Implementation of Technology in Sports

Factors at the interface of society and technology influence technological advancements in sports. Technologies, including hockey goalie masks, performance-enhancing drugs, fantasy sports, and video replay, changed sports. Some technologies have been successes and have worked to become integrated into the sport.

The Evolution of Hockey MasksEdit

Modern hockey goaltenders rely on form-fitting fiberglass composite masks to protect their face and skull from frozen pucks of vulcanized rubber traveling at speeds up to 100 mph. "I can't imagine going out there without a mask," said New York Rangers goalie Martin Biron. "Getting pucks shot at you… or a skate or a stick. As a goalie, you’ve got these scrums in front of the net… that would just be unbelievable[1].”

National Hockey League referees stop play when goalkeepers lose their facemask, unless there is a clear scoring opportunity[2]. Yet, prior the 1959-1960 NHL season, masks were almost unheard of in the league. Traditionalists thought masks detracted from the purism of the game. Chico Resch, longtime NHL goaltender and commentator, grew up watching pre-facemask era goalies and described them as “the most courageous athletes ever[1]."

Men like Andy Brown, the last goalie to play without a mask, embraced this fearless image. Others suffered like Glenn Hall, who vomited before games and between periods, continuously contemplating retirement. “I sometimes ask myself ‘what the hell am I doing out here,” he said. He wasn't alone. Frank McCool and Roger Crozier developed ulcers, while Terry Sawchuk became depressed and abused alcohol[3].

Early IntroductionsEdit

Early 1920's era goaltender's masks originated from contemporary fencing or baseball catcher’s masks introduced 50 years prior. Photographs show a goaltender in Switzerland wearing a catcher-style mask, while other sources indicate Elizabeth Graham of the Queen’s University hockey team wore a fencing mask at her father's behest[3]. Masks became popular amongst amateurs, but NHL goalies still refused to wear them for fear of perceived weakness. Clint Benedict became the first NHL player to wear a mask after badly breaking his nose in 1930, but discarded it just five games later. 29 years would pass before full time masks became a fixture in the league.

Jacques PlanteEdit

Montrealer Bill Burchmore began experimenting with molded facemasks in late 1958. The following year, on November 1, 1959, a rising shot struck Montreal Canadiens goaltender Jacques Plante in the face,knocking him to the ice and requiring seven stitches. Plante, who had worked with Burchmore the previous summer to develop a practice mask, refused to return to the ice without it. Coach Toe Blake, with no replacement, had to comply. [3] Despite Blake’s protests, Plante's mask stayed and the Canadiens won 18 consecutive games.

The Painted Mask and Perceptions TodayEdit

Goalie masks remained controversial until the 1970s. Traditionalists saw the white, haunting masks as an insult to the game. This perception changed when Gerry Cheevers of the Boston Bruins tried to leave practice following a puck strike to his mask. Unimpressed, the coach ordered Cheevers back to the ice and the team trainer, in jest, painted stitches on the mask where the puck had struck. The stitch painting became tradition; Cheevers would add more stitches after each impact. Soon goalies all over the league painted designs on their masks to intimidate opponents, display nicknames, or advertise pop culture preferences. The artwork grew more complex and fans even began voting on their favorite designs. Over the course of a few years, painting transformed goalie masks from an affront to the league to a beloved part of the game.

Steroids and Sports Enhancing DrugsEdit

Early HistoryEdit

Performance enhancement originated in Ancient Greece when Olympic athletes consumed sheep testicles in the hopes of improving their athletic abilities [4] [5]. While it is doubtful these athletes and trainers knew the exact effects of testicle consumption, their actions jumpstarted the steroid age.

Modern ImplementationEdit

The true steroid era began in 1931 with German chemists Adolf Butenandt and Leopold Ruzicka, who purified and synthesized the hormone andosterone [6]. Both Nobel Prize winning scientists were under the direction of Adolf Hitler, developing chemical compounds to improve Nazi soldiers’ stamina and ferocity on the battlefield [7].

