This year we need instant replay
 

Instant replay.

Last year we got serously fouled (ramed in the loading dock) and have video proof of it. This foul was never called and it cost us the match.

Obviously GLR '05 is long gone. The ultament outcome of '05 would have prolly stayed the same (Novi, I am proud to be in one of your neigboring towns!!!). The point is that it shouldnt have happened. We were rookies last year and at the time this really dissapointed us.

Just somthing to think about.

-Mark


:Edit: I recieved a request for the video. I'm not sending it, if i showed who did the foul it would devert attention from the forward-looking point i am trying to make :/edit:

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

i agree to some extent with this notion, but it would need to be regulated

many teams video tape and the refs may have trouble understanding the whole picture from only one angle

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Won't happen now, or ever.

It takes long enough between matches already when it comes to questionable situations. The last thing that needs to be done is make it take even longer with instant replay.

Even if FIRST did allow it, some regionals probably have fewer cameras than others, and these guys are not trained in operating cameras in a FIRST situation, unlike NFL cameramen. Half the time they're off focusing on some random robot or part of the field, and not where the action is happening. If they aren't filming something when it happens, there's no point.

Sorry you got screwed, but Im sure you've benefitted from a call that could have gone either way and went in your favor. If you haven't, you will at some point.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Anything is possible.

That said, I wouldn't hold my breath for instant replay. Why?

1) That requires a camera crew. Some regionals can't swing that kind of money.
2) Say you're at a Palmetto-sized event, and each team gets one review opportunity over the competition. Assuming each one takes five minutes to decide, you're talking an extra THREE HOURS waiting for the reviews to get handled. Boor-ing.
3) Having the old addage of "if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen" keeps life simple. You don't have to worry about whether this was right or wrong, nor whether the ref actually watched the tape, nor half a dozen other things.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

i disagree i do not like this idea that goes against gracious professionalism there is a system of checks and balances already in place that is why there is more than one ref plus this would slow up game play

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Why a camera crew? Why not just have a cieling cam or 2? I'm not talking about debating somthing small, i'm talking about getting ramed in the loading dock. The officials could easily take a look at the footage while the field is being set up.

Perhaps a system like in the NFL. If a team requests instant replay and no decisions are changed they loose 10 points. My dad's 1992 Hi8 cam caught this incidant, you dont need and kinda fancy hardware.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

there in lies a problem if you are already down points and are going to lose what is going to stop every single team from doing this when they are going to loose yet again this leads to game lag

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I think you've underestimated the amount of equipment you need for instant replay.

You need a sufficient number of cameras to capture all relevant angles of the playing field.

If those cameras are stationary, that's extra cash that has to be found. If they're the same ones that are currently being used, the operators need intensive training as to what they should be filming and when. In the NFL, do you ever see the cameramen filming some offensive lineman that got clocked by the defense and is lying on the ground seeing stars?

The answer is no. In FIRST, the camera men LOVE to film robots that have been flipped and are sitting there spinning their wheels in the air. This would not work.

You need to record the match, and have a station setup where a/the refs can watch it. More cash needed.

A lot of regionals can barely afford what they're putting out on the field already. This would be a large burden.

The refs get more calls right than they do wrong. Far more calls right than wrong. We need to just trust them and stand by their decisions, right or wrong.

A FAR better use of resources would be to make sure that every ref has intensive training, and understand the rulebook, as well as the in match applications of it perfectly.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

It seems that it comes down to a question of money as do many things in life and FIRST.

I cant help but to agree with Cory about the training.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

this year, sit up in the stands, in the top row, and zoom a Hi8 camera so it covers the whole field.

Record several matches, then watch them carefully and see what you can observe on the video.

Hi8 has a resolution of about 500 x 480 pixels. The playfield is what? 60 feet long? thats 720 inches. So your whole-field video has a resolution of about 1.5" - so you will be able to discern objects about 3" and larger.

That means you cant see hands, or robot arms, or the lines on the floor clearly.

You would need a high defintion camera recording system, like 1024p HD TV, and you would need 2 or 3 to cover all sides of the field + the human players. It gets expensive really fast.

