Eliminations replay card

[blazingbronco18]

Hi CD community,

This idea occurred to me this past weekend when my team ran into a pretty major problem in eliminations. This weekend, we ended up losing communications in our playoff matches due to a fuse being loose. A problem that wasn't diagnosed until after the match. I know at the end of the day, the team should have noticed the error before the match.

In eliminations, it is clear that every team that is there deserves to belong up there. So what if there was a way to let each alliance perform to the best of their capabilities. What I propose is an eliminations replay card. Similar to calling a timeout or calling in a back up robot this card would allow you to replay a match in certain scenarios. Specifically the one scenario I have got in mind right now would be if communication on the robot is lost for so many seconds of a match a elimination captain can use this card to get a replay. I know this has got its share of problems but it will allow all 8 alliances to play at their peak level. What are your thoughts?

[IronicDeadBird]

We might need more then a few days for a regional then...

[Sperkowsky]

Its an idea that sounds good but think about it more closely.

what if a team made a 6 stack that would have won them the match but they knocked it over. Should they be allowed to have a replay. or what if a team forgets to change their battery and their rio restarts. should they be allowed to get a replay.

or what about the fact that delays are already bad this year replays would just make them worse.

just my 2cents but I see where your coming from.

Those fuses have been pretty annoying this season to the point that I put push fuses in on the pre match checklist right after change the battery and gather tools for transport configuration change.

The control system isnt changing any time soon (for the good I love the new control system) so teams should definitely start to form practices of pushing them in.

[blazingbronco18]

We might need more then a few days for a regional then...

Well I mean solely in elimination rounds. I was thinking perhaps just one of these elimination replay cards per elimination alliances. Which could potentially increase the time it takes to finish the regional but at a worst case scenario it would only delay a regional by 8 matches

[Alan Anderson]

Mulligan cards? No thanks.

Those fuses have been pretty annoying this season to the point that I put push fuses in on the pre match checklist right after change the battery and gather tools for transport configuration change.

If you need to "push fuses in" more than once per competition, you're not pushing them in far enough.

[blazingbronco18]

Its an idea that sounds good but think about it more closely.

what if a team made a 6 stack that would have won them the match but they knocked it over. Should they be allowed to have a replay. or what if a team forgets to change their battery and their rio restarts. should they be allowed to get a replay.

or what about the fact that delays are already bad this year replays would just make them worse.

just my 2cents but I see where your coming from.

Those fuses have been pretty annoying this season to the point that I put push fuses in on the pre match checklist right after change the battery and gather tools for transport configuration change.

The control system isnt changing any time soon (for the good I love the new control system) so teams should definitely start to form practices of pushing them in.

Yes those are my concerns as well. One possible way to control them would be to have F.I.R.S.T set the standards on when the card may be used. Thus preventing an alliance from using it for reasons such as a toppled 6 stack.

[M. Lillis]

Interesting idea.

A system could be implemented where each alliance can chose 2 of the 3 cards. This would make teams chose between these three options:

Backup Robot
Timeout
Replay


Where you cannot pick the same card twice and you can only use the 2 selected cards once per event. It might shake up elims a bit and add another element of strategy. Just an idea to throw in the mix.

[Sperkowsky]

If you need to "push fuses in" more than once per competition, you're not pushing them in far enough.


well We dont need to push them in but I just have it on the list to make sure. It takes 3 seconds and as you can see can save a whole regional.

[cjl2625]

There would definitely need to be some way to make sure that an alliance is calling a replay for a valid reason.
If they can call them whenever, then this power could be abused.
For example, if red has an unusually high-scoring match during playoffs, then blue could call a replay in hopes of bringing red down.

[Ty Tremblay]

Yes those are my concerns as well. One possible way to control them would be to have F.I.R.S.T set the standards on when the card may be used. Thus preventing an alliance from using it for reasons such as a toppled 6 stack.

They have set the standards. Replays only occur after a field fault.

[Ben Wolsieffer]

Yes those are my concerns as well. One possible way to control them would be to have F.I.R.S.T set the standards on when the card may be used. Thus preventing an alliance from using it for reasons such as a toppled 6 stack.