The Soviet Union took advantage of the German research by injecting their Olympic athletes with testosterone propionate in the 1940s. The Soviet Olympic successes and perceived athletic superiority became effective Cold War propaganda tools [8]. Initial U.S. reluctance to use steroids, due to negative health concerns, dissipated after John Bosley Ziegler developed methandrostenolone [9]. The FDA approved and mass produced hormone helped the U.S. Olympians close the medal gap and contributed to society’s acceptance of anabolic steroids.


By 1967, steroid use was common among Olympic athletes. Athletes enjoyed reaching personal milestones, while fans appreciated the entertainment provided by these impressive feats. Steroids were perceived as a catalyst for competition. However, scientific doubts about steroid effectiveness [10] coupled with negative health side effects led the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to implement full-scale drug testing programs in 1972 [11]. In addition, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and the Steroid Control Act were passed to limit the legal use of anabolic steroids [12].

A public backlash against athletes using steroids started in the late 1980’s. The first major steroid scandal occurred when Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson (sprinter) defeated heavily favored Carl Lewis in the 1988 Olympic Games, only to have his medal revoked for testing positive for anabolic steroids [13]. This was only the first of numerous controversial cases involving the illegal use of steroids in sports, others including:

    •Jose Conseco, MLB player
    •Marion Jones, track and field Olympian
    •Roger Clemons, MLB player
    •Lance Armstrong, cyclist
    •Alex Rodriguez, MLB player
    •Tiger Woods, PGA golfer

The steroid debate may have been most controversial in Major League Baseball. Fans were riveted in 1998 by the home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. MLB TV viewership soared [14] as fans watched these sluggers surpass Roger Marris’ single season home run record, and again when Barry Bonds broke McGuire's record a few years later. Yet the glory accrued by these home run kings was later tainted by accusations of steroid abuse. Fellow players, fans, and officials discredited their achievements [15], signifying a prominent change in society’s opinion of steroids.

Why Steroids FailedEdit

Anabolic steroids started as a medical technology that was perceived to have a positive influence on athletic performances and sporting entertainment. However, a distinct change of opinion occurred when society realized that steroids were ruining the sacredness of sports. Fans felt betrayed and cheated. How could they support the achievements of steroid-abusing athletes, who belittled achievements by athletes unaided by chemical enhancements? Most fans became critical of the shortcuts these athletes took to succeed, devaluing its inherent entertainment. Society showed through its backlash to steroids that it cherished pure achievement over fake accomplishments. It was at this time the asterisk became a symbol of the steroid era – a symbol of the conditional, the undeserved, and the unreal. It showed that sporting accomplishments achieved with steroids had no place in sports history, and that the implementation of this medical technology was unsuccessful.

The Success and Controversy of Fantasy SportsEdit


Fantasy sports allow everyday people to be team owners, drafting and managing their rosters while accumulating points based on players’ actual performance. A multibillion dollar industry [16], the Fantasy Sports Trade Association estimates 35 million adults play in the United States alone [17].

The growth of fantasy sports has paralleled that of the Internet. Online media outlets like Yahoo! Sports and are among the largest free providers. Internet accessing mobile smart phones have increased avenues for playing. Even social networking sites like Twitter are getting involved through the launch of sites like STAT.US. The service includes a “Fantasy Tracker” that sends fantasy owners live stats and updates regarding their players via Tweets [18].

Fantasy Sports in SocietyEdit

Fantasy sports are largely protected under the law. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 exempts fantasy sports on the premise that they are based on skill, not chance [19]. Other court decisions have allowed the use of real-time wireless statistical distribution [20] and upheld fantasy providers’ right to athletes’ biographical information [21].

Fantasy sports have had pronounced effects on American fan culture. Fans are more likely to watch sports on television and attend games once becoming fantasy owners [22]. Fantasy sports have also connected Americans to international sports. English Premiere League soccer league and the Olympics, for instance, have fantasy leagues available to Americans. Socially, fantasy sports promote camaraderie via competitive, yet friendly, rivalries between league owners. The mainstream hit television comedy series, The League, demonstrates this phenomenon, encapsulating the lives of six friends engaged in an intensely competitive fantasy football league [23]. Fantasy sports have even transcended into the American workplace. Michael Henby’s informational book, Fantasy Kick, illustrates his theories and testimonies that fantasy sports elevate networking abilities and enhance career opportunities [24].