Professional sports: they use camera operators to follow the play action, and they zoom in on whoever has the ball, and the major players in several zones on the field.

Who has the ball in a FIRST match? how many cameras would it take to track 4 or 6 robots on the field, plus all the human players, plus the drive teams and coaches to make sure they dont break any rules?

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

So I guess by this logic if in one year the state of California jails 2000 guilty criminals and 200 innocent people than they are doing okay because they are getting it right way more than they are getting it wrong. Something is flawed there. Anyway, I do agree with you on your points. It wouldn't be easy or cheap to implement.

EDIT: What I was saying is "correct over half of the time" or "correct most of the time" isn't good enough. Let's strive for near 100% perfection rather than "more perfect than not."

You can compare it to dozens of things (things that you will probably say have no relation, but anyway). For example the brakes in your car. As long as they work most of the time, it is okay? Or the teacher/professor in your class, as long as he shows up most of the time, it is okay? Or car payments, as long as you pay them most of the time, you are A OK? Or when you go to the auto mechanics, as long as they are ripping you off only once in a while it is okay because they are honest most of the time? If a surgeon specializing in amputations cuts off the wrong leg, it's okay because he got it right on 50 other patients? If a tire on your car goes flat, it's okay because you have 3 more that didn't? I can go on and on.

Sure, there will be the occasional slip up in refereeing. But, let's all remember, "good enough isn't" There is always room for improvement. :)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

[Spock][raised eyebrow] Highly illogical! [/Spock][/raised eyebrow]

FIRST competitions have nothing to do with the criminal justice system. :^)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

There's a difference between the justice system and a FIRST match.

It takes weeks to months for a trial to occur.

When was the last time the outcome of a single match was issued a month after it was played? Given how little time refs are given to make decisions, and with only being able to go with what they saw in the heat of the moment, they're doing a darn good job.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Instant Replay??? AAAAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

When are people going to understand that the competitions are not the "end" that FIRST is trying to achieve? If they were, FIRST would be a "for profit" corporation and run them like a business, just like any other sports league.

The competitions are only a means to an end. That "end" being to inspire students and give them an opportunity to participate in a fun experience, that encourages them to consider science and technology as career choices.

Who wins is immaterial, as long as all go through the process and are exposed to the goals of FIRST.

Two or three years from now, the metal on a ribbon will be collecting dust; but, the memory of when you challenged yourself to produce more than you thought you were capable of doing will be a great source of personal pride and encouragement.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I agree with Cory and Ken 100%, Every team has team has had one or two calls against them that they don't agree with. If you think that the refs made a mistake, go talk to the Head ref and tell him what you saw or what he/they may have missed on the field. But always be profesional about it, don't go up there and yell at the Head Ref. And don't bring up a tape from a match that happened an hour ago, or 6 months ago. they aren't going to take the time to look at it, and i doubt they ever will, because they have to much going on. With that said, in 999/1000 cases, it will not affect your outcome in the regional.

To sum it up, the system that FIRST has going is all that we really need, yeah a little better training when it comes to the refs would be nice (especially when you have Baker out there throwing flags left and right ;) ) but they do an awesome job and we need to thank them, not insult them by bringing in instant replay.

JT

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

This comment made me think about a semi relevant situation.

It's seemed like that with the addition of instant replay to most (all?) major conferences in college football, the refs have almost been using it as a crutch, in that they're less likely to flag something, due to not wanting to make the wrong call, and knowing that it can be reviewed upstairs.

No idea if this would happen in FIRST (and we surely never will, as there will never be instant replay), but I'd rather see a ref throw a flag anytime they see something questionable, and then if they convene and decide it wasn't a violation, they can pick it up and go about their business.

Better to throw a flag and pick it up that not throw a flag and have a violation go unenforced.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Now tell everyone what we taught you kids on 229, about arguing a call.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

My bad John. ASK for clarification, don't argue with the refs... never argue with the referees. They are going to call what they see, and they aren't going to change a call, and you can't make them change a call. Remember they are volunteers, and they are doing the best they can. 229 never asked to have a call changed, we asked to clarify a call once or twice, but never asked to have it changed.

