[Bobblehead]

I think the question you need to ask yourself is what is the purpose of the official?

Is the official there for governance, or is the official and his interpretation part of the game?

MLB adds umpires in post season games. In addition to the standard 4 there are umps down each line to aid in "getting the call right". That implies the officials are there to get the call right.

In tennis they have taken line judges out of most of the big tournaments. I don't hear a mourning of the loss.

While the argument of "the human factor" appealed to in the Newsweek opinion piece does appeal to emotion, attempting to get the call correct (in any sport) does not remove the human element. There are still plenty of players on the field and I would argue those are the ones people go to see, not Kerry Frasier, Tim Donaghy or Jim Joyce.

Additionally, the argument about baseball's tradition disappeared when outfield fences were added, or the height of the mound was changed, DH added, or any of a myriad of other rules that were added and changed as the game changed.

I would be very interested in seeing a computer call balls/strikes for a few games.
It wouldn't be removing the human element. The pitcher still needs to hit the zone, the batter still needs to make contact, and that is the essence of the match up. The arbitrary nature of an umpire's strike zone is more of a distraction than an enhancement.

So my feeling is that as long as "getting the call right" doesn't distract from the flow of the game, let's get the call right.