Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

No. That's outside the scope of the review.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Really? The rules for this have all ready been written? Keeping in mind that this year rules don't apply to next years game. :]

So what if the referee decides the foul deserves a card?

I am accepting of either way. Just pointing out the complexities of video review.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

I think 3 things should happen in regards to improving the accuracy of rule enforcement...

1. The GDC needs to develop rules that aren't based on subjective factors... things like intent and crossing boundaries that are hard to visualize. I think the GDC did well with the latter this year (boundaries pretty much all were based on contact with carpet, which is easier), but we all know some rules just require too much judgment of intent... looking at you, G24. I think G28 and G43 are pretty good examples of rules that take the judgment of intent out of the rule... I'd like to see a rule that describes what contact can make a flip (G24) result in a red card. Clearly if a robot tips themselves over, G24 is irrelevant, but some robots every year are tippy enough (at least when they have a tall elevator or arm up) that even ordinarily fair contact can unintentionally result in a tip. I've proposed using bumper-to-bumper contact as the deciding factor. If a robot can be tipped from only bumper-to-bumper contact, G24 shouldn't be relevant. I could see it reading like:

Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping or entanglements are not allowed. Destruction or inhibition is not considered strategic if it results exclusively from contact between ROBOT BUMPERS.

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy, RED CARD.

2. The Head, Head Referee (Aidan Brown) key FIRST HQ staff (i.e., Frank Merrick? GDC staff?) should be made aware of the tough calls and "controversies" at each event (and appropriate flowdown should occur afterward). If these aren't being consistently flowed up, there should be a process in place by which teams can submit their perspective of what happened and/or shouldn't have happened. Nothing should be done retroactively, but this is for future improvements... Each competition week at least the Head Referees volunteering that weekend (if not all Head Refs) should be made aware of how to call the controversial rules of the year (and how to handle the bizarre situations that sometimes result) as valuable case studies. I think this should help continuity significantly.

Related to this, the Aidan Brown, Frank Merrick and the GDC (or whoever is ultimately responsible for Head Ref training) should take special care to flow down a mindset to the Head Refs... if they want to accuracy and fairness to always be the top priority, then make that a top priority. If they want to minimize opening up and reviewing match decisions (reviewing calls, changing decisions, adjusting scores, etc.) for the sake of time or efficiency, then make that the top priority. Head Refs should know what should be prioritized above all else so that individuals are dealing less with the particular personality of the ref, and more with the policies standard across all events and matches.

3. Video Review should be implemented in clearly defined situations. I'd say ordinary fouls (called or not) shouldn't be reviewable. Yellow and Red Cards definitely should be reviewable. Scoring actions probably should be reviewable. Whatever the defined circumstances are, make them explicit. Also define the allowable time frame for review. Require that the teams be in the question box by X minutes (after arena reset signal? after scores are posted?) and define that if team supplied video is to be allowed (rather than event video only), it be submitted within a certain time window (perhaps in addition to the time to be in question box). Define if it is allowable for Qual matches and for Elim matches, or for one only. Give a single video review coupon per team for Quals and/or per alliance for Elims.

I think if implemented correctly, Video Review should actually take a lot of stress off referees... a lot of the time only a single zebra-ref is watching a play that is a critical, match-deciding call. Perhaps its a red/yellow card... with only one set of eyes and a situation that may have occurred quickly, that particular individual is under an enormous amount of pressure. When the refs huddle afterward to discuss, the only facts that they have available is usually a single account of a situation that happened in a matter of seconds. Its not an enviable situation, and if video review is implemented well, it can be dramatically minimized.

All-in-all, I do think the Head Refs and Refs do a tremendous job. They volunteer a lot of time and know they're in a position of which teams have tremendous expectations... They're a fantastic bunch whose dedication to fairness inspires the community to expect even more of them.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Its not complex. The review was initiated for a specific call. Thus the review can only pertain to that call/miscall.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Interesting to consider how this (or video review) would impact the "number of matches at an event" discussion on other threads.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

It would make more sense to move towards more automated scoring/refereeing than to move towards video replay.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

I would much rather have video replay as a backup to the automated systems. Things like Newton's qualification match 86 where the automated system miscounted the autonomous boulders could easily be resolved with a video review system.