Sorry John,
JT

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

We all know that FIRST doesn't like to be behind schedule, and that replaying matches, and watching videos has the potential to bring on more of that. So hypothetically, what about letting teams each make up to one video review request during the qualifying rounds (counting against all three* teams in the alliance, so all three must agree), and up to one per alliance in the eliminations (requested by the captain, and consuming the timeout). Then, teams are required to supply their own video to the referee within one minute of the match ending—if the cameraman they want to use is in the stands, he'd better fly; more likely, the camera is positioned in the cheering gallery. (If they can't supply a video of their own, or borrow one from a graciously professional camera operator, then too bad, no appeal. They bear the burden of proof.) They state their concern, and show the referees the video. The head referee then decides if there's enough evidence to warrant changing a call (or if the concern even has merit in the first place).

This would seem to limit it to a maximum of ≈28 possible requests for review during a large regional, and in practice, much less than that, since as a team uses its review, neither they, nor their current alliance partners in the qualifications can appeal any longer, irrespective of the gravity of the percieved error. I'd say that something like this is the only way to balance FIRST's concerns regarding the logistics, with the teams' natural desire for justice. It's hardly perfect, and it can still be unfair, but it seems like a practicable compromise, weeding out the egregious, obvious errors, while still keeping the flow of the event going.

Of course, is this even necessary? Maybe, and maybe not.

*Instead of three, substitute whatever the appropriate number is in 2006.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

This is high school robotics for fun and education. Let's try and keep it that way.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

One thing that has been mentioned in part is that the refs are volunteers. All other sports refs (including the pee wee baseball) are paid.

There isn't time to "extensively train" all the refs. They have jobs. If you start requiring training, your ref volunteer rate will fall. Then you'll have fewer refs per regional. Then people complain because there aren't enough refs.

What is funny is most of the time, the people who complain about the volunteers at regionals have never volunteered themselves.

Perhaps it just takes seeing FIRST from a new vantage point to see the true meaning. Is the competition of FIRST great and what drives some of the improvements? Absolutely. But is it everything? No.

Until the MLB brings in instant replay (which won't happen under Paul Tag.), don't expect it in FIRST (which won't happen ever).

P.S. I'm sure you can find more sob stories on these boards (maybe I even wrote some of them) about the refs if you look hard enough. Find comfort knowing you aren't the first and you won't be the last.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

It's my opinion that under no circumstances whatsoever should video produced by a team be used or even cosidered when making a decision.

Even if a ref stood there and watched the team taping, and everything was legit, this just should not happen. ever.

[edit] Plus, what if an alliance has nobody taping their robot when something questionable happens? Yes, a slim chance of happening, but totally unfair.

If you initiate an instant replay rule, it needs to be standardized across the board, ie: every single match needs to be taped from standardized view points, by a single entity. There's just no other way to make it fair, and this is clearly too large a monetary burden, as well as taking too much time, which precludes instant replay from ever happening in the first place

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

No. FIRST should not adopt any sort of instant replay scheme. There are many reasons.

Let me count the ways to say no to this:

1. FIRST refs are volunteers. If instant replay comes around, these volunteers will go away, as said above.
2. FIRST events have enough delays in schedules as it is. More scrutiny over a call that may not be overturned is exactly not what this competition needs.
3. Most perceived "bad calls" are simply mis-interpretation of the rules. A team person sees it one way while the ref sees it another. All refs call things slightly different. A videotape won't change someone's mind about how a rule is interpreted. I remember many times when people would disagree with a call I made and want to show me the videotape. Regardless of the fact that showing the tape is against FIRST rules, in each case I saw the action take place, at a closer view than the video. Once I explained why the call was made, the video evidence was moot.

Until FIRST starts putting referees on the payroll, don't expect instant replay.

For the people who complain about refereeing, I challenge them to step up and serve as a volunteer. I will be the head ref at IRI this summer. If you wish to gain some refereeing experience at this top-notch event in Indiana, feel free to PM me.