Emerging ControversyEdit

Fantasy sports have also been marked by controversy. Addiction to fantasy sports have led to the formation of social groups such as Women Against Fantasy Sports (WAFS), a website for women to bond over their loved ones' obsessions with fantasy sports [25].

A 2008 ESPN article featured the conflicting perspectives of several NFL athletes on fantasy football. Some players appreciated the ability of fantasy sports to bring athletes and fans together. Others, like former Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer think fantasy football has “ruined the game,” encouraging fans to root for fantasy rather than hometown rosters. Fantasy sports may even affect athletes' on field performance due to pressure from fantasy owners via letters and personal encounters. For Ladanian Tomlinson, this pressure can be motivating, explaining top fantasy draft picks “take pride and want to uphold that honor that someone has drafted you that high [26]." In 2007, even inducted athletes with high fantasy value into the Fantasy Football Hall of Fame, a further testament to the incentive fantasy sports provide athletes [27]. The question remains, do fantasy sports tarnish the purity of the game? Several professional athletes, like Cato June and Chris Cooley, admit to playing fantasy sports. Does this, even subconsciously, affect an athlete’s performance [26]? Questions like these will continue to be asked as fantasy sports gain widespread popularity and become engrained in our culture.

Video Replay TechnologyEdit

Video replay technology is changing the role of the official in sports. The ideal official has integrity, consistency, authority, and fairness. However, this is not always the case. Officials make mistakes. Due to the difficulties in making calls, officials are now turning to video replay technology. Officials are integrating video replay technology in sports. The level of implementation varies across sports through rule complexity, tradition, and perceived level of fairness.


In 2014, the MLB approved video replay technology. All replays are reviewed in the Replay Operations Center. During review, a technician gathers all angles of the play for an umpire to make the official call [28].

Success of Video ReplaysEdit

There were 1,130 challenges in 2014. 529 challenges, 47%, were overturned [29] and only 24% confirmed the officials call. Not all calls can be challenged, such as balls and strikes. The following is a list of acceptable reviewable plays:

  • Home run
  • Ground rule double
  • Fan interference
  • Stadium boundary calls (e.g., fielder into stands, ball into stands triggering dead ball)
  • Force play (except the fielder's touching of second base on a double play)
  • Tag play (including steals and pickoffs)
  • Fair/foul in outfield only
  • Trap play in outfield only
  • Batter hit by pitch
  • Timing play (whether a runner scores before a third out)
  • Touching a base (requires appeal)
  • Passing runners
  • Record keeping (Ball-strike count to a batter, outs, score, and substitutions) [30]

The role of the official is becoming more dependent on video replay technology to get the call correct as seen with the 47% overturn rate.

Difficulties with ImplementationEdit

Not all calls are clear and decisive. The rule book wording does not call the play “out” or “safe”. Instead, the call is “overturned”, “stands”, or “confirmed”. All calls depend on the presence of “sufficient” evidence. This vagueness causes controversy in the MLB about defining sufficient evidence.

"I'd like someone to explain to me what sufficient and insufficient evidence is, because last year we had a pretty good idea what that was, and I can't tell you what it is this year. I really can't" [31] ~ Brad Ausmus

Brad Ausmus, like other managers, does not know what sufficient evidence is. Video replay is aiding umpires in making the right call, but baseball’s complexity is limiting its implementation.

Advertising during Video ReviewsEdit

Critics of video replay raise concerns about the length of time added “If we expand replay, where will it stop? Eventually, every play at first will be replayed, and the game, which often takes too long already, will take even longer" [32]. The MLB may not care about the extra time. They partnered with Samsung to place corporate logos during these replays [33]. Also, officials now have Samsung logos on their uniform which introduces a new function of the official. According to Business Insider, “an umpire appeared to notice on the stadium's screen that the replay assistant wasn't visible to the fans at the game or the audience watching on television. He then moved the assistant to a spot where the Samsung logo was visible.” The goal of video replay is getting more calls right on the field, but there is a hidden goal of the MLB to increase revenue through ad sponsorship. The MLB has adjusted the official to include video replay, while also increasing its revenues. �



In professional tennis, the officiators call every ball in or out. If the ball hits the line at all, it is in play. In these matches, 10 line umpires, and 1 chair umpire are on the court. The ten line umpires are each responsible for monitoring one line. The chair umpire oversees all lines, calls lets, and announces the score. Balls are traveling over 160 miles per hour with differing spins which makes the umpire’s call difficult[34].

