Technologies of visualisation and measurement are changing the relationship between spectators and match officials at sporting events. Umpires and referees find themselves under increasing scrutiny and sports governing bodies are experimenting with new technologies and additional “off-field” officials in order to preserve the legitimacy of decision-making. In this paper, we examine how technologies are being used in a number of sports, paying particular attention to the way in which uncertainty and indeterminacy are conveyed to viewers and spectators. The contrast between cricket and tennis is particularly instructive in this respect as the same technology is used in two very different ways. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations for implementing sports measurement technologies whilst preserving the traditions of individual sports and enriching technological culture.
AtkinsonPDelamontS (1976) Mock-ups and cock-ups: The management of guided discovery instruction. In: HammersleyMWoodsP (eds) The Process of Schooling. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 133–142.
2.
BijkerWE (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BijkerWE (2007) American and Dutch coastal engineering: Differences in risk conception and differences in technological culture. Social Studies of Science37(1): 143–151.
4.
BijkerW (2010) How is technology made? – That is the question!Cambridge Journal of Economics34: 63–76.
5.
CollinsHM (1992) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, 2nd edn.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
CollinsHM (2010) The philosophy of umpiring and the introduction of decision-aid technology. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport37(2): 135–146.
7.
CollinsHMEvansRJ (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
CollinsHMEvansRJ (2008) You cannot be serious! Public understanding of technology with special reference to “Hawk-Eye.” Public Understanding of Science17(3): 283–308.
9.
CollinsHMPinchTJ (1998) The Golem at Large: What You Should Know About Technology. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DriverRNewtonPOsborneJ (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education84(3): 287–312.
HaddowGCunningham-BurleySBruceAParryS (2008) Generation Scotland: Consulting publics and specialists at an early stage in a genetic database’s development. Critical Public Health18(2): 139–149.
13.
HargreavesILewisJSpeersT (2003) Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
14.
House of Lords (2000) Science and Society: Science and Technology Select Committee, Third Report. London: HMSO.
15.
IrwinA (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1–18.
16.
LeyBLJankowskiNBrewerPR (2010) Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science Online First, doi: 10.1177/0963662510367571
17.
MarksLAKalaitzandonakesNWilkinsLZakharovaL (2007) Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 183–203.
18.
MichaelM (2006) Technoscience and Everyday Life: The Complex Simplicities of the Mundane. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
19.
MillerDKitzingerJWilliamsKBeharrellP (2008) The Circuit of Mass Communication. London: SAGE.
20.
MulkayMGilbertN (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
NelkinD (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, 2nd edn.New York: W.H. Freeman.
22.
PhiloG (1999) Message Received. Harlow: Longman.
23.
PinchTJBijkerW (1987) The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: BijkerWEHughesTPPinchTJ (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 17–50.
24.
RipAMisaTJSchotJ (eds) (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
25.
RussellJS (1997) The concept of a call in baseball. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport24(1): 21–37.
26.
StewartCODickersonDLHotchkissR (2009) Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Science Communication30: 427–452.
27.
WilsdonJWillisR (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
