In his post “The Off-Script Athlete: Why We Need Moral Agency in Sports,” Zay Amaro argues that automation threatens the meaning of sport by removing human accountability. According to Zay, when sports rely too heavily on systems and sensors, victories risk feeling calculated rather than earned.
“When we replace a human umpire with a sensor, we gain accuracy but we lose ‘moral agency’—the human accountability that makes a victory feel earned rather than calculated.”
— Zay Amaro
I agree with Zay’s core concern. Sports matter because humans make choices, take risks, and live with consequences. But I want to push back on the idea that automation necessarily erases moral agency. In my view, automation can still be useful—even in high-stakes moments—when it works alongside human judgment rather than replacing it.
Zay emphasizes the importance of humans going “off-script” when rules and patterns fall short. That improvisation is essential to sport. However, not every deviation adds meaning. When a championship game is decided by a call that replay clearly shows to be wrong, the focus shifts away from athletic excellence and toward officiating failure.
In those moments, accountability feels less like moral agency and more like arbitrariness. This is where automation can serve as a fairness tool rather than a replacement for human judgment. By catching clear mistakes, technology ensures that the human story is about the athletes’ performance rather than preventable errors.
For example, imagine a World Series game tied in the bottom of the ninth inning. A borderline pitch is called a strike when replays show it was outside. The batter strikes out, and the championship hinges on that single call. Even if the umpire acted with integrity, the result could feel unfair. In such moments, automation doesn’t remove human agency—it protects the fairness that makes human decisions meaningful.
Major League Baseball’s upcoming Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) system provides a real-world example of how technology can enhance fairness without replacing humans. Beginning in the 2026 season, MLB will allow players to challenge ball-and-strike calls using automated pitch-tracking technology—while keeping human umpires on the field.
“Human umpires will still call balls and strikes, but players will be able to challenge those calls using the automated system.”
— Associated Press
This system preserves human agency. Umpires make the initial call. Players decide when to challenge. Coaches manage strategy. Automation only intervenes when a human actively chooses to use it. This creates a hybrid model where technology improves accuracy but humans still control the narrative and moral responsibility.
Hybrid systems like ABS also introduce strategic decision-making. Coaches and players must weigh when to use their limited challenges, adding layers of human judgment and risk management that automation alone cannot replicate. Far from erasing the “off-script” element, this approach makes strategic choices more deliberate and impactful.
Zay suggests that high-stakes moments demand human discretion. I agree—but I would add that high stakes also demand higher standards of fairness. The more meaningful the moment, the more damaging an uncorrected error becomes. Automation in these scenarios ensures that the outcome reflects skill and performance rather than mistakes anyone could prevent.
Beyond baseball, other sports already employ similar technology to balance fairness and agency. Tennis uses Hawk-Eye for line calls, soccer uses VAR for goal-line and penalty decisions, and football uses replay challenges to correct obvious errors. In all these cases, technology does not remove human responsibility—it supports it, ensuring that the story is about human skill.
ABS in MLB follows this same principle. By correcting objectively wrong calls while leaving the initial call to the umpire and the decision to challenge to players, the system strengthens the legitimacy of high-stakes moments without reducing the human drama that makes sports meaningful.
Fully automated sports would strip away dialogue, discretion, and accountability. But rejecting automation entirely risks preserving error in the name of tradition. Hybrid systems like MLB’s ABS offer a more promising path—one where automation supports precision while humans retain responsibility.
Moral agency doesn’t disappear when technology enters the game. It disappears only when humans are removed from decision-making. As long as humans remain accountable for their choices, sports remain human—even in a world where technology can help prevent mistakes.
In short, automation and human judgment don’t have to be enemies. When carefully designed to complement each other, they ensure that victories are both fair and earned, preserving the drama, strategy, and moral agency that make sports compelling.