Technology in Line CallsEdit

The first technology introduced was the Electroline. Debuting in the Men’s World Championship in 1974, the Electroline consisted of metallic tape pressure sensors that detected where the ball landed. Though the system received good reviews and a patent, the Electroline was not used in another match[35].

The next major technology introduced was the Cyclops. The Cyclops featured sets of infared beams in front and behind the service line. If both beams were tripped, the system would beep to signify the ball was out. Cyclops only detected serves and was deactivated for the rest of the point. Wimbledon was the first grand slam to adopt the technology in 1980, followed by the US and Australian Opens in 1981. Though the Cyclops was precise, it was only “used to complement, not replace, people. The line umpire has the final call” [36].

Hawk-Eye is the newest technology and consists of up to ten cameras pinpointing the balls’ trajectory and contact. Hawk-Eye has a 3.6 mm accuracy, the equivalent of the tennis ball fuzz [37]. Hawk-Eye replaced Cyclops for the 2007-2008 grand slam tournaments, except the French Open.

Need for Technology and ChangeEdit

A poor call not only affects the current point, but also match momentum, and player’s loss of composure leading to fines. The most famous example over a call was John McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon. In the first round, he yelled at the chair umpire, “You cannot be serious, man. That ball was on the line…Everyone, in this whole stadium, knows it’s in, and you call out? You all guys are the absolute piss of the world” [38]. Other examples include Andy Roddick in the 2001 US Open, where an incorrect call made him lose his composure and then the match, and Andrea Petkovic, who in the 2015 Dubai Championship, reacted to a poor call by throwing her racquet at the official[39] [40].

Limitations of TechnologyEdit

While Hawk-Eye has proven its accuracy, its use is limited. All replays are up to the chair umpire's discretion. Players are only allowed 3 challenges per set. In the 2013 Wimbledon final, Novak Djokavic ran out of challenges in his ultimate loss to Andy Murray[41]. Players have roughly 20 seconds to issue a challenge, and consulting others is discouraged. Only six of the nineteen courts have access to review in 2015[42]. The French Open refuses to implement the technology, because they believe clay courts leave sufficient marks. Many smaller tournaments do not have the technology either.

International Tennis Federation Role of OfficialEdit

According to the International Tennis Federation (ITF), “The Chair Umpire is much more than just the person who sits in a high chair and announces the score. They are the guardians of the Rules of Tennis and enforce them to ensure a match is played in a spirit of fair play” [43]. The ITF believes that the role of the official is more than just calling balls out. While they believe the technology perfects calls, the ITF thinks the official is still an integral part of the game. Out of the 858 challenges at Wimbledon, only 229 (27%) have been overturned, proving official’s accuracy[44]. Being an official is an honorable position, requiring 8-10 years of schooling across 3 different schools in 3 different countries and progressing through 5 levels of badges[45]. Only 26 officials currently maintain the gold badge, the highest level [46]. The tennis official continues to have a role due to tradition and their larger responsibilities.

Entertainment ValueEdit

Tennis is not a raucous spectator sport and fans are upheld to a high level of etiquette. Video replays may bring a new level of excitement. In a challenge, there is a brief break from the match tension, fans clap as they watch the replay and emotionally react. The challenge gets the crowd involved. Replay technology captivates spectators, unlike prior matches[47].


Background of Video Replay in SwimmingEdit

FINA, the international governing body of swimming, determined video replay can not disqualify athletes. The high costs of implementing underwater cameras may have influenced this ruling. However, USA Swimming, the US governing body, adopted video replay officially in 2008[48]. The underwater cameras used in USA Swimming competitions could not be used to directly disqualify swimmers, but rather review official’s calls. An official on the pool deck determines whether a swimmer broke a rule, such as a false start or illegal stroke motion, then other officials in a video control room review whether the disqualification is valid. The cameras cannot disqualify a swimmer unless an official on the pool deck saw a violation.