That can lead to further problems, though, because even if it was only allowed to be used in case of a communication issue, it would be difficult to differentiate between a legitimate problem and a team pressing the "reboot roboRIO" button to allow a replay after they knocked over a stack.

[rich2202]

That's the purpose of best 2 out of 3.

If you want one and done, then a replay might be ok. But, it is likely the loosing team will be requesting the replay for whatever reason. So, you end up back at best 2 out of 3 with no replay (A looses and requests a replay, B looses the 2nd game, so requests a replay, now you are down to the 3rd match - winner take all).

[MrTechCenter]

As a robot inspector this year, I was actually told by the LRI at the event to specifically check the fuses when examining a team's PDP to ensure that they're pushed in all the way. This is probably the best way to prevent this issue from occurring.

As for a replay, you also have to remember that there's 3 teams on the other end of the field that might not want one.

[blazingbronco18]

That's the purpose of best 2 out of 3.

If you want one and done, then a replay might be ok. But, it is likely the loosing team will be requesting the replay for whatever reason. So, you end up back at best 2 out of 3 with no replay (A looses and requests a replay, B looses the 2nd game, so requests a replay, now you are down to the 3rd match - winner take all).

Yes that prevents such a scenario in a regular FRC game. But in a game based solely on averages one bad round might be enough to knock you out of the eliminations. I'm not saying its not recoverable but it makes it very unlikely.

[KosmicKhaos]

What if a team is having a bad match so they decide to pull the Ethernet cord mid match causing them to "loose communications" should they get a replay for that. No.

[blazingbronco18]

What if a team is having a bad match so they decide to pull the Ethernet cord mid match causing them to "loose communications" should they get a replay for that. No.

Of course they don't deserve a replay for that. Such a scenario seems to be against the spirit of F.I.R.S.T. I'm pretty sure the FMS can detect which stations are plugged in and which aren't.

[Jack_O]

In any normal year where it is 2 out of 3 this is never gonna happen. If you have any issues and completely fail one match you have two more to make up for it. Either way, error or not, the best alliance is still going to win.

Specifically for this year, I still believe it's not reasonable. One of the goals of FIRST is to give a head start to the real world and the jobs you'll have. How many times in your career will you get the chance to redo a major project because of a simple error? In the build season or production phase it might be acceptable. However, during competitions or once a product is on the market, you have to roll with what you got. If something fails, the best you can do is roll with the punches and be better prepared for the future.

Speaking from experience I know just how frustrating this can be. It cost me what could've been the biggest win of my FRC career. It also taught me an important lesson. Murphy's Law will always apply. Our team should've just designed a better robot. Then again, hindsight is 20/20...

[IronicDeadBird]

Well I mean solely in elimination rounds. I was thinking perhaps just one of these elimination replay cards per elimination alliances. Which could potentially increase the time it takes to finish the regional but at a worst case scenario it would only delay a regional by 8 matches

I suppose saying days was an exaggeration of the situation but the point still stands that 8 replayed matches is still a fairly large chunk of time for everyone involved.
Also shout out to staff and volunteers for being able to keep pace at these events for such extended periods of time.

[The other Gabe]

Part of FRC is to introduce you to how engineering is in real life: you can't use a redo card if you're landing something on the moon.

this is also unfair to the other teams, who successfully beat you, in part because they remembered to tighten every screw, plug in all the batteries, make sure their pneumatics were well built (cough cough my team in 2012 cough cough).

FRC, especially recycle rush, is about having the robot best made for the challenge win, and that includes durability (in my opinion anyways)

[rich2202]

But in a game based solely on averages one bad round might be enough to knock you out of the eliminations.

Our team doesn't build the best robot each year, but we are known for being a reliable team - robot works, and drivers can drive.

Mulligans are good for teams with a high variance, and penalizes teams with low variance.

[ATannahill]

Of course they don't deserve a replay for that. Such a scenario seems to be against the spirit of F.I.R.S.T. I'm pretty sure the FMS can detect which stations are plugged in and which aren't.

It can detect if the DS is unplugged, but it cannot detect why it was unplugged.

