current automated ball-strike experiment would be fully electronic officiating, we think fans and players will resist going that far.
The league’s challenge system is a test. But the real umpires will ultimately be the fans.
21 comments
Comments are closed.
Great article! I saw the headline, had all kinds of things to say, and the article covered them all. I agree with your ‘abomination’ assessment. Every time I hear someone suggest robot umpires calling balls and strikes, I wonder of they’ve ever read the actual rulebook defining the strike zone. It’s just not possible.
I miss Earl Weaver, Lou Piniella and the others who turned arguing with the umpires into an art form. I don’t like the fact that baseball has been cleansed of that. Must everything be sanitized so that no one will ever be offended, everything be made 100% “family friendly”, all done for ever larger corporate profits? What’s wrong with a little seediness? With someone showing a little emotion? With people putting up a little bit of a fight in the face of injustice? Robot umpires are just one more “improvement” our overlords would like to use to get us all used to being assimilated into the borg, to teach us that resistance is futile. To that, I say %^&#())@**!!!!!!!
Soon the players will be replaced by robots. Somehow I’m sure humans will still be allowed to bet on the games.
I’m sure robot umps will soon be turned into an exotic app-based betting market somehow or other.
A horse would never bet on humans.
I think noted catcher Crash Davis would readily agree on what you write above. I’ll add the long time iconic manager of those remarkable 1990s Atlanta Braves seasons, Bobby Cox, to that list. They don’t make em that way today , do they ?
“Strikeouts are fascist”, among many other memorable lines, to quote Bull Durham. There are multiple reasons that I no longer actively watch MLB or even pay heed during the early weeks of a new season.
Nobody turned as pink as Billy Martin yelling at an umpire! And the veins popping out of his neck! Hoo boy….
Timely post with opening days soon. I see that the article may be republished for free. Some other sites like Kaiser Health News, ProPublica and NPR sometimes also permit republishing. I’ve suggested that my local news online aggregator, Deadline Detroit consider picking this up. We have local news deserts and sites such as Deadline although limited serve a need. Deadline does not do ads. Short snippets of articles from our larger pay walled outlets are provided of stories that few would otherwise be aware of. The site also allows publishes a small number of stories on aspects of stories that are poorly covered otherwise, such as a major local health system and hospital merger. The articles appear in Google searches and are available for historical narrative. Do readers in other locations have experience with similar publications?
Umpires historically evolved the game in a way that algorithms cannot. For example, in the early days of the game there were three deaf players, William Hoy, Luther Taylor, Ed Dundon, and the hand signals we see today for balls, strikes and outs, were improvised to communicate with them. Hand signals were already being used but weren’t standardized. But then as the stadiums grew bigger, and therefore louder, everyone became effectively deaf and needed those same hand signals. Today the game wouldn’t really be baseball without this, right? So it added an element to the game culture in a way only people can, and I can’t see algorithms ever doing the same – more likely having the opposite effect and killing the game.
Western Man continues the futile search for infallible authority. The attempt to get around fallen man’s involvement in life…our obsession with computers and algorithms has its origins in the Protestant Reformation. Sole fides. Technology as a kind of divination.
Rickey Henderson spinning in his grave.
Bring the ball/strike robo-assist. I’ll die on this hill.
Profoundly frustrating to be a batter who knows exactly where his strike zone is while batting – except he doesn’t know where it is on his first 2 times up where it is on that particular day, with that particular umpire. Just kills the fairness.
As a side note, here is a pitcher hurling the ultimate prize – a perfect game! Except the ump blew the call, so it was only a one-hitter. The 27th batter was out by 3 feet at first – ump said the pitcher covering first didn’t step on the base. Replay showed he clearly did. Had the current replay system been implemented at that time, Armando Galarraga would have lived his life having achieved a dream. The current replay system makes the game much more fair, which, um, is the point….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfCfjT5BH9o
And here is a perfect game, THE most famous perfect game in baseball history, except it wasn’t really. Don Larsen’s World Series game – watch the replay at 8 seconds. Called strike with the ball clearly 10 inches outside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roZUjcYj95k
Robo-assist on called strikes is way overdue.
Fight me!!!! :)
I’m with you in that its the natural progression from being able to challenge calls on the field by umpire, but i’d ask that every once in awhile Hawk-Eye takes a wicked foul ball in the nether regions, like home plate umpires of yore.
That’s when we’ll know if Artificial Super Intelligence has become sentient – when it can feel being hit in the nuts.
Well, since you asked ;)
There was already a very good remedy in play and I thought it worked extremely well, and if I remember right, it was enacted after that Gallaraga game. Teams were given the option to challenge a call, and the four umpires would then get together to decide if the original call was correct. They almost always got it right. I do think it’s fine to allow challenges – maybe one ump sneezes and just guesses on a call and it’s unfair that the other three umpires who saw it correctly have to keep their mouths shut when they know their colleague blew it. At the time I believe challenges were only allowed for safe/out or foul/fair calls. I wouldn’t have a huge problem extending that to balls and strikes as well, as long as it’s done by human beings. As noted in the article, batters all have different strike jones based on height and batting stance, and umpires do too. A 6’8″ ump is going to be seeing the ball cross the plate at a different angle than one who’s 5’2″.
Robots can umpire robot games – leave the current game to humans, flaws and all.
