Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

That's something to bring up with the RD/VC. I'd like to think that if a ref crew was missing crossings, they'd like to know that they need to keep a sharper eye out.

By the way, you weren't looking at any spy-bots by any chance, were you?

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

As a Rookie Mentor on a Rookie team I hesitate to wade into this, but I do have a question....

It seems clear between the 2015 and 2016 games the referees jobs have gotten clearly more difficult, mostly because of the number of things they must watch and keep track of now.

As to the question: Has the GDC increased the number of referees from 2015 to 2016 to handle this change?

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

I'll preface my response with: You should watch 2014. Referees everywhere breathed a sigh of relief when 2015 came out. I'd like to think 2012 and 2013 were somewhat easier than 2014 (didn't ref those two so I can't compare as well). 2016 is harder still due to sightlines.

But the answer to your question is both yes and no. Many events try to have one extra ref "on staff" so they can carry on with a full on-field crew if someone has to drop out, or more usually to give refs a break every so often. Some head refs would put that "extra" ref on-field for key matches like playoffs. That "extra" position is now an official one, and with a full crew can be manned and still have a ref taking a break.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

I don't know that I 100% agree with video replay, but people are blowing the level of difficulty WAY out of proportion here. It's 2016, there are some very affordable & simple A/V setups that are possible now.

Here's what it would take to implement a basic level of high quality video review -

- 1 volunteer to man the webcast PC. I get that volunteers are scarce but that's a bad excuse to not do something that will improve events big time.
- 1 GoPro on a tall pole. The one we used at St. Louis this past weekend used a $20 speaker stand, a 7-8 ft. tall PVC pipe, a GoPro and a cell phone charger with a USB cable to give the GoPro power all weekend.
- An HDMI input recorder like the Elegato to allow for recording of the GoPro's view.
- Software to record the stream locally on the PC. We use XSplit because it's so easy to use, but there are other options too. Match files are saved automatically to the PC's hard drive and can be opened immediately after the match ends.

Here's what I envision the process looking like -

1. Each alliance gets one challenge flag during the elimination tournament. The challenge must be issued within 2 minutes of the match ending. Once the match has been challenged, the head referee must watch the match / incident in question.

2. Head referee coordinates with the webcast PC volunteer and pulls up the locally recorded file of the last match. This would literally take a minute to do.

3. Head referee watches the video and based on the evidence shown makes a call to replay the match or let the match stand. Similar to the NFL, the video would need to show overwhelming evidence that the match should be replayed i.e. no close calls.

My opinion - if we want FRC to be represented as a truly competitive sport then we need to present it as most sports are presented. One great example of this is how E-sports have exploded over the past few years. The coverage of online gaming tournaments is incredible and is a model FRC should look to follow. For roughly $1000 in equipment, every event could implement a basic level of coverage that would up the home viewing experience ten fold. There's no reason this same setup couldn't be used for a basic level of video replay. Will it be like the NFL? Of course not. But it has to be better than what we have today - which is nothing. FIRST could easily include the kit I described to travel with the fields from event to event and include a tip sheet on how to set it up. Anyone that can hook up their Xbox to their TV could handle setting it up.

Saying we can't do this because 'it's hard' and 'would take too much effort' is a total cop out. This is FIRST, we're supposed to be doing incredible stuff right? What happened to trying to make it loud - or is that not a thing anymore?

Not spy bots. I have noticed it more with the low bar. Although I have seen it happen on other defenses as well. In one match I watched today (shame on me for not writing down the match or team numbers) one team opened the sallyport from tower side then second team drove over to door and held it while first team drove completely away second bot then drove part way into sallyport as not to let door close then first bot came in and both crossed one after another. Only one cross was given.
I am not saying things aren't going to be missed, and I am quite certain that if I were a ref I would also miss things. But I would make sure at a minimum that teams that cross in auto would absolutely get the points earned.
I see first hand how much time and effort gets put into not just the building of the robot, but the effort programming puts forth to improve and get various auto programs to work well. Again I expect things to be missed during teleop with so much going on, but in auto there isn't a single reason a cross should be missed.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

Exactly. Combined with the fact that almost every event is streaming and therefore already has at least one camera constantly recording matches, many more for tons of events. If these recordings could be saved we'd have far fewer issues.

Reading through some earlier replies in this thread, I'm shocked about how many missed defense crosses are being reported. My opinion stands that one incorrect match is too many, but since there have been so many more, we've got to implement a system for review, preferably before the end of this season. However, I definitely understand why FIRST would be against changing rules midseason, but FIRST should make a strong attempt at implementing a video system for the 2017 season.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

Ok, so I take it the number of "regularly-staffed ref positions" is the same between 2015 and 2016 (and my take away from your entire post is that it may have been the same even longer). The fact there is an "extra" ref to allow for breaks who can be pulled in for eliminations is a possibly recent addition that doesn't affect qualifications.

The point I'm inclined to make is that the issue of missed calls (as opposed to flat-out errors) clearly has a "difficulty of game" component to it. Perhaps not a 1:1 correlation, but a strong causation nonetheless. Taking this further, these kinds of situations are, I'd argue to a large degree, a result of the GDC game design, either in referee difficulty, or in failing to allocate more resources (refs/video) to compensate.

Our competition is this coming week, so I have no first-hand experience to base this on, yet... But I understand it can be difficult to find an extra referee, or a volunteer to sit and work video all day for several days. I also have the utmost respect for the referees, and all the volunteers, and the time they invest and volunteer to do what can be a thankless job.

