How should questions about technology used for refereeing purposes be tagged?

Question

There are various kinds of sports officiating technology. Several sports use instant replay, this includes video goal judge in ice-hockey or Hawk-Eye in tennis. In football there is goal-line technology and more recently video assistant referee. And probably many other similar tools.

Occasionally there are some questions about these topics. Which tags should be (typically) used for such questions?

• Is combination of officiating and technology a reasonable choice?
• Should a new separate tag for this topic be created? (A tag encompassing various types of officiating technology.)
• Are some of these topics important enough to have a separate tag? For example, should there be a separate tag for video technology in soccer, or maybe more general for user of replays in various sports?

Unless I missed something the only existing tag related to one of these topics is hawkeye, at the moment with a single question. Perhaps together with the above questions we could discuss at the same time whether or not Hawk-Eye is important enough to have a separate tag. (And if the consensus is that we should keep this tag, then there are a few other questions about this topic and the tag should be added also to those questions.)

Answer 1

Use the combination of two tags: officiating and technology.

When it comes to tagging, we want related questions to be grouped together. These questions are important in the officiating aspect of sport and they're important in the technological aspect of sport. Putting officiating and technology on a question that involves officiating technology means they are both connected to the question. It seems better than the alternatives, which appear to be

• A new tag for each kind of officiating technology: these might each get a small number of questions, many of which may be difficult to find if the terms are not selected perfectly. hawk-eye is already mentioned.

• A new tag for officiating technology: this is also a very narrow tag and is already covered by two others together. It separates an important aspect of both technology and officiating from both of those categories. Also realistically, we're going to get a lot of people typing a space in officiating-technology and ending up on officiatingtechnology anyway.

Answer 2

I'm not that active on the meta site, and without knowing of existence of this question I addressed it today. I added the video-review and added it to as many questions I could find that related to instant replay, coach's challenges, player's challenges, and goal line technology.

I think there are enough questions already on the site that it makes sense to have a dedicated tag for topics that we've covered in this question. Also in general I find it bad practice to enforce users to use multiple tags in aggregate when we can just create one. Tags need to be concise and accurate. Also there is a limit of 5 tags per question, so using multiple tags instead of one means you may not be able to add all tags needed for a question.

I also believe the video-review tag is general enough to encapsulate all types of video challenges and video reviews. If we move forward with tags for each technology such as hawk-eye we may end up adding a tag for all of them. But one should be enough anytime for sports officiating technology.

Answer 3

Merge hawk-eye into technology

When it comes to Hawk-Eye, if we have many questions specifically about the product across multiple sports, I think it would make sense to keep it.

But given how most questions about it are on a particular sport's use, and that the question may only refer to Hawk-Eye incidentally (i.e. the question is the same regardless of what product was actually involved) I think rolling this up as a synonym for technology would be the easiest way forward.

Questions specifically about the Hawk-Eye product aren't any more special than questions about Adidas football boots or Bauer hockey sticks. I see no reason to tag for individuals, be they a person or a company, so let's scrap the precedent here as well.