Wouldn’t it be realer, according to your understanding, if there was less involvement of referees rather than more. I thought no rules fighting was the realest kind of sport under your calculus.
The point is not removal of referees – I have no problem with rules in sport, or with their vigorous enforcement. The point is removing the role of fallible, corruptible human judgment in assessing the winner. In most cases, whether a tennis ball lands inside or outside the boundaries of the court is a fact, not a judgment call – but the ball moves very quickly, so mistakes can be made and are difficult to second-guess absent instant replay. With the instant replay, an opportunity for fallibility and corruption is largely removed from tennis. Tennis was always a real sport under my definition (which concerns how the winner is determined), but this makes it realer still. Hurray!
jimcaralis says
This would have ruined John McEnroe’s career. On second thought it may have added a couple more Grand Slam titles.
bob-neer says
Wouldn’t it be realer, according to your understanding, if there was less involvement of referees rather than more. I thought no rules fighting was the realest kind of sport under your calculus.
david says
The point is not removal of referees – I have no problem with rules in sport, or with their vigorous enforcement. The point is removing the role of fallible, corruptible human judgment in assessing the winner. In most cases, whether a tennis ball lands inside or outside the boundaries of the court is a fact, not a judgment call – but the ball moves very quickly, so mistakes can be made and are difficult to second-guess absent instant replay. With the instant replay, an opportunity for fallibility and corruption is largely removed from tennis. Tennis was always a real sport under my definition (which concerns how the winner is determined), but this makes it realer still. Hurray!