Perception of FairnessEdit

The fact that underwater video replay can only be issued to confirm a call exemplifies the perception of fairness. Video replaying is used in an “innocent until proven guilty” mindset. The video replay can rescue a swimmer from an unfair disqualification but cannot be used to disqualify a swimmer for a rule violation that the official could not see with his or her eyes. This shows that the false positive call, or unjust disqualification, is worse than a false negative, a missed call. In other words, people's’ view of a swimmer getting away with a violation as benign, whereas an unjust disqualification is egregious.

2008 Olympics Men’s 100 Meter Butterfly FinalEdit

The 2008 Olympics Men’s 100 Meter Butterfly Final is one of the most controversial finishes in Olympic history. On his way to his famous eight gold medal haul, Michael Phelps and rival, Milorad Cavic of Serbia appeared to touch at the same time. The Omega touchpad, however, displayed Phelps’ time as .01 seconds faster. The finish was then reviewed by video replay, showing both swimmers may have touched the wall at the same time. Many believe the video shows Cavic touching the wall first. However, Cavic had a long, gliding finish and Phelps had a strong, choppy finish, which registered the touchpad first. The rules of swimming declare the touchpad as the authority, and since it did not malfunction, Michael Phelps’ win could not be overturned. Mark Spitz, who won seven Olympic golds, the former record for most gold medals in a single games, said “I don’t believe he won the race but he’s still the greatest swimmer in the world, with or without that medal.”[49]


Background of Goal-Line Technology in SoccerEdit

Goal-line technology is a technical means of determining whether the entire soccer ball has crossed the goal line. The technology doesn't interfere with the game since it transmits a signal to the referee's watch within 1 second to indicate whether it was a goal. The referees are the only one notified of the signal and it's up to the competition organizer on whether they would like to show a replay.[50]

Types of Goal-Line TechnologiesEdit


Several systems use cameras that detect the ball and use software to make a decision from the footage from all the cameras. This method ensures that the system can determine whether the whole ball has crossed the goal line. The current systems in place utilize seven cameras per goal installed as high up as possible within the stadium. With this system, the referee is notified within 60 milliseconds if the entire ball crossed the goal line.

Magnetic FieldsEdit

Several systems operate using magnetic fields as a means for detecting if the entire ball crossed the goal line. In these systems, cables are placed underground and around the goal, and the soccer ball contains elements of the technology inside it as well. The interaction between the receptors in the ball and the magnetic fields created through the underground cables allow the software to calculate the exact position of the ball and determine when a goal has been scored.


Germany vs England, 2010Edit

Down 2-0 against Germany in the 2010 World Cup, Frank Lampard hit the perfect lob over goalkeeper Manuel Neuer, hitting the underside of the crossbar and crossing the goal line by nearly a yard, putting England on the board. Or so we thought. The center referee and the linesman both missed the call so the goal was not counted. England went on to lose that game 4-1, but we'll never know how the game would've panned out if that goal was counted. [51] Lampard did not dwell on that strike too much after the game, stating "It changed the game for the better, so I'm pleased about that. It's a positive move for the game as a whole with the introduction of goal-line technology."[52]

Manchester United vs Tottenham, 2015Edit

In the 89th minute, Pedro Mendes took a speculative long shot that landed yards behind the goal line. Instinctively, the keeper scrambled it away and despite the ball being nearly a yard and a half behind the goal, referee Mark Clattenburg and his assistant Rob Lewis failed to make the right decision, denying Tottenham a clear winner.

Controversy of Goal Line TechnologyEdit

Although goal line technology allows us to accurately determine if a soccer ball crosses the goal line, the use of it is still not supported by everyone. One of the biggest criticisms against the system is that the technology eliminates the human element in a goal decision and takes away responsibility from the referees. The referee is expected to cover 100+ yards of a soccer field and get every possible decision correct so element of human decision is a crucial part of the game.

