From bad calls to system errors: accountability in automated and assisted sports officiating

Automated and assisted officiating technologies are often introduced in elite sport as ways to improve accuracy, consistency, and fairness. Studies of VAR and Hawk-Eye show that these technologies can improve some decisions, but they also show that technology does not simply remove error from officiating. It can change where error is located, how it is described, and who is expected to answer for it. This article focuses on that shift. The main issue is not only whether automated systems reduce incorrect calls, but also how mistakes are explained when decisions depend on referees, protocols, tracking systems, data, software, and governing bodies at the same time. The article uses the term "error without accountability" for cases in which an error is recognized, but the process for explaining, contesting, correcting, or assigning responsibility for that error remains unclear. This does not mean that responsibility disappears. Rather, responsibility is spread across several human, technical, and institutional actors, making accountability harder to locate. This problem is close to existing debates on algorithmic accountability, responsibility gaps, and AI governance, but the article applies it to the specific setting of automated and assisted sports officiating.