Being a FIRST referee (especially the head ref) is one of the 3-4 hardest jobs at a FIRST event. Not only are these people scrutinized for making the right call, they are also partially responsible for coordination with the scoring table, match timing, field reset, field safety, field cueing, and field operation. They have to constantly scan the field during a match. They must be a leader in order to coach, empower and make quick decisions with other referees. They need to be skilled in psychology in order to listen to, debate with, and console drive teams. Also, the refs must have the patience of a saint in order to deal with uppity announcers and m/c's. Oh, yeah, and they need to know the rules better than everyone else (or staff their crew with someone who does... like Amy P. this year at IRI).

All this and more... If a debatable call is made, refs have to deal with the on-line scrutiny that takes place on these forums. No one is calling out the field queing person or the pit administrator for 2 weeks after the event. Let's see some love for these fine people. Let's give it up for the refs.

Andy B.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I agree that its a waste of time. I mean, "what happens on the field, stays on the field". It would take too much time up and everyone would just be complaining that the refs make a bad call.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I'm not entirely opposed to that.

Referees do an excellent job, and try their hardest, but they are only human. Look at the positive difference the challenge flag has made in the NFL. I wouldn't be opposed to a similar system--limited challenges, overthrowing point penalties.

I predict, though, rookie--having not read through the rest of the thread--you're about to get flamed big time.

To an extent, FIRST isn't about competition in the traditional sense of the world. It's frowned upon to complain about small things like this, or to care about small point penalties and such. I personally would like to see the change, as I've said. Some people will say its a sign of disrespect to the referees, and that it undermines their intent. Hogwash. NFL referees are still treated with the utmost respect.

Only problem I might be able to see is in time. The competitions already run so long (like, twice as long as an NFL game) as to make a series of 30 second refereeing checks add up. Remember that some NFL plays can run as long as half of an individual match!

--Petey

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I just threw that idea out as something of a compromise, to see what both sides' reactions would be.

The point isn't to make it totally fair; in fact I think that we've certainly agreed that that's infeasible. The reasoning is that anyone who wants to dispute an error must prove that an error took place, or forget about it—there's even less room to argue, because you know that if you don't have proof, the referees will ignore you completely. On the other hand, if you do have conclusive proof, and the head referee thinks that it's a big deal, the ruling can be modified. If you don't want to take advantage of this, simply don't use a cameraman.

Actually, the idea is similar to the appeal in baseball, in that it's only granted at the discretion of the official, it may change nothing, and there are consequences for using it injudiciously (i.e. you can't appeal again, for one reason or another).

With a one-minute time limit from then end of the match to the beginning of the appeal, the only trickery that could reasonably occur in such a short span of time would be for a team to substitute extraneous footage. Even that would be somewhat difficult to pull off convincingly, and would depend on a conscious decision to cheat, requiring the collaboration of several team members (at least the on-field rep. to appeal, and the cameraman to show footage) and their alliance partners (to agree). That's why I don't have a problem with a team showing the referees their video, under these relatively controlled circumstances. Impartial observers making recordings would obviously be superior, but it isn't really necessary, nor is it practical.

Now, maybe a better question is raised by Andy (and by Ken earlier): can we expect video replays to have sufficient definition to make them useful for anything other than determining rough positions on the field? A video from the cheering gallery, with a regular handheld camera ought to be sufficient for some purposes, but for fine detail (like zip-ties hanging down into a loading zone), the footage is largely useless. In fact, maybe that leads to the best question: will introducing replays simply result in a lot of inconclusive judgments, which then simply revert to the referees' original decision? That certainly would diminish the usefulness of a review process.

I'm not sure that I agree with Andy's contention that "If instant replay comes around, these volunteers will go away". I'm not offended by video replay, and I can't reasonably contemplate choosing not to officiate, simply because of its presence. If it is allowed to be used as a delaying tactic, or is used injudiciously for baseless accusations, then I can see it being troublesome—but I don't think that anyone wants either of those things, and I think that if a compromise were desirable, one could be achieved without wasting too much time between matches, or giving the officials too much to deal with.

Now remember, I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, myself; I just want to see if we can find a good enough reason to throw it away (rather than resorting to our distaste for the video goal judge, or appealing to the status quo).

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I agree with most everyone else that replay is not an option for FIRST for the many reasons laid out (mostly time).