When the errant call is obvious, the three other umpires may be able to assess the error correctly. Maybe not. Unfortunately, the slow-mo cameras of replay can show an umpires call to be wrong by milli-seconds. Umpire calls at the bases (especially 1st base) have been shown (over the years) to be wrong up to 40% (aggregating all calls by all umpires at that base). Replay has changed the game in other ways, as well.
Replay can clearly show whether a fielder touched second base before the runner, or whether the fielder has touched the base at all! The “in the vicinity” out call no longer applies in MLB. This has led MLB to change the “meaning” of the base-path rule: the runner can no longer “hunt” the fielder to disrupt a double-play; since the fielder now must actually touch the bag (which has now been made larger in width).
There can never be a full robo-ump at home plate. There is too much going on that requires attention: half-swings, grazed hit-by-pitch, batter-in-box, pitcher-mouth-touch, etc. However, getting a realistic (fair) assessment of balls and strikes is essential to giving the game more field action. Especially, erroneous “strike two” calls. Historically, a batter will make an out (swinging or otherwise) ~87% with two strikes on him.
There are analysis of umpire vs. robo calls that show umpires get the ball/strike call correct over 90% of the time. However, those few errant calls in the pitcher’s favor are seen by all the hitters and they intuitively expand the strike zone while they are at bat—pitcher’s already dominant advantage is expanded and action (hard hit balls) to the field diminished.
What MLB is trying to do is create more action on the field by giving the hitter a definite (to them) strike zone. (And for you officionados: the strike zone does not include the black edge that is part of the homeplate.)
So, now that my hometown team, SFGiants have defeated their former crosstown rivals (Las Vegas) Athletics in a Spring game, I can finish my thoughts on robo-umps.
The way to implement the digitial strikezone is through the real plate umpire. Have him wear a device (ear-piece, wrist-band) that can receive an instant signal that a pitch is in the strikezone, or not. Many ball/strike calls are obvious, it is “something close” that cause the batter/pitcher frustration. In this situation the umpire can be given a sense of the “robo call’ an instant before making his ball/strike gesture. It makes the real umpire look good; and not replaceable.
The significance of baseball in American culture cannot be overstated. One of the most important elements of the game is that the umpire teaches us respect for authority and the finality of decisions that we might not agree with. This is how adults behave. I personally believe that being able to second-guess the umpire — right or wrong — but accepting the finality of the call is what makes us mature adults.
An appeal to a computer every time you don’t like a call is the sort of infantilism that I see in Trump and Musk. Not following the umpire and not following the judiciary track together like lambs to the slaughter. The strike zone is unscientific; every player has a different batting stance. Every decent catcher knows how to “sell” that a pitch was not quite in the zone. That’s part of the game; it’s the judge’s job to piss one of the parties off.
Baseball is not a television show. The game should be enjoyed in person, preferably stuffed with hot dogs, ankle-deep in peanut shells, and pleasantly beer-drunk. There is no Hawk-eye replay in the stands, but when you heckle it gets heard. This is what I hated about the Biden administration — the fans had no voice. This is what I hate about the Trump administrations — the umpires are ignored.
What undermined the authority of referees and umpires was slow motion high definition instant replay from numerous different camera angles. It made technologically aided officiating inevitable.
The discussion up thread is why baseball is the greatest American sport of all time.
Greatest American sport of all time in the history of known Universe since the Big Bang, meaning not very good at all.
Ha!
The tapestry of baseball lore is longer and broader than any other American sport. Most maybe all of the commenters up thread are familiar with that lore.
“Baseball is not a television show. The game should be enjoyed in person, preferably stuffed with hot dogs, ankle-deep in peanut shells, and pleasantly beer-drunk.” David in Friday Harbor on 3-16-25 at 10:35 pm.
Yes, yes, yes. A twinight doubleheader on a warm summer night with good company who knows a lot of baseball lore.
Who is Earl “f**k**g” Weaver? How and why was his uniform jersey modified?
Who is the noted catcher Crash Davis and why are strikeouts fascist?
Es s Ce Tera’s comment on 3-16-25 at 11:17 am about the three deaf players. And
“But then as the stadiums grew bigger, and therefore louder, everyone became effectively deaf and needed those same hand signals. Today the game wouldn’t really be baseball without this, right? So it added an element to the game culture in a way only people can, and I can’t see algorithms ever doing the same – more likely having the opposite effect and killing the game.” The delay between the ball hitting the catcher’s mitt and the ump making the call is exquisite, particularly when the batter thinks/hopes it will be ball four and has already tossed his bat and is strutting to first base.
All of Clark Landwehr’s comment on 3-16-25 at 11:17 am:
“Western Man continues the futile search for infallible authority. The attempt to get around fallen man’s involvement in life…our obsession with computers and algorithms has its origins in the Protestant Reformation. Sole fides. Technology as a kind of divination.”
Who is Ricky Henderson and why is he spinning in his grave? Elissa3 on 3-16-25 at 11:41 am.
“And here is a perfect game, THE most famous perfect game in baseball history, except it wasn’t really. Don Larsen’s World Series game – watch the replay at 8 seconds. Called strike with the ball clearly 10 inches outside.”
No Sardonia I won’t fight you. But I would love to hear your opinion as whether the Commissioner would fire Angel Hernandez if asked by the Splendid Splinter.
Sardonia again on 3-16-25 at 1:33 pm: “That’s when we’ll know if Artificial Super Intelligence has become sentient – when it can feel being hit in the nuts.”
Great definition. Whole books have been written about this.
I could go on and on just teasing out these comments. It’s easy. But football, basketball, golf, tennis, and all the others? No.