[Mike Bortfeldt]

For this year's game, you could implement a similar "best 2 out of 3" in semi's by only taking the average of the alliances two highest scores (drop the lowest). This would allow for a single bad match without replays. It really comes down to what the GDC was trying to do with this scoring format. If reliability and consistency was important, then the current method works fine.

Mike

[Team118Joseph]

Part of FRC is to introduce you to how engineering is in real life: you can't use a redo card if you're landing something on the moon.

this is also unfair to the other teams, who successfully beat you, in part because they remembered to tighten every screw, plug in all the batteries, make sure their pneumatics were well built (cough cough my team in 2012 cough cough).

FRC, especially recycle rush, is about having the robot best made for the challenge win, and that includes durability (in my opinion anyways)

I agree with this. When the Mars Climate Orbiter failed do to a simple mistake, NASA didn't get a "redo". In real life, once a mistake is made, it is usually final. Learn from failures made in FRC and apply the knowledge learned in real world applications.

[BrendanB]

Part of FRC is to introduce you to how engineering is in real life: you can't use a redo card if you're landing something on the moon.

this is also unfair to the other teams, who successfully beat you, in part because they remembered to tighten every screw, plug in all the batteries, make sure their pneumatics were well built (cough cough my team in 2012 cough cough).

FRC, especially recycle rush, is about having the robot best made for the challenge win, and that includes durability (in my opinion anyways)

Good point. I think is why the best two out of three system is better in my opinion because it gives each matchup a "get out of jail free card" so to speak in that if you lose one match because something went wrong you didn't seal your fate. On the flip side two out of three doesn't fit well with this game at all because there is almost nothing a majority of alliances can do to influence their opponents.

It happened to us twice this year with two big messups on our part leading to an early out in the quarterfinals at both of our events. In our second match at Reading we messed up placing the RC on top of our 6 stack which kept our average 10 points lower than what we needed to move on. At UNH our driver station malfunctioned for the first 30 seconds of our second quarter final and we sat out of semis by an average that was 1.5 points lower than what we needed. Our apologies to 1768, 1289. 138, & 1307. :o

Its a brutal game but a match replay coupon is not the answer. As if there weren't enough field time outs already this year.

[Kevin Leonard]

For this year's game, you could implement a similar "best 2 out of 3" in semi's by only taking the average of the alliances two highest scores (drop the lowest). This would allow for a single bad match without replays. It really comes down to what the GDC was trying to do with this scoring format. If reliability and consistency was important, then the current method works fine.

Mike

This isn't a bad idea at all.
It would prevent the stupid failures, like 303 losing communication during their last semifinal at Tech Valley, and not making it to finals by one average point.
It would also allow alliances to show their best stuff and have it count. Never before has an alliance put up the regional high score in their last semifinal match, then not moved on to finals, like the 1126 Alliance at the Finger Lakes Regional.

That being said, a change like this would change the strategy of how the game is played. Right now depending on where your average score lies, you might choose to play a high risk or a low risk game. That would dissappear and make the preferred strategy in semis a high risk game.

Other thoughts?

[JamesCH95]

To be blunt: ugh, no, this [redo card] is a bad idea.

Detractors:

-You're going to make another alliance subject their robots to another match because you screwed up, or you'll play a match with no opposition. Neither of these situations is equitable.
-It reduces the reliability required to excel in eliminations, which is one of the main points of eliminations.
-It could/will be used as a poor excuse for a failed strategy.
-It will add a considerable amount of time to each event.
-This will cause a great amount of pressure and responsibility to be put on the field staff to determine if the redo card should be allowed and/or the mechanism will be abused.
-Cheapens the whole experience. To me the whole idea feels like a little kid screaming at their friends for a redo because they weren't ready. I feel that FRC teams should be held to a higher standard than that.

I do like the idea of only counting 2/3 SF matches, although the push for reliability and consistency is clearly the dominant factor in this years game and is reflected in the eliminations setup as well as the QA-type ranking.

Related - these micro fuses have given my team no issues this year. This type of fuse gives me zero issues in my daily-driven cars and the cars that I've raced, including custom hand-made PDBs. The same can be said for millions of other cars over their life-cycles of decades. They stay in place during collision events, heavy vibrations, and a variety of accelerations. If a team is having issues with these fuses I would bet large sums of money that the fuses aren't properly seated or that the fuse socket is damaged.