I also agree that refs don't make 100% of their calls right no matter how hard they try. And watching FIRST refs I have seen them make outstanding calls in tough situations.

That being said it should be an objective of the game design committee to minimize the opportunities for missed calls in both the manner of making the game fair and safe.

With the loading zones this year their was more flags and more opportunities for missed calls than in some previous years. Some thought should be given for ways to eliminate the need for the refs sight and judgment in certain situations.

Most penalties come from a need of safety and in eliminating the situations where they are needed you will create a safer, fairer game. But also you may eliminate vital parts to the game such as human/robot interactions.

So basically, thinking about how penalties will play into the game and finding ways to get rid of them when possible can avoid headaches like missed calls or the need for some type of instant replay. Also, maybe it would let more games be won by a team and not lost on penalties.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Please.

Can we stop with the whole idea that gracious professionalism is some sort of impenetrable aura of perfection that surrounds the FIRST organization?

FIRST volunteers and employees are great people who run a great program that provided me with some of the best memories of my high school career. That said, they aren't saints. They aren't infallible. The betterment of the game--if that is indeed the result of an instant replay system--should never take a backseat to some nebulous hurt feelings on behalf of the referees. I would venture to say that anyone who holds their own ego, as a referee, over a correct call is doing more hurt to gracious professionalism than a replay system would.

To forestall the eventual flames:
Yes, I have reffed events before--not FIRST events, but sporting ones, with angry parents.
Yes, I do appreciate volunteers at all the FIRST events.
No, I am not saying people would hold their own ego over it. I'm bringing it up as a hypothetical case to make a point about what I feel is a constant misinterpretation of gracious professionalism.

Excellent points, all. I had not considered the necessary upgrade in technical infrastructure.

True, the FIRST experience is invaluable. But--personally speaking--I did FIRST for competition.

It is often said that it is the journey, not the end, that is important. But remember that there is no journey without a planned destination. I would have not done FIRST if there wasn't a competition that I enjoyed. Effective, excellent, fun, competitive events are absolutely necessary.
Training is key. Oh, and I take issue with your point that calls rarely influence your standing at regionals. They most certainly can, especially in a FIRST regional that more and more parity driven.

Since when did fun and competition preclude accurate playcalling? They're not mutually exclusive.

First, did you mean Bud Selig?

Second, I see your point about volunteer training being nigh impossible for new recruits. But it may prove necessary. If we can have instant replay, we should at least have (more) consistent reffing.

Once again, this is NOT A KNOCK ON CURRENT REFS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT. YOU ARE DOUBLE PLUS AWESOME!

That said, there is always room for improvement. If instant replay won't fill the gap, perhaps more training can. I'd like to point attention to a post I made last year about Bean Town Blitz, where I noted that there were some major problems with reffing.

Got a reputation from a ref at that event. D@ve. Know what he said?

Now that, my friends, is gracious professionalism.


--Petey

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I am amazed at how worked up some people are getting over this. It’s just a game folks, you probably won’t remember that call in a year; and if you do, you’re the one with the problem, not the refs.

When I first read the title of this thread, my mind did not jump to the use that many of the people here are discussing. I thought it would be cool to be able to re-play some of the highlights of the previous match while teams set up for the next round, and use all of these to create some fun little video that could be played at the awards ceremony. You know, with some of the best highlights of the competition.

As everyone has said, this would be too expensive, use too much equipment, and have me tripping over additional wires while taking the drivers the controller that they forgot, you get the picture.

I know it’s never fun to get a bad call on a match. But, let me tell you (having ref(ed) before) that we make the best call that we can, and yes, sometimes we miss things, but with 4 or 5 refs, that’s hard to do. Things look much different up close than from way away across the stadium. I’ve had teams argue with me about a call, I’ve had mentors turning purple with anger at a call, or a rule that they interpreted one way or another, and I have certainly lost respect for some teams because of this. Please re-read Andy's last post.

How does that make your team look, your team having someone arguing a call with a ref? This isn’t baseball folks. We’re professionals and should act like them. As Cory said, in the end, you will be on the winning end of one of these things at some point or another.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Andy, what are you saying? :rolleyes:

Actually I know exactly what he is saying because I am one of those of whom he speaks. The banter that goes on sometimes is worse that with the teams. Even though you have not reffed an event that I have attended, to all refs, I apologize.

