First of all, it would be important to note that people judge refereeing decisions based on previous ones. Any push to consistency would result in uproar from fans, pundits, coaches and players because of previous calls. Historically, this has caused referees to back down on issues they’ve flagged for emphasis at the beginning of the season. I don’t think the FA or PGMOL has the spine to push through.
That being said, sports with more contact(and more complex forms of contract) have more objective rules. I absolutely think you could make the rules more objective. But I also think the tinkering of rules needed to come to the right definitions would take multiple iterations(years). With plenty of uproar during the process.
The problem with technology used to check subjective laws is that slowing the speed down can change your perception of force and intent. It can create an additional problem.
You can have intent taken into account in a more objective system, it just can’t be the defining aspect. Say you want to make a checklist for what is required for a red card: 1. Late(after ball has left possession of player) 2. From behind 3. High(ankle or above) 4. Studs up 5. Intent. (yes, I know you could add some more, but this is just a quick example). You could make a red card require 4 of the 5. So if 1 is missing, but the referee believes there was malicious intent, they can take it into consideration.
I’d also add you could standardize how many minor fouls = a yellow card. Say you pick 3, no one can complain when they pick up a yellow for a silly 3rd foul if it is applied consistently. Obviously I’m not the man for the job, but I do honestly believe that the subjectivity of the laws themselves is a major reason for inconsistency in refereeing.
First of all, it would be important to note that people judge refereeing decisions based on previous ones. Any push to consistency would result in uproar from fans, pundits, coaches and players because of previous calls. Historically, this has caused referees to back down on issues they’ve flagged for emphasis at the beginning of the season. I don’t think the FA or PGMOL has the spine to push through.
That being said, sports with more contact(and more complex forms of contract) have more objective rules. I absolutely think you could make the rules more objective. But I also think the tinkering of rules needed to come to the right definitions would take multiple iterations(years). With plenty of uproar during the process.
The problem with technology used to check subjective laws is that slowing the speed down can change your perception of force and intent. It can create an additional problem.
You can have intent taken into account in a more objective system, it just can’t be the defining aspect. Say you want to make a checklist for what is required for a red card: 1. Late(after ball has left possession of player) 2. From behind 3. High(ankle or above) 4. Studs up 5. Intent. (yes, I know you could add some more, but this is just a quick example). You could make a red card require 4 of the 5. So if 1 is missing, but the referee believes there was malicious intent, they can take it into consideration.
I’d also add you could standardize how many minor fouls = a yellow card. Say you pick 3, no one can complain when they pick up a yellow for a silly 3rd foul if it is applied consistently. Obviously I’m not the man for the job, but I do honestly believe that the subjectivity of the laws themselves is a major reason for inconsistency in refereeing.