I know this sounds a bit harsh, but if a team can't be bothered to check that their critical hardware is in good working order do they really deserve to be playing in eliminations? See page 13 on the user guide for the PDB: http://content.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/pdf/217-4244-PDP-Users-Guide-20150305.pdf where it says: "Warning: Also take care to ensure fuses are fully seated into the fuse holders. The fuses should descend at least as far as the figure below (different brand fuses have different lead lengths). It should be nearly impossible to remove the fuse with bare hands (without the use of pliers). If this is not properly done, the robot/radio may exhibit intermittent connectivity issues."

I know these last two paragraphs probably sound a bit harsh, and I am sorry if anyone is offended by them. However, I feel very strongly that individuals and teams should be proactive in avoiding mistakes and be responsible enough to do their homework to ensure that they are 'doing things right' instead of trying to find ways for FRC/FIRST to accommodate mistakes that might be made. Ask "what could I have done to avoid this mistake?" instead of "what could someone else do to mitigate this mistake?"

[Tom Bottiglieri]

My only thought:

http://i.imgur.com/W3Aoy1f.gif

[mrnoble]

If 148, 987, and 1114 aren't asking for it after they had victory ripped away for stupid reasons, I don't think I will support it for kids forgetting to plug something in. No thanks.

[JamesCH95]

One more thing I'd like to add...

[CROTCHETY OLD MAN]
Back when I was a student we didn't have field coms checks, ever. It just wasn't part of the field control. Didn't plug in your battery? Didn't turn your robot on? Forget to plug your radio in after tethering? Forget to hook your control board to the field? Your fault, you got to sit for a match.
[/CROTCHETY OLD MAN]

My only thought:

http://i.imgur.com/W3Aoy1f.gif

I lol'd. Thank you for that.

[blazingbronco18]

To be blunt: ugh, no, this [redo card] is a bad idea.

Detractors:

-You're going to make another alliance subject their robots to another match because you screwed up, or you'll play a match with no opposition. Neither of these situations is equitable.
-It reduces the reliability required to excel in eliminations, which is one of the main points of eliminations.
-It could/will be used as a poor excuse for a failed strategy.
-It will add a considerable amount of time to each event.
-This will cause a great amount of pressure and responsibility to be put on the field staff to determine if the redo card should be allowed and/or the mechanism will be abused.
-Cheapens the whole experience. To me the whole idea feels like a little kid screaming at their friends for a redo because they weren't ready. I feel that FRC teams should be held to a higher standard than that.

I do like the idea of only counting 2/3 SF matches, although the push for reliability and consistency is clearly the dominant factor in this years game and is reflected in the eliminations setup as well as the QA-type ranking.

Related - these micro fuses have given my team no issues this year. This type of fuse gives me zero issues in my daily-driven cars and the cars that I've raced, including custom hand-made PDBs. The same can be said for millions of other cars over their life-cycles of decades. They stay in place during collision events, heavy vibrations, and a variety of accelerations. If a team is having issues with these fuses I would bet large sums of money that the fuses aren't properly seated or that the fuse socket is damaged.

I know this sounds a bit harsh, but if a team can't be bothered to check that their critical hardware is in good working order do they really deserve to be playing in eliminations? See page 13 on the user guide for the PDB: http://content.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/pdf/217-4244-PDP-Users-Guide-20150305.pdf where it says: "Warning: Also take care to ensure fuses are fully seated into the fuse holders. The fuses should descend at least as far as the figure below (different brand fuses have different lead lengths). It should be nearly impossible to remove the fuse with bare hands (without the use of pliers). If this is not properly done, the robot/radio may exhibit intermittent connectivity issues."

I know these last two paragraphs probably sound a bit harsh, and I am sorry if anyone is offended by them. However, I feel very strongly that individuals and teams should be proactive in avoiding mistakes and be responsible enough to do their homework to ensure that they are 'doing things right' instead of trying to find ways for FRC/FIRST to accommodate mistakes that might be made. Ask "what could I have done to avoid this mistake?" instead of "what could someone else do to mitigate this mistake?"