Refs are humans just as the students are. How many times have teams lost because their partners forgot to turn on their robot or properly plug in the battery or put in a fresh battery or charge the auto mode or ..........

If we wish to keep this event great and fast paced then video replay is NOT to be introduced. We are not talking a sporting event where 2 teams are playing a 2 - 3 hour game. We are talking about 4 - 6 teams in a 135 sec event. Calls will be missed (even with video replay), games will be won or lost, lessons learned and we will all be the better for it. I love 229's philosophy, now I must learn to live by it.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

But, at the FIRST events I have attended, I have witnessed accurate playcalling.

It isn't that the referees "missed" something. Usually they saw the exact play that is disputed, and usually from a better vantage point than any camera or other spectator. It's the interpretation of what was viewed that is the dispute. A camera won't change the interpretation of a rule.

The teams need to discuss a questionable call with the referee based on the interpretation of the rules.

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment:
How many teams, in videotaping their matches, would be willing to rush up to the referee after they win a match, and provide video evidence that they actually should have lost the match?

If you claim to want "accurate playcalling" for a competition, you must be willing to do this. Otherwise, you just want "accurate playcalling" when it benefits the preferred team. (Preferential referee accuracy)

Instant replay should be used just as vigorously to prove you lost a match as to prove you won one. That's a tough pill to swallow, but it is an honest one.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

In Detroit we were eliminated in the semifinals on a thirty-point penalty.

At West Michigan we were never paired with any seeded teams, yet faced them a couple times each in the quals. We ended up seeded eighth and got creamed.

At IRI some early ten pointers took us out of contention and we didn’t get picked.

At Kettering our alliance partner got stuck in a goal while touching a tetra and took us out in first match in the quarters. In the second match the autoloader attendant was daydreaming with ten seconds left – jammed our partners and us up – we both ended the match a second or less from scoring the winner.

At Rah Cha Cha our partner took a ten-point penalty that forced us to play a third match in the quarters. Our other partner lost all function in their mechanism so they went out and played defense. We ended up champions.

Now to you the truth, I can’t say which event I enjoyed more. They were all good. A reversed call or two due to instant replay or vociferous protest might have changed an outcome, but it could not have made things one bit better.

So go ahead and have instant replay. I’m still going to ref. I’m still going to mentor. It won’t change a thing from my point of view. There will still be winners and losers. The winners will be the ones who go away happy. The losers will be the ones who feel they got screwed.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I dont really think that a replay would be needed. We have refs to make calls, and if they didnt see something happen or didnt know the rules, well... I guess it happens. No one is perfect.

Plus, if you had replay... it would deffinately draw out the events, think about how many teams would want to argue calls. I think it would cause a bunch of trouble to be able to change a call.

I say just give the refs a break, they are doing the best that they can, and I know I appreciate it. :)

Replay/video isnt a BAD idea, its just not a GOOD idea for FIRST.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

FIRST does have instant replay. Its called the off season.

We all come out to play again and have fun. The stiff regulations of the official season are relaxed.

Ramp Riot did it perfectly this past weekend- like Outback- "No Rules- Just Right"

WC :cool:

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Speaking as a RR ref, thank you Wayne! I think you may have pointed out one area which FIRST can address: too many rules. At RR, the focus was on throwing penalties only where people's and robots' safety was at stake. If this was FIRST's prime directive to the refs, I think most of the calls for instant replay would go away.

Refereeing Triple Play was hard work. So much happens so fast all over the field, it is easy for the refs to miss things. I know there were a couple of times that tetras broke or were descored in front of me that I didn't see until it was too late to know for sure how it happened, because I was watching to see if the human players were touching the robots, or there was heavy robot contact distracting me. My hat's off to everyone who volunteered to ref this year!

