There are a whole bunch of different things being discussed here, including grade school athletics, high school athletics, motorcyles, and professional athletics. My comment is intended to address only professional athletics, those sports that pay the players much more money than an engineer would ever earn.
Professional athletics is an entertainment thing, and so, just like the other entertainment offerings, it should not be constrained by an assumption that it is related to reality in any way. So giving the game officials the video records of any play so that they can see it from many different angles may reduce the chance of wrong calls quite a bit, and it would provide more entertainment for the viewers if they could see the same thing. It would indeed alter the character of the game, but that has already happened with games constantly halting the play in order for the TV stations to air their commecial messages. And of course, better protective hardware for all players would be a benefit for both the players and their employers, since an injured player is a nonproductive expensive asset.
Now for all of those non-professioal athletes, improved protective gear would also be a benefit, since they are probably not as able to handle the rougher parts of the competition.
BUT, perhaps an even better choice would be to teach all the participants that real life does include risks and damage, and that they alone are responsible for their safety. Teaching people that they must always be depending on others for everything, especially safety, is certainly not doing anybody a favor.
In my original post, I was somewhat vague in my expressing one of the points from the radio broadcast. What I meant to say was that one of the salient points made during that show was that the game of football SHOULD BE limited to a youngsters who have attained a certain age due the the sensitivity of their brain structure. One person suggested that the MINIMUM age for playing should be no less that 15 years old, and that the game's rules be more structured toward "touch" football, rather than tackle football.
Personally, I tend to agree with that premise. As a youngster during the Middle Ages, when football was first invented, all us kids went to the local school yard & played informal games of football, BUT we didn't make tackles, since none of us had any uniforms or "pads". About the only thing we had were our dungarees & KEDS!
@ vimalkumarp I do believe that to get the maximum thrill out of the game (not even for players as well as audience) ball should touch the net rather than just checking whether it has pass the line or not.
Some times when the decision coming game may change the direction (may be within 1 or 2 seconds) at that time giving another decision based on the tech and start from there, will mess the whole game. Then it's better to play a video game.
Its true Mydesign that tech will support for the fine decision making in sport. But when it comes to more lively energetic sports like soccer and I would believe that sometimes it will effect to liveliness of the game and it will diversify the morel from the game.
At some point the driver or rider must be responsible for deciding what they can handle. The only completely safe motorcycle has it's wheels embedded in concrete, which, for some folks that I have met over the years, would still be capable of injuring them. PLEASE do not take capability away from my toys because others can't use them safely. Lawyers who defend stupid people are hurting all of the rest of us, and theyt are doing it only for the money.
People need to be accountable for their actions and their errors.
@ old_ it certainly would seem that you are quite right. Knights jousting in very good armor are much more likely to get a serios injury when that armor is breeched. Just like the fools in cars with antilock brakes, which may help stopping in some cases but mostly just give confidence in capabilities that are not there.
Earlier this week on the MICHAEL MEDVED radio Talk Show, he addressed this topic w/ two representatives of note. One fellow, located in the Seattle area, has produced a shocking docudrama describing some of the issues w/ the modern game of football, and who should be eligible to plat that game. I believe the movie is titled, the UNITED STATES of Paranoia. On the other side of the discussion was a fellow who supported the "safety" of the game. Certain statistics were bandied about, deaths due to head-butting on-field injuries, etc. While the whole hour show is too much to discuss here, suffice it to say that the arguments for limiting the game of football to youngsters was very compelling in my mind. On one hand, their was great praise for the "modern" equipment being used, BUT on the other, it showed that the game had become MORE "violent" as a result. So, I would conclude that football in the days of Paul Hornung & Bart Starr was a much more benign game to watch, since the players weren't in a complete dominate-at-all-costs frame of mind. Thus, it would seem to me that this modern technology HAS CONTRIBUTED to the seriousness of injury on the playing field!
Jim_E, that's an interesting one, because the technology that's available to the people building the cars/motorcycles would let them build machines that are potentially too powerful for their own good.
I'm a fan of motorsports, especially MotoGP (the top class of motorcycle racing).
It's crazy the amount of technology that has entered motorsports. Nascar has managed to limit technology, only starting to permit fuel injection last year, but most other classes are crazy. In MotoGP, the traction control systems are incredibly complex, utilizing GPS and/or similar technology, combined with lean angle sensors, and other inputs to specifically limit power at certain parts of the race track! It used to be the rider's skill at throttle manipulation to control all of this, but the electronics have replaced or supplimented this skill.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.