You may or may not have heard about the Monday Night Football Google accuracy issue, but it’s a fascinating case. During the Buccaneers vs. Ravens game, a late-game injury to receiver Chris Godwin raised questions among fans about why he was still on the field when his team was trailing. Buccaneers coach Todd Bowles explained that they were attempting to score and try another onside kick, prompting fans to wonder if the team had used up all their attempts.
Naturally, fans turned to Google for clarification — which offered up inaccurate results that stated there was a limit to onside kicks in the last quarter. (There isn’t a limit.)
How did this happen? The misconception partly stemmed from an article published by Sporting News, which mistakenly reported that the rules had changed when, in fact, they hadn’t. So Google, in displaying that incorrect information, inadvertently fueled the false narrative that the Buccaneers had exhausted their chances.
This particular misunderstanding was minor, but the next one could have worse consequences than confused football fans. So, who exactly is at fault for the MNF mix-up, and how can we prevent similar mistakes in the future? Some believe the guilty party could be Google, that this incident underscores a growing issue with Google Search accuracy, as misinformation can spread quickly, even from seemingly reliable sources, leading to public misunderstanding in real-time events like high-profile sports. After all, the majority of us simply turn to Google when we don’t understand something or need to look up facts.
Here’s another perspective. Google is a search engine. It’s not a media outlet, but an archive of information curated by an algorithm that, theoretically, delivers the highest quality results in response to a user’s search query. As far as we know, Google is not intelligent enough to create information from nothing. That is, Google only puts out what is put in. With that knowledge in mind, could we also argue that Sporting News, an outlet that Google’s AI Overview pulled the inaccurate information about onside kicks from, is equally responsible for the mishap? After all, if the source itself had published a mistake, Google’s algorithm is just doing its job — amplifying what it determines to be the most relevant content available. This raises a critical point: how much responsibility should fall on Google for verifying every fact it retrieves, especially when it’s relying on reputable sources? Alternatively, should primary responsibility lie with publishers to maintain stringent accuracy standards, knowing that their reporting might be instantly circulated across millions of search results?
This situation brings up hard questions that unfortunately don’t have solutions at the moment, given Google’s current state and legal woes. But until we get closer to those solutions, we hesitate to lay the blame completely at Google’s feet. If anything, this mishap reveals a larger issue: the fragile trust in digital information and the speed at which errors can spread when a single misstep is amplified across vast networks. Until more effective safeguards are in place, both publisher and distributor will need to bear responsibility, as even minor inaccuracies can lead to widespread confusion in a world increasingly reliant on search engines for quick answers.