I completely agree. At the end of the day we should have double checked everything was ready to go. I just wanted to see what the thoughts in the community were. I also am beginning to like the idea of counting 2 of 3 semifinal matches.

[IronicDeadBird]

I completely agree. At the end of the day we should have double checked everything was ready to go. I just wanted to see what the thoughts in the community were. I also am beginning to like the idea of counting 2 of 3 semifinal matches.

The issue I have with that is it would punish teams who switched strategies between matches to counter certain things.
One of our big matches we tried to run a 20 point auto. When that didn't work and upon reviewing the match we decided to switch strategies and pull the step bins. By pulling the step bins and removing the yellow totes from the field we had less clutter and more bins to score with and we did better. Invalidating that match and adding in another would give the opposing side a chance to go "well we saw the strat lets counter it!" Now this does happen with field faults, but when a field fault occurs it isn't on either team its on the staff at the event (no disrespect you guys da real mvps) which means that it was unfair to both teams and created an unfair playing field that was out of both teams control.

I feel like this is the difference between someone forgetting an umbrella when they know its going to rain, and someone not bringing an umbrella cause the weather channel said it would be sunny.


Also I'm pretty sure Ms. Frizzle would say "With a smaller sample size you are in for a surprise"* if the Magic School bus ever got to the statistics episode.


*I have no way of knowing if Ms Frizzle would say this but I believe she would and then she would turn the bus into an alligator.

[TedG]

I think this concept of a "redo card" for robot problems or operator error is a very bad idea. That's what this program is all about, design and build it well, robust, and consistent. It wouldn't be fair to the other teams who did their job.

As others have mentioned:
They have set the standards. Replays only occur after a field fault.

Part of FRC is to introduce you to how engineering is in real life: you can't use a redo card if you're landing something on the moon.

this is also unfair to the other teams, who successfully beat you, in part because they remembered to tighten every screw, plug in all the batteries, make sure their pneumatics were well built (cough cough my team in 2012 cough cough).

FRC, especially recycle rush, is about having the robot best made for the challenge win, and that includes durability (in my opinion anyways)
Recycle Rush is all about how well you've designed and built your robot, how well you work with your alliances, etc. Less about defense and offence (other than can grabbing). And I feel that you're given enough ways to overcome a mishap or two within the game. (this of course is just my opinion)

[Michael Hill]

I'd like for alliances to have a "challenge" card for elims. If they disagree with a call from a ref, they would go to the video. If they get a call not in their favor, they lose their card, just as in football.

[Abhishek R]

I think this concept of a "redo card" for robot problems or operator error is a very bad idea. That's what this program is all about, design and build it well, robust, and consistent. It wouldn't be fair to the other teams who did their job.

Then shouldn't we make every series a best of 1? Why give teams another chance in the eliminations if they should be ready to go from the beginning?

We wouldn't have had the 2013 World Champions is this were the case, among many others.

[blazingbronco18]

I'd like for alliances to have an "challenge" card for elims. If they disagree with a call from a ref, they would go to the video. If they get a call not in their favor, they lose their card, just as in football.

This would certainly make some games more interesting. Specifically I think this card would have been useful for Aerial Assist where there were a lot of controversial call. I don't think a challenge card is as helpful for some games like Recycle Rush.

[TedG]

Then shouldn't we make every series a best of 1? Why give teams another chance in the eliminations if they should be ready to go from the beginning?

We wouldn't have had the 2013 World Champions is this were the case, among many others.
That's not what I said, I feel the double elimination is important, that's what I meant here:
I feel that you're given enough ways to overcome a mishap or two within the game..
It's the redo card thing for the reasons mentioned before; team member operator error or robot malfunction.

[Kevin Leonard]

This would certainly make some games more interesting. Specifically I think this card would have been useful for Aerial Assist where there were a lot of controversial call. I don't think a challenge card is as helpful for some games like Recycle Rush.

At the 2015 Tech Valley Regional, our #5 Alliance had an awesome 2nd Quarterfinal match, but when the score came up, it was only 120-something.
We were confused, as we had 4 capped stacks built. We talked to the referees, who agreed with our assessment, and they re-evaluated the score. We scored 152. It was enough to barely make it to semifinals.
If the referees had not agreed they had been in error, we would have been knocked out in quarterfinals unjustly. Challenge cards would alleviate this problem, especially if the challenge card meant the referees could examine video.
This might introduce other problems I have yet to think out, but it seems reasonable.

