The use of technology to aid in the umpiring of sport is increasingly becoming a hot topic, with recent advances in technology and controversial umpiring decisions being made. Television replays now provide spectators with as good as, if not better than an umpire's view of games, and umpiring decisions can come under much public scrutiny. This raises the question of whether or not technology should be used to aid umpiring decisions in sport, and if so to what extent should it be used? There are many arguments for the introduction of technology into games. Hill (2008) argues that if technology was used more it would prevent many unfair decisions being made. For example, in cricket a player may be caught and know that they are out, however if an umpire is unsure of the decision and gives the batsmen the benefit of the doubt, or makes the wrong decision, many batsmen will not walk. If umpires were able to refer to an off field umpire with access to technology this could be prevented. On the contrary many top level sporting events are televised; spectators and broadcasters are able to view close calls better than umpires, as well as being able to see slow motion replays. "New technologies, however, degrade the epistemological privilege of the umpire and referee. In some cases the epistemological privilege has moved to the crowd or the remote television viewer. This often means that there is disharmony between the ontological authority and the epistemological privilege leading to loss of credibility of the match official and the sport " (Collins, 2010). This may lead to a loss of faith towards umpires and match officials. Some sports have aimed to combat this through the use of technology where umpires are able to call for assistance if they are unsure of a decision. During taekwondo tournaments wearable force sensors have been used to do this, so if a referee is unsure whether or not to award a point, they can refer to an official who ha