Another key factor against the use of goal line technology is the cost of implementation. MLS Commissioner Don Garber stated, “[The cost] had us take a step back and pause and try to figure out: Is the value of having goal-line technology worth investing millions and millions and millions of dollars for the handful of moments where it’s relevant?” The cost of installing goal-line technology for the MLS would be approximately $260,000 per stadium and a further $3,900 each game. Many lower level leagues do not have the money to implement these systems for every stadium as well.[53]

Video Assistant RefereeEdit


In the April of 2016, the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved a proposal allowing the use of video review in men’s and women’s soccer for three specific situations, all of which will be at the discretion of the referee and must display indisputable video evidence for the original call be overturned:

  • The first situation is to determine whether or not a goal was scored, this is used in tandem with goal-line technology.
  • The second situation is to identify players for disciplinary manners this includes issuing warnings and cards for fouls.
  • The third situation is to determine if a fight occurred and to identify all participants, in order to issue punishments.

The new rule was implemented for the Fall 2016 season. The use of the video replay is not required but, if both coaches agree to allow video review before the start of the game, the home team will be responsible for providing the review equipment, and it must be available at the scorekeeper’s table or at another location at field level. The Men’s and Women’s Soccer Rules Committee believes the rule will allow the referee to take advantage of technology to ensure the correct call is made on the field in ambiguous, game-critical situations. [54]


In professional soccer, the video assistant referee (VAR) is a group of cameras that capture the game from multiple angles and footage is recorded on screens operated by an assistant referee. It is either located at a central hub or on the sidelines depending on the stadium. [55] Unlike NCAA rules, video replay is entirely at the head referees discretion. When the referee stops play and makes a box with his hands in the air he is indicating a video review is needed, and when he has his hand to his earpiece he is speaking to the VAR or can go to the sideline and view the replay himself. However, there are four situations when video review is mandatory:

  • Goal viability: after a goal is scored the play leading up to is reviewed for any fouls, handballs, or offside violations.
  • Penalty Kick viability: reviewing any sort of violation occurring before or during the penalty kick.
  • Direct Red Cards: all red cards are reviewed (second yellow cards are never reviewed), attacking phase is reviewed for DOGSO (denying obvious goal scoring opportunity).
  • Mistaken Identity: cards shown to the wrong player can be changed.

These four situations dictate when video review is mandatory, regardless of the referee decision before consulting VAR. Once a restart in play occurs previous incidents can no longer be reviewed. Restarts include corners, throw-ins, free kicks and goal kicks, and restarts themselves can never be reviewed (experts believe they happen too often and reviewing them would add unnecessary delay to the game). [56]


Around the world, different soccer leagues are governed by their respective countries that determine the rules for that league. Below are the different leagues and when they implemented VAR:

  • The Australian A-League was the first to implement VAR on April 7, 2017. [57]
  • Major League Soccer in the United States implemented VAR on August 5, 2017. [58]
  • The German Bundesliga implemented VAR for the 2017-2018 season. [59]
  • The Italian Serie A implemented VAR for the 2017-2018 season. [60]
  • The Portuguese Primeira Liga implemented VAR for the 2017-2018 season.[61]

It is clear that the VAR system is gaining favor in the soccer community because a majority of leagues have implemented VAR this past season and many more plan to implement it next season. However, it is not without its critics, Real Madrid manager Zinedine Zidane said the system caused confusion during the 2016 FIFA Club World Cup. Real Madrid midfielder Luka Modric said the same thing and also said that players have little experience with the technology and want to solely focus on playing the game.[62] In the 2017-2018 Bundesliga season, German fans called for the removal of VAR from games after it was discovered that a referee had used the review system inappropriately. On the October 25, 2017, game between Schalke 04 and Wolfsburg, referees were given special instructions from VAR executives to review plays more than usual this lead to a penalty and goal for Schalke 04 (who were losing) and allowed them to tie the game. It came to light that Schalke 04 was a favorite team of one of the VAR executives, this resulted in a firing of everyone involved in the scandal; however, VARs legitimacy is still uncertain to German fans.[63]

Player Safety: Football HelmetsEdit


One of the first mentions of helmet wearing was in 1893 during an Army Navy game where Admiral Joseph Mason Reeves wore a moleskin hat with ear flaps in response to a doctor telling him that another hard impact to his head would potentially kill him [64]. Just as in 1893, the main purpose for the innovation of the football helmet has been for head injury prevention. However, the incorporation of helmets in game play and refinements in their design has not eradiated dangerous health risks for players.