[Jus_McG-3193]

I agree with many of the opinions on this thread, one of the main aspects of FRC is the engineering process involved within it. In life there are always going to be unexpected issues that may arise when running tests or in a performance situation such as a match in FRC. Teams should be presuming all of the possible outcomes of any scenario in which they participate in. This is all part of the extensive engineering procedures in which teams must prepare in order to accomplish any goals that are placed in front of them.

With that being said, there are always going to be technical failures in which the teams' robot has experienced some sort of near catastrophic event which does not fall under the category of which I described above. Unless there are situations where this may arise, I do not believe that a redo card would be right/fair to use. My personal opinion is that a replay review card for a team/alliance could be useful. This could be used for a questionable penalty calls, as well as slight replay calls when necessary. This could be instituted possibly once per team through all of the qualification matches, and maybe one per alliance, per round of eliminations. This could bring about more accurate calls and fairness to the competition side of FRC.

[blazingbronco18]

With that being said, there are always going to be technical failures in which the teams' robot has experienced some sort of near catastrophic event which does not fall under the category of which I described above. Unless there are situations where this may arise, I do not believe that a redo card would be right/fair to use. My personal opinion is that a replay review card for a team/alliance could be useful. This could be used for a questionable penalty calls, as well as slight replay calls when necessary. This could be instituted possibly once per team through all of the qualification matches, and maybe one per alliance, per round of eliminations. This could bring about more accurate calls and fairness to the competition side of FRC.

If a replay review card is created for next season, I would be interested to see it used in a way similar to football. Giving each alliance captain one card, and if they win the challenge then they get the card back, but if they lose the challenge they don't get the card back. And your only allowed to use the challenge card a maximum of 3 times throughout the whole eliminations tournament. This would certainly add a new strategy element to the game.

[TedG]

If a replay review card is created for next season, I would be interested to see it used in a way similar to football. Giving each alliance captain one card, and if they win the challenge then they get the card back, but if they lose the challenge they don't get the card back. And your only allowed to use the challenge card a maximum of 3 times throughout the whole eliminations tournament. This would certainly add a new strategy element to the game.
I agree with this, It would help eliminate being a victim of a bad call or mistakes made by officials.
It couldn't be used because you forgot to plug in your battery, but if you were faulted by another robot that didn't get called or didn't get the points you actually earned that could be verified, etc.

A preset list of challenges you could use the card(s) for.

To fix a wrong that we all would expect and want to get fixed, and if you loose the challenge, you loose the card.

Good idea

[rdhester]

For this year's game, you could implement a similar "best 2 out of 3" in semi's by only taking the average of the alliances two highest scores (drop the lowest). This would allow for a single bad match without replays. It really comes down to what the GDC was trying to do with this scoring format. If reliability and consistency was important, then the current method works fine.

Mike

Interesting theory... lets apply CMP semifinals where 188,1678,1671,5012 beat 148,114,1923,900 by 1.7 points to make it to the finals and ultimately win. Removing the lowest score and averaging the other two results in

987 2826 4265 2512 277.0 avg
118 1678 1671 5012 242.5 avg
148 1114 1923 900 241.0 avg
1023 2338 3996 1089 226.0 avg

Same result with a 1.5 point differential instead of a 1.7. The lesson here is that you have no idea of the effect on your team as a result of others replays. Your bad match because of a loose fuse may be balanced with someone elses bad match because an RC was stuck on their can grabber.

[Abhishek R]

That's not what I said, I feel the double elimination is important, that's what I meant here:

It's the redo card thing for the reasons mentioned before; team member operator error or robot malfunction.

I see, I misinterpreted the redo card. You are right, my bad. In that case, I would've liked to see a crossover of the elimination format with the average system - basically, drop the lowest score out of three matches and average the rest.

[New Lightning]

I heartily support the use of a replay card. When I was a student in 2014 there was a call that I think after review might have overturned a tech foul which would have won us a second SF match. Whether or not the refs made the right call I'm not going to argue because in the end its there call. But if we had a replay card there would have been some more clarification on the call so we understood the call better.