I think, however, with this complicated a game, another set of eyes would have been a wise investment. Perhaps it would be easier to fill a "Video Replay Official" position rather than an additional referee.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

Read my post again. In 2015, and 2014 Week 1, there were 5 refs on the field. One extra was on staff, for a full crew of 6 refs, and during playoffs there could be 6 on the field depending on the head ref. (2014 kept ramping up the ref count, though--went to 6 on-field later in the season, I was on a crew with 8 on-field at one point; CMP had 10 or so I hear.)

This year, there are 6 refs on field with one ref sitting out (ideally). There is an increase.

That's a possibility. Or it's a case of the refs having eyes away from the area of the missed call for some reason. As far as game design... There's one aspect of the game that SOMEBODY made a trivial mistake on that really makes life difficult for the refs; what that is is left as an exercise for the game viewer (with a hint to look at the defenses on the left side of your screen when you're watching the webcasts).

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

Just a small note to add to all this, but in my experience, people are either mad (to some degree) at the GDC for a boring or broken game, or they're mad at the refs for not calling every perceived penalty.

If a game is exciting, a lot of times that means there is A LOT going on. Given that most of the time you're looking at a team of 4-6 refs + head ref, that's a lot to look at when refs have to do some amount of scoring, while also calling penalties. To make matters worse, those penalties aren't always in the same place. Penalties can occur behind the driver's station, right in front of you, over in the spy box, across the field, heck even after the match!

More to the point of this thread - yes video review is used extensively for all other sports for making the right calls. Think about it this way, the average football game would last according to google:

"An average professional football game lasts 3 hours and 12 minutes, but if you tally up the time when the ball is actually in play, the action amounts to a mere 11 minutes."

11 minutes of play turns into 3 hours and 12 minutes. I'm fairly certain that if we reviewed video every time someone had a complaint or saw something that they felt a ref missed, regionals would take upwards of a week. Or you'd get about 4 matches total out of the whole thing.

I'm not saying the system is perfect and to leave it alone, I'm just saying that instead of kicking and screaming about not getting your way, propose a reasonable solution. :)

side note to the line in the original post for the thread about ruining the chances of some very deserving students -- were the students on the opposing alliance not deserving? I think everyone is deserving, but please be GP!

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

Taking 2-3 minutes of a ref's time during 7 minute field reset wont add any time.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

I definitely agree that the other alliance was well-qualified, being the first seed, winning the third match without error, and bringing it to within single digits with the error accounted for. However, having lost in quarterfinals as a student plenty of times, it was easy to be GP and congratulate the winning alliance because we knew we had lost fair and square. I still believe the way that second match was judged was unfair, but ultimately as of that event the scoring dispute was handled exactly according to the rules: we sent student representatives to discuss the situation, Referees listened to all we had to say but couldn't overturn the call. The situation was played by the rules so I can't do anything to change what happened to my students.

What I can do is spread awareness of the problem and open up discussion about what the best way to solve it is. Specific implementation of a replay system will be tough to figure out, but as you said, every team is deserving. To me that means every team deserves as fair an evaluation as can be given to them, and an opportunity to advance based on those fair evaluations. A video system is one of the best ways I can see to ensure fair evaluation for this game.

Game design can make things easier, like how some years (ex: Ultimate Ascent, Recycle Rush, Logomotion) almost all scoring could be calculated based on the state of the field at the end of the match, notable exceptions being autonomous bonuses and penalties. This, however, is not such a year, so I see no other way to ensure games are always judged properly.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

You mean a 4:30 field reset. It's a 7-minute cycle (officially).

But, of course, the refs don't have anything else to do like monitor traffic onto and off of the field for safety, check robot starting positions, check ball starting positions, take a quick scan for frame perimeter violations and call teams out to fix position/perimeter issues, direct team members to the question box (or answer questions there, if you happen to be the Head Referee), grab a drink, help take care of problems with the field (or point staff to them), look up the rules from the last match's tough call, circle the zebra herd to finish discussing a call...



Honestly, I'd use the off-field referee, if available and at leisure. If it's confirmed to be a missed call, he/she advises the head ref of what was missed at the next available point in time and--here's the key thing--whether it would have changed the outcome of the match. Missing one crossing in a 60-point blowout? Sorry, folks, not makin' a difference. Missing a 20-second courtyard contact violation in a 2-point match? Yep, that one's going to be reviewed by the head ref for what the action is going to be.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

Preach.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

So, your solution to the time delay is to add additional volunteers? With a potentially different interpretation of the rules, and who quite possibly did not see the event first-hand given that they were reviewing another match?

You're essentially adding another "key volunteer" position. Something that many events already struggle to fill.



So, the district system is over then? Because you're not going to find many high school gyms with the scaffolding/catwalk to support an overhead camera like that. Heck, I'd bet more than 50% of regionals would have to find new venues as well, as plenty of college gyms and convention centers wouldn't be able to support that.

I've watched plenty of videos. Mistakes will always be made, but mistakes are part of any sport. Not just FRC. Video replay is not a panacea to fix those officiating errors, which is my point. It's a lot of added cost and complexity, for minimal return. There's still plenty of opportunity for blown calls. Anyone who has followed the NHL this season, and its roll out of expanded video review, will attest to that. More people are complaining about the additional video review than any other officiating issue this season.

That "simple solution" isn't viable in the majority of FRC venues. That simple solution doesn't solve anything regarding interactions underneath bumpers. Specifically, that system cannot answer close calls in terms of CROSSINGS this year, because it cannot see underneath the frame/bumpers of a robot to know if its wheels fully cleared the defense.

Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now
 

I think you are not thinking about other factors which may influence the length of a football game. By no means is the 3:12 time due to review, but to timeouts, huddles, every 15 min of play a 30 min ish break... A regional would not lengthen if a field review took place between matches during a reset.