Slightly off-topic, but as an off-season ref (PARC and RR), I have a couple of peeves with FIRST's rule-making:
- There are a number of penalty rules for Triple Play which could be relaxed or eliminated without much effect on the game (does it really matter if the human player is touching their tetras during autonomous play?).
- Releasing the rules as a "work in progress", with many interpretations and revisions throughout the season seems to create a lot of confusion.
- Leaving obviously contentious issues poorly-defined, such as for robot tipping. These should be clearly defined so that the refs are clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Yeah, what Stu said.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Wait a minute, did Dave just say something flat-out? Like something that didn't cryptically refer to a hint that will still not make any sense whatsoever four weeks into build?

I knew that slice of pizza I had the other day tasted funny.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Stu for President!
Please go see the other 437 threads where I explained my views on this topic.
We are SUPPOSED to be actively engaged in a culture-changing activity that focuses on what is truly important in our society so all of mankind makes progress.

How on EARTH would instant replay ever help get that done?
It would only INCREASE the incidences of red-faced people who want to have calls changed (because we've elevated the importance of the on-field competition) and ultimately we'd become this angry bunch of individuals, lose the overall message, and turn into what we all see WAY too much of in our community athletic programs.

We are different, on purpose, for a reason. No one in FIRST should EVER forget that.

OK....rant over.... carry on :)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

... Unless, of course, he was referring to something else Stu said in a different post. ;)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I must agree with Jay on this one. Being a 229er, in High School and now as a mentor, we have always been told that the refs do there best job. There should never be argueing about what a ref calls, they are doing the best that they can. As Andy and some others said, if you think there should be Instant Replay put into the game, just think about what the refs already have to go through. In addition it would go against the rules of FIRST, were every year it is known that the refs decisions are final, as there decisions and calls should be respected anyways.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Ok, is everybody breathing? Good, you better be. ;)

This is a subject that comes up every year, and as many posts previous have stated, it's not entirely feasible for all of the competitions to make this accommodation due to various types of limited resources: time, volunteers, and money.

There are many ways to make a difference in the refereeing process, many of which have been stated, and some of which have no place at this time of year. It is, quite honestly, too deep in the schedule to make a global accommodation for this in 2006. If you would like to recommend it for 2007, I'm sure your local team forum would be happy to listen, which is the most appropriate time frame for this request to be handled correctly.

Thank you for bringing it up for discussion, but the question has been explored, a general consensus has been achieved, and there are many more productive ways to spend our time right now. Let's move on. :)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I think the bottom line is: Who really cares?

Build a robot.
Go to the event.
Have Fun.

If winning that individual match is more important to you than being there in the first place, then I believe you've got your priorities in the wrong spot.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I agree that there should be some sort of review. Last year in Vegas there was a match we were in that had a questionable penalty, we asked to have it reviewed and the judges refused. The penalty was a 25 point penalty and it lost us the match.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Of course, it's so simple... Dave's just copying what Stu said!! Next year we will have 2 of the exact setups on each side of the field, whichever alliance is Red go's first... they have 30 seconds to do a task and then the Blue alliance must do the exact same task on their side of the field in the same order. They then have the next 30 seconds to complete another task. Then the Red alliance goes again, copying what Blue did in theirs second 30 seconds. after that comes autonomous... using only sensors :ahh: !!!


... nah, just kidding. But back to the task at hand.

JT

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I think that sums up exactly why there should not be instant replay.

Penalties last year hurt us all, I was DQ'ed last year in the second match of the finals in Philidelphi. That hurts, but instant replay wouldn't have changed the refs minds, no matter what the ref is going to stick to his original call because more often then not they are going to interpret play and the rule the same play no matter what angle they saw it from.

I think that the problem with all the penalties last year was that the interpretation of the rules were different at every competition and even changed sometimes right in the middle of one. To stop this there needs to be a unified decision for such crititcal rules as 'ramming' and 'aggressive driving'.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I may be mistaken here, and please pardon me if I am wrong (I have slept a few times since April), but I don't recall any "25 point" penalties in last years game ...

And Jack, PLEASE go back and re-read Tom's post above yours ... ESPECIALLY his last sentence.

Now let's get on with 2006 !!
(How about that clue Dave ???)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

What I feel is even more important is CLEAR communication between the head referee and the drivers/teams. At all of the events I volunteered last season I was fortunate to work with very wise and experienced head referees who took the time in the drivers meetings to very carefully and clearly spell out exactly what was expected and what would be called with regard to rough play and ramming (including examples). The entire referee crew was on board and we called these infractions as intended and explained by our leader. We had some GREAT competition with very few disputes - just the way it should be.