[GaryVoshol]

I'd like for alliances to have a "challenge" card for elims. If they disagree with a call from a ref, they would go to the video. If they get a call not in their favor, they lose their card, just as in football.

What video? That blurry feed that goes to the webcasts, where they cut away from the action just as it gets exciting?

[Kevin Leonard]

What video? That blurry feed that goes to the webcasts, where they cut away from the action just as it gets exciting?

A standardized full-field video FIRST begins implementing in 2016, of course!

[EricH]

A standardized full-field video FIRST begins implementing in 2016, of course!

Har. I'll believe that if it stays up through the 2016 Einstein. No joke.

That being said, I've seen cases where a team was insistent that they got points that weren't scored, and the head ref finally pointed out that three refs saw the same thing and nobody ruled it good--and that particular item would have been difficult to see from any full-field video. To put it mildly, I'm not in favor of official video replay unless and until someone can demonstrate a system that doesn't add much time, clearly shows any area needed, and doesn't add much cost (I don't want everybody's registration fees to go up).


Folks, a challenge card/review card already exists. Have you ever noticed that somewhere on the floor (usually near the scorer's table), there is a box neatly taped? If you want to challenge/review/discuss a call with the refs, one of your precollege students with field access goes and stands in it. This triggers the review as soon as the head ref can get over there. Discuss the call, why the call was made, if the head ref thinks it necessary they'll call the ref who made the call over to tell what they saw. Any corrections can be made coming out of that discussion.

And, BTW: the events I've worked as a ref, generally the head ref was over as soon as somebody stepped into the box...

[Green Potato]

I don't support a re-PLAY, but I do support a re-START. In other words, once in all of elims, a team can call a timeout within the first 30 seconds of the match, and may have a little bit of time to fix things before restarting. 30 seconds is likely enough to notice if your bot isn't working without having to run into teams complaining faking com loss for the sake of a re-do. I would suggest tacking on a 2.5 minute timeout to it, allowing teams to re-run preparation routines and for field reset to try and fix everything without the issue of everything taking forever to restart.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I don't support a re-PLAY, but I do support a re-START. In other words, once in all of elims, a team can call a timeout within the first 30 seconds of the match, and may have a little bit of time to fix things before restarting. 30 seconds is likely enough to notice if your bot isn't working without having to run into teams complaining faking com loss for the sake of a re-do. I would suggest tacking on a 2.5 minute timeout to it, allowing teams to re-run preparation routines and for field reset to try and fix everything without the issue of everything taking forever to restart.

This sounds better than replaying after the match is over (which could lead to an alliance demanding a replay simply because their score wasn't what they wanted), but this could lead to an alliance calling a replay because autonomous didn't work out as they wanted. Additionally, this would make things less exciting for the spectators, since it would be hard to tell if any given match would get played all the way through (perhaps a bit of a stretch, but you get the point).

[Michael Hill]

Har. I'll believe that if it stays up through the 2016 Einstein. No joke.

That being said, I've seen cases where a team was insistent that they got points that weren't scored, and the head ref finally pointed out that three refs saw the same thing and nobody ruled it good--and that particular item would have been difficult to see from any full-field video. To put it mildly, I'm not in favor of official video replay unless and until someone can demonstrate a system that doesn't add much time, clearly shows any area needed, and doesn't add much cost (I don't want everybody's registration fees to go up).


Folks, a challenge card/review card already exists. Have you ever noticed that somewhere on the floor (usually near the scorer's table), there is a box neatly taped? If you want to challenge/review/discuss a call with the refs, one of your precollege students with field access goes and stands in it. This triggers the review as soon as the head ref can get over there. Discuss the call, why the call was made, if the head ref thinks it necessary they'll call the ref who made the call over to tell what they saw. Any corrections can be made coming out of that discussion.

And, BTW: the events I've worked as a ref, generally the head ref was over as soon as somebody stepped into the box...

Be honest, how often does a call ever get reversed because a student was there? It's a "feel good" mechanism that makes teams feel like they have a "fighting chance" against a call.

