Three uses of technology in sport
The spec groups technology into three named uses, each needing a named example. Decision-making by officials -- Hawk-Eye in tennis, goal-line technology in football, a TMO in rugby. Recording time and distance -- photo-finish timing and distance measurement in athletics. Enhancing performance -- aerodynamic design and GPS data in cycling. Naming the category AND a system and sport earns AO2 marks, not "technology helps sport".
Positive impact by stakeholder
Pin every positive point to a NAMED stakeholder. Officials -- more accurate decisions and less pressure. Performers -- fairer outcomes, a wrong decision overturned, sometimes a formal challenge. Audience/spectators -- replays and big-screen graphics help them follow close decisions. The sport/event -- more credibility, attracting broadcasters and sponsors. Name the stakeholder, not one generic benefit.
Negative impact by effect
Pin negative points to an effect or stakeholder. Disruption to flow -- stopping play for a TMO or VAR review breaks a match's momentum. Unequal access -- expensive systems are usually only affordable at elite level, so grassroots and school sport miss the same accuracy. Remaining inaccuracy -- a margin of error, and calls like a marginal offside still need human interpretation. Cost -- equipment and staff are expensive.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Disadvantage left too generic
"It takes time" or "technology can go wrong" is too generic. Say WHO is affected and HOW: a stoppage breaks the players' momentum and leaves spectators waiting; unequal access leaves lower levels without the same accuracy. Name the effect and who it harms, not just that a drawback exists.
Vague benefits for officials and spectators
Examiner reports note an imbalance: benefits to performers (a fairer, overturned call) are described well, but benefits to officials and spectators are left vague. Name the mechanism: an official gets supporting evidence and less pressure; a spectator gets replays and graphics that explain a decision they could not judge from their seat.
s22 P12 Q13; w22 P12 Q11
Automated sensor ≠ human video review
Goal-line technology is an AUTOMATED sensor: it detects on its own whether the whole ball crossed the line, with no human judging footage. A TMO or VAR is a HUMAN watching replays and judging. Calling goal-line tech "the referee watches the replay and decides" blurs the two. Ask: a fixed answer on its own, or a human interpreting the screen?
Technology named without a system or sport
Writing "technology helps officials" earns little: it names no system and no sport. Application (AO2) marks come from a specific pairing -- Hawk-Eye in tennis, goal-line technology in football, a TMO in rugby, photo-finish timing in athletics. Always attach the named system to the named sport, not "technology" as an unexplained label.
Confusing the three categories of use
The three uses differ. Decision-making helps an OFFICIAL make a call; recording measures a result (time or distance); performance-enhancing helps a PERFORMER train or compete. Candidates mix these up -- calling a cyclist's GPS data "decision-making", or goal-line technology "performance-enhancing". Match each example to the right category and user.
Technology has removed all officiating error
Students assume that once a sport uses Hawk-Eye or VAR, decisions become 100% accurate and controversy ends. Not so. Ball-tracking has a small margin of error, so close calls can still be marginal. And many decisions are NOT automated: a TMO or VAR still WATCHES the footage and makes a human judgement. Technology reduces clear errors, not all of them.
Name the system, sport and stakeholder
Precision wins marks. Name the specific system AND sport (Hawk-Eye in tennis, not "technology"), and specify the stakeholder each point is about -- official, performer, audience or the sport itself -- not a benefit that fits anyone.
Discuss/evaluate: both sides + judgement
On a discuss/evaluate question, give both a genuine positive AND negative, then reach a justified judgement -- one side, or points with no conclusion, is capped mid-band. Aim for a range of distinct impacts, not the same point reworded.
Match the command word; stay on system
Describe asks WHAT the technology does; discuss/evaluate asks you to weigh positive against negative and judge. Answer the command word set, and stay on the named system -- a goal-line-technology question must not drift onto VAR, or accurate points score nothing.