I don't think video review would be an effective tool for correcting subjective fouls because the full match impact is difficult to assess which makes appropriate penalties tricky, but it would go a long way towards fixing things like missed crossings and other missed scoring conditions. The fact that missed scoring conditions are even a thing is ridiculous. Let the referees do the things humans are good at (assessing subjective penalties and fouls) and get video review for the objective calls.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Yes... very much. Even the generally excellent automated goal scoring this year was fallible (NE CMP SF2-2 original, CMP Newton Q71, CMP Newton Q86)... as far as we noticed. Each instance ended up having a different result though! NE CMP SF2-2 was replayed because of it (due to close score), CMP Newton Q71 had the score simply corrected, and CMP Newton Q86 had the score "corrected," but not to the right number.

In Newton Q86, 217 and 1519 together scored 2 auto HGs and then scored 9 teleop HGs. Video replay confirms this. Unfortunately, the automated scoring system only counted 1 auto HG and 9 teleop HGs. We lost by 10 points.

We attempted to get the score corrected, but even though the refs easily remembered the 2 auto HGs, there was no way anyone remembered exactly how many teleop HGs were scored. So the refs did end up "correcting" the auto score by changing a teleop HG to an auto HG (in Q71 one of our auto HGs was counted as a teleop HG due to it being shot right at the buzzer and then taking a while to filter down to the counter, and was corrected similarly)... this made our auto total correct - which is good for rankings - but still left the score 5 points lower than the truth, which meant that we still lost.

Anyway, we certainly appreciated the effort of Abby Perry, the Newton Head Ref, to correct the scores in Q71 and Q86. The Ref's memory was adequate to recall the correct scoring in Q71, but not in Q86 (no fault of the refs!!). A tool in their belt, in the form of instant replay, could help when there's uncertainty or gaps in the refs' memory...

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

I meant more like basketball or hockey I which majority of the refs job is to call fouls not scoring. In football the ref may signal that a touchdown or field goal is scored but in 2013 they made all scoring plays reviewed by a replay official. This means that the actual scoring is done by somebody other than the refs on the field.

I think it would make sense to have a ref per robot and then a score keeper per robot. This would require more volunteers but I think the FRC community would be able to support that.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Sure, however those are all sports where the scoring condition takes place under significant interference from the opposing team or simultaneous actions from multiple parties. Most scoring conditions in FRC games are most similar to basketball, where all that matters is the accomplishment of a single condition by a single player. I might be wrong but I can't think of a basketball game where a basket wasn't awarded because the ref wasn't watching or because the hoop sensor didn't trip. The closest it comes is a player missing the buzzer during a buzzer beater.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

You are absolutely right. In basketball they will even review a shot to make sure it is a 3-pointer and if isn't then they will retroactively change the points. I think if FRC were to implement a review system they should follow the NBA and NHL.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

I like some reviews. Others, not so much.

One kind of review I like is when someone performs a review/search to look for an existing on-target thread before starting a new one. ;)

In the case of this discussion, just a few weeks ago this topic was covered rather thoroughly here. Should we move the discussion back to there so that records of our thoughts are better organized, and so that we reduce duplicated effort?

Or perhaps we should re-open this 2005 thread ?

I haven't noticed any new insights in this thread yet (but, hey, I am only human, maybe I missed one?).

I'm not saying that the topic is dead. I am saying that anyone wanting to make real headway advancing their arguments should add to what has already been discussed. Let's not doom ourselves to repeating the past.

There are plenty of sound technical, game design, and implementation suggestions and objections in the past thread(s). Instead of (re)(re)(re)(re)...discovering them; how about reading, digesting, summarizing, and building upon them?

Blake

PS: It's obvious from the (Kennedy assassination) Zapruder film that a bullet drives President Kennedy's head backward when he is shot ... UNTIL, you carefully analyze the footage frame-by-frame, and notice that in roughly the time between two frames a bullet's initial impact drives his head forward, and then during the next few frames his head recoils (relatively slowly) backwards. The devil is in the details.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Honestly, I'd just like it if they told us what penalties had been called and who they were on.

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Seconded.

The head ref on Hopper called fouls on 1678 and 971 during our two ball auto routines throughout the weekend. When approached by our teams in the question box, the head ref would not tell our students what foul they had called.

It was a bummer.

-Mike

Re: Movement Towards Video Review
 

Agreed.

The Ref's have radios. I have thought there should be a scribe. When a foul is called, the Ref calls out the color, robot number, and foul. The scribe then writes it down. Maybe even with a time mark (countdown clock).

I know, one more volunteer (probably with Ref level training). But, it keeps the ref from having to take their eyes off the field to write down the information. Maybe add one more ref to the team, and scribe is one of the positions they rotate through.