[EricH]

Be honest, how often does a call ever get reversed because a student was there? It's a "feel good" mechanism that makes teams feel like they have a "fighting chance" against a call.

More often than you might think, but less often than the students might want.


As often as not, it's a matter of interpretation of a rule and how it applies to an action the team made on the field, as well as the POV of a referee vs. a team. Or a referee forgot something during the match.

Seeing as you called me out on that:

Be honest, how often do you get clear enough footage that you (or an unbiased observer of your choice) can tell with at least 90% certainty that the referees got the call wrong?

[Dragonking]

The biggest problem I have seen is that many times both alliances will disagree with the ref's call even though it would have hurt one of the alliances and ref still didn't reverse the call or at least replay the match. It seems that if during elims both alliances think a call was wrong or the scores were wrong then that match should be replayed.
(This year is different because it could still, score wise, be beneficial for both alliances to replay a match, but in a w/l system the opposing alliance would get no benefit from agreeing to a replay or call reversal other than to be GP.)

[Michael Hill]

Be honest, how often do you get clear enough footage that you (or an unbiased observer of your choice) can tell with at least 90% certainty that the referees got the call wrong?

More often than the refs would want.

[New Lightning]

As often as not, it's a matter of interpretation of a rule and how it applies to an action the team made on the field, as well as the POV of a referee vs. a team. Or a referee forgot something during the match.

I am glad that you mentioned point of view because a camera would more than likely offer a different angle that the refs didn't have. Secondly if the refs can see the action again instead of making a call on the spot and then sticking to their call because there's no way prove otherwise.

And with the question box, it doesn't help in Elms when they make the call officially log it and then go to the next match before you can get to the question box and get your question answered.

[GaryVoshol]

And, BTW: the events I've worked as a ref, generally the head ref was over as soon as somebody stepped into the box...

Yup. Make a call that might be controversial or potentially game changing, and as soon as the score goes up I'm moving toward the question box. I've often been pleasantly surprised to not meet anyone there; they accepted the call without question.

Hey, did anyone get a picture of my "question box" at Troy? I didn't think of taking one.

[GaryVoshol]

Be honest, how often does a call ever get reversed because a student was there? It's a "feel good" mechanism that makes teams feel like they have a "fighting chance" against a call.

Many times. Not a majority, but enough times to make it worthwhile having the box. Examples:

Mis-score: Forgot to score something, miscounted objects, or scored for the wrong team (e.g. a foul applied to the wrong alliance)
Team points out a rule or interpretation that we didn't consider when making the call
When discussing with the ref who make the call what he/she saw, we realized that the wrong call was made


Certainly we don't see everything. We miss things and don't recognize other things. "He said / she said" isn't a reason for changing a call, and that's what most of the questions are about. We can't change something that we didn't see just because a team says it happened. In some games, things are much harder to see, that's the way it goes, and we really feel badly about that.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

So let's say each field had a go pro setup like Michigan districts usually have. Why not give teams a single challenge card that allows them to have refs take a look at the field video or video the team captured? I know we've had clear video evidence against several calls in just the last 5 years I've been with the team and if we could have challenged I'm 99% sure we would have won those calls. Now let's say a team challenges and the angle wasn't good or video was too bad. Well then there is nothing that can really be done and the team loses their challenge card. At least this gives teams a chance though.

[Logan Byers]

So let's say each field had a go pro setup like Michigan districts usually have. Why not give teams a single challenge card that allows them to have refs take a look at the field video or video the team captured? I know we've had clear video evidence against several calls in just the last 5 years I've been with the team and if we could have challenged I'm 99% sure we would have won those calls. Now let's say a team challenges and the angle wasn't good or video was too bad. Well then there is nothing that can really be done and the team loses their challenge card. At least this gives teams a chance though.

Using the standard field video: All for it.
Using team video: Not quite. This would cause teams to have a competitive advantage over teams that maybe don't have the resources to produce a replay video for the referees to review.

I'm all for the possibility of replay. But the logistical nightmare will be standardizing it across events. Different districts/regionals have different video capabilities. FIRST is a long way from standardizing video replay for events, but I'm personally intrigued to see how this could be developed and implemented.