Gracious Professionalism at its finest - Competing like CRAZY on the field, then working together like professionals off the field to make these events the best they can be for everyone involved.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I wouldn't mind an instant replay, if it is possible. But only for viewing, not for deciding on calls.

BTW
They did this in Battlecry IV, and it came out pretty good.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

What is needed is not more cameras and other things but more refs. maybe one more ref watching each match would help things out a bit and ease the pressure on each indivual ref. The people who were saying to never argue with the refs are right, arguing with officials of any kind is a losing battle. they carry the title "Official" so this means they are appointed by the event cordinator to enforce what they saw as right or wrong, they also have the advantage-they dont have to play by the rules ie. they can disqualify you. I have the highest respect for refs even tho i may or may not agree with the call they made. Refs also have to deal with the mentor who is overly attached to the team and knows that the ref made a bad call and he feels he is right and the other team should be disqualified. I met one of these mentors once and was highly offended by his/her actions. Im not going to say what team he/she was from or anything else about them. Refs have to deal with these people each time they DONATE THEIR time to help further the advancement of highschool students across the country but so we can have fun. Refs should be given much more respect than some give them. I salute you referees.

also to the person who stated that any team should be able to tape their match and use it for official purposes i agree completly. Even if you play by all the rules and dont edit the tape or some other unfair way of getting ahead. The refs may see somthing that you did that is illegal and call it on you. and by human nature, you are video taping your robot you didnt bring the camera to tape other bots so you hide yours mistakes and highligh the other teams without knowing its human nature.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I hope I was able to convey that when I gave feedback on 2005 and it is better for 2006, from a ref perspective. We don't LIKE to make these calls, but we call 'em as we see them. With 10 people watching things, most things get seen.

For all the reason posted above, I concur in the NO vote.

Wetzel

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Actually what we need, is for teams, and the people on the teams, to get their kit and their rule books, and in six weeks build a robot that, PLAYS THE GAME, not plays defense, or offense, or outfense or any fense for that matter, just plays the game,

Then, after six weeks, we need, teams to cool off, they just worked hard, take a break, for a week or...3

After you hibernate, Its time for the weird part to start, you go to a competition and compete, you play the game, with the robot you built to play the game, and you try hard, stir in luck and (now this is that weird part i was talking about starts) you take what is given to you, good, or bad, take Forest Gump for example he stepped in a big pile of *stuff* and said, well *stuff* happens

There is my little rant

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

"Big Mike"/Little Rant?

Isn't that one of those oxymoron thingies? :p

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

The more often we see the above stated publicly, the more we must take care to remember that it should continue to remain an expectation, not an assumption. I am counting on them to make the necessary preparations for a competition so they are as invisible to the action as possible, and the vast majority of their decisions do not adversely affect the ability of the kids who are participating to extract maximum enjoyment out of the event. Any decisions that lead to controversy should be explained to minimize any bitter feelings or misunderstandings among the involved parties. The best refereeing crew is one that performs its job completely unnoticed by the event's participants.

I like to take a middle ground approach between the two extremes of

A.) A ref crew that is fully shielded from scrutiny/constructive criticism/accountability by their volunteer status.

and

B.) A ref crew that is required to perform flawlessly, and all necessary steps must be taken to correct any mistakes that do occur.


If a referee takes his/her job seriously and does as much as he/she possibly can in the time he/she has between her regular job/family/home life to prepare for this job, e.g.

A.) Reading and understanding the initial game rules and all subsequent updates

B.) Talking with other referees both before and during the competition season to develop a consistent interpretation and application of these rules from match to match, event to event,

C.) Evaluating his/her performance between events looking for ways to improve,

...then that referee can be confident that he was doing his job to the best of his ability. People certainly make mistakes, and that's ok, but proper preparation and attention to detail minimize the frequency of such mistakes. I don't think that's too much to ask of any person willing to be a volunteer referee.

I humbly suggest that if a potential volunteer ref doesn