Foul Logic

A foul occurs during an NBA game. The sequence of events looks something like this:

  1. Referee thinks "Foul!"
  2. Referee blows whistle and stops time.
  3. Referee sends foul message over to scorer's table using a basketball dialect of sign language.
  4. Scorer converts that message into a computer-readable form of same, by manually entering it via software interface.
  5. Foul is transmitted to central database location, after which it is instantaneously shared by XML feed with other computers around the world.

Thus, three different interactions: human-to-human, human-to-machine, and machine-to-machine; three different languages to communicate during these interactions.

Where does the main potential for error lie? Is it from human-to-human or human-to-machine? (It is telling to note that I consider machine-to-machine the least fallible.)

Doesn't it make sense for the referee to just scan a bar code on the player's uniform to register an infraction? Can't we cut one step out of the process, one language, one potential for miscommunication, and bring ourselves one step closer to the Truth pinnacle of modern sport?

This is highly consistent with the rational objectivist logic of the professional sport industry as well as the flow optimization principles modulating basketball spectatorship, and so could make an appearance in the near future.

Comments

Comments are closed.