In a study led by the Department of Veteran Affairs and Boston University, researchers studied the brains of 165 people who played football at the high school, college or professional level. They found evidence of CTE, a degenerative disease believed to stem from repetitive brain injury, in 79% of them. Of the brains studied, 91 of them belonged to former NFL players and 87 of those 91 (96%) had signs of CTE [65]. After his retirement in 2016, Eugene Monroe of the Ravens said, "Has the damage to my brain already been done? Do I have CTE? I hope I don’t but over 90% of the brains of former NFL players that have been examined showed signs of the disease. I am terrified." [66]

Current DesignsEdit

In 2016, Vicis developed the Zero1, a football helmet designed to absorb an impact and bounce with contact. The Zero1 ranked highest amongst 33 helmet designs in the NFL/NFLPA 2017 Helmet Laboratory Testing Performance Results [67]. The helmet also offers 300 different sizing combinations allowing for a custom fit for almost any player. The helmet incorporates a multi-layer design. The outer layer is comprised of a series of columns that flex in response to linear and rotational impacts regardless of angle and location. The inner absorbing layer is paired with a shell that bends in response to impact [68].

More than 25 NFL teams allowed their players to wear the Zero1 helmet during 2017 pre-season activities. During a 2016 interview after wearing the Zero1, Washington Huskies linebacker Azeem Victor stated, "This thing is actually pretty nice. For a hard-hitting person like me, it's actually keeping people safe. It works for me." [69]

Societal ResponseEdit

Legal action has been a factor in ensuring player safety. In 2011, Senator Tom Udall and Representative Bill Pascrell unveiled the Children's Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act aimed to protect younger football players from the dangers of sports-related brain injuries. The bill gave helmet companies nine months to improve standards voluntarily before allowing the Consumer Product Safety Commission to step in and set mandatory [70].

Starting in June 2018, the Overland Park-based NOCSAE will include rotational forces in its testing certification standard for new football helmets. The newly developed performance standard is a pass-fail test the manufacturers will be required to meet for certification of new helmets [71].


As the above cases illustrated, technology can improve athletes' performances, increase safety and fairness, and enhance fan experience. Hockey masks prevail because the painted designs provided a new avenue for tradition without compromising the integrity of the game. Performance enhancing drugs harm sports, creating an environment of distrust that tarnish the reputations of athletes and their sports. Fantasy sports develop a following, but not without controversy. Complexity of rules, sporting tradition, perception of fairness, and costs all affect how video replay is implemented in sports, but even with perfect and instant technology, the official will still play a role.


  1. a b Roarke, Shawn P. Playing without a mask unthinkable to today’s goalies.
  2. NHL/ IIHF Rules Comparison.
  3. a b c Hynes, Jim, Gary Smith. Saving Face: The Art and History of the Goalie Mask. 2008
  4. Kopera, H. The history of anabolic steroids and a review of clinical experience with anabolic steroids. 2009.
  5. Kochakian, Charles. History of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids. 2004.
  6. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1939.
  7. Beamish, Rob. Steroids: A New Look at Performance Enhancing Drugs. 2011.
  8. Howell, Reet. The USSR: Sport and Politics Intertwined. 1975.
  9. Fair, John. 1993. Isometrics or Steroids? Exploring New Frontiers Of Strength in the Early 1960s. Journal of Sport History, (20)1.
  10. Wade, N. 1972. Anabolic steroids: doctors denounce them, but athletes aren’t listening. Science 176, 1399–1403.
  11. The International Olympic Committee.
  12. Parents. The Anti-Drug.
  13. 1988: Johnson stripped of Olympic gold.
  14. Ham, E. Broadcasting Baseball: A History of the National Pastime on Radio and Television. 2011
  15. The Mitchell Report.
  16. Dorman, Stephen. The fantasy football phenomenon. 2006.
  18. 30 November 2011.
  19. Rose, Nelson. Implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. 2008.
  20. NBA v. Motorola and STATS, Inc.
  21. Voris, Bob V. and St. Onge, Jeff. Fantasy Sports Win Right to Player Names, Statistics. 16 October 2007.
  22. CDM Legal Victory in Appeals Court Ensures Continued Fantasy Sports Growth. 17 October 2007.
  24. Henby, Michael. Fantasy Kick. 2006
  25. Ervin, Kathleen A. Women Against Fantasy Sports.
  26. a b Garber, Greg. Fantasy craze produces awkward moments for players. 6 December 2006.
  27. De Fino, Nando. Selecting the Cream of the Fantasy Crop. 15 January 2009.
  28. Paul H. Baseball unveils state-of-the-art replay center, 2014
  29. Oliver R. Has Expanded Replay Worked Well In Baseball? Here’s Our Call, 2014
  30. MLB Press Release
  31. Brad A. MLB instant replay system needs to be reviewed, 2015
  32. David W. Against replay in baseball, 2012
  33. Cork G. MLB's Replay System Is Now A Huge Money-Maker For The Owners, 2014
  34. Polvinale S. (2014).
  35. Amdur, N. (May 8, 1984). W.C.T. Buzzing Over Electronic Tape. New York Times.
  36. Greeman, C. (August 31, 2000). For U.S. Open Tennis, a Service Line Umpire That Never Blinks: An Electronic Eye Makes the Call On the court. New York Times.
  37. Hawk-Eye Technologies.
  38. John McEnroe coins "You cannot be serious".
  39. 2001 US Open: Hewitt vs Roddick match highlights.
  40. German Tennis Player Blows Up Over Horror Line Call.
  41. Relive Murray's Win Over Djokavic. BBC.
  42. Edworthy, S. Wimbledon.
  43. International Tennis Federation (2014).
  44. Wimbledon. 2015.
  45. Arnold, E. (August 22, 2008). Forbes.
  46. Men's Tennis Forum.
  47. Branch, J. (June 28, 2014). New York Times.
  49. Mark Spitz Allegedly Claims Michael Phelps Did Not Win 2008 100 Fly Olympic Gold (2015)
  50. About Goal-Line Technology
  51. Rice, S. (February 19, 2013) The Most Controversial Goal-line Incidents.
  52. Hayward, B. Lampard: My Disallowed England Goal Changed Football.
  53. Bishop, J. (December 15, 2015). The 91st: Pros and Cons of Goal-Line Technology.
  54. Johnson, G. (April 12, 2016). Video review rule approved for soccer.
  55. McMahon, B. (November 9, 2017). The Case For And Against Using Video Assistant Referee Technology At The FIFA 2018 World Cup Finals.
  56. MLS Soccer Staff. (August 4, 2017). Video Review 101: Everything you need to know about video replay in soccer.
  57. Staff Writer. (April 3, 2017). Hyundai A-League first to use Video Assistant Referees.
  58. Borg, S. (December 10, 2016). MLS will seek to introduce Video Assistant Referees (VAR) during 2017.
  59. Uersfeld, S. (January 24, 2017). Video assistant referees to be introduced in Bundesliga next season.
  60. Football Italia staff. (June 10, 2017). Serie A will start with VAR.
  62. McKirdy, A. (December 16, 2016). Zidane questions video reviews after Madrid’s Club World Cup semifinal win.
  63. McMahon, B. (November 9, 2017). The Case For And Against Using Video Assistant Referee Technology At The FIFA 2018 World Cup Finals.
  64. Stamp, J. (2012). Leatherhead to Radio-head: The Evolution of the Football Helmet
  65. Breslow, J. M. (2015). New: 87 Deceased NFL Players Test Positive for Brain Disease
  66. Ryan, K. (2017). Players Just Wore This Startup's New Soft Helmets in an NFL Preseason Game
  69. Caple, C. (2016). Huskies Players have positive response to new helmets designed to reduce impact forces
  70. Conley, M. (2011). Football Head Injuries: Can Concussions Really Be Stopped by Modern-Day Helmets
  71. Palmer, T. (2017) New football helmet standards aimed at reducing concussions will measure rotational forces