Instant replays cannot wholly guarantee the fairness of a call. Even with instant replays, there are some calls which can be called either way. This does not however mean that the instant replays should be banned. For every athlete, it is very important to know his own abilities and shortcomings. Most of the times, by using an instant replay, the right decision can be made. Thus, it would help an athlete to realize that either he needs to improve on some aspect of the game or that he did well and should keep up the good work. A wrong call can shatter an athlete's confidence and sometimes, his/her career. As mentioned in previous entires, the losing team is hardly looked at for athletes to perform at higher levels of the game. A contreversial decision can also cause a lot of resentment and sometimes, even violence on the part of the public. Although, this can happen with the use of replays too, it is usually a rare instance. Winning because of a bad decision also questions an athlete's skills and is also a confidence breaker. After the game, an athlete would think, "if the decision had gone the other way, we might have lost; does that mean that I am not good enough?" Every game has a set of rules and if these are to be enforced to the extent they were meant to, instant replays are an important aid. Technology is improving every day, so why not use it? Why should there be a contreversy when it could be avoided? If bad calls and contreversies are "tradition" it is important to understand and decide whether we need traditions which may lead to violence and distrust or should we implement something which can promote a more friendly environment.
-- Ankit Hemani
I must agree with the fact that college football loses its drama without tradition, disputed calls, and computerization. Most sports bring with them a tradition. Colleges battle it out in the arena to uphold a sense of belonging. Crowds are riled up to shout out the name of the team because they feel they belong to it. Without drama, football loses its viewability.
However, we must consider for a moment the perspective of the players. Granted all players practice for hours on end, play through sprains and injuries, and win games in the name of the team. However, within those few, there are some who are hopelessly depending on sponsorship for a future career in professional sports. In today's society, winning becomes everything. The team who loses is hardly looked at for good players. Granted, this may be a slight exaggeration, but if the difference between leading a prosperous life and a mediocre one meant one more win, and if one more win meant an accurate call, it is necessary that we find the plain truth. Now, if the recruiting system ignored wins and losses and focused solely on player performance, this system is completely unnecessary. The way we link success to winning should be relooked upon, or we will have to become technical about it.
- Nakul Reddy
Competitions are held in order to find out who is the best. In such situations, if an aid is used by any of the competitiors, the raw talent of the person cannot be measured. Swimming aids like FastSkin reduce friction between the body and water and so, the swimming ability of a person cannot be acurately measured. The whole point of a swimming competition is supposed to be able to judge who can swim the fastest. The size and shape of the human body varies from person to person. THus by having a swimming aid like FastSkin, this disparity is greatly reduced and so, it is not the natural ability of a swimmer, but the ability and design of the swimsuit that makes the difference between victory and defeat. Such aids would be useful in exploration and other such fields where there is no competition; but wherever there is a contest, the goals of that contest must be kept in mind before allowing any assists to any of the competing parties. As to the financial part, it must not be forgotten that assists can also be used in interschool competitions and so a wider picture has to be taken into account. Also, it must not be forgotten that the people who compete on the world level started their careers on a lower scale and were once high school or maybe even elementary school students participating in such competitions. What then would become of a person who had no money to afford a coach or an expensive swimming suit. His/Her talent would be wasted and his/her place would be taken by someone who could afford a FastSkin swimsuit. If the former person was a better swimmer in a FastSkin than the latter person, then this better swimmer would not be able to even make it to a national swimming competition, let alone a world class one. The only morally correct usage of aids would perhaps be in cases where swimmers have a heart problem and use a pacemaker to steady their heartbeat. The point I'm trying to make is, that any assists which give an athlete an advantage over others (who are without that assist) should not be allowed during a competition.
-- Ankit
In this instance of sports technology and performance enhancement, there is no real issue here with regards to ethical unfairness. Unless cost is a factor, more streamlined swimsuits do not interefere with the essence of the sport. Modern sport, for a most part, is an attempt to exhibit and indulge in physical activity at its purest. In a sport such as swimming, the best way to achieve this would be to allow the natural streamlining shape of the human body. However, swimming in one's birthday suit compromises today's sense of decency.
It is important that all athletes get an exactly equal opportunity to show their physical skill to the rest of the world and compete with their peers. If money were an issue, and some athletes were not able to afford this, the suits should not be allowed. However, at the level of competition as the olympics, and considering the relatively low cost of the swimsuits (250 GBP = 457.5 USD ) and the willingness of coorporate sponsorship for olympic and national level events, it is likely that all competitors will be able to afford the FastSkin.
-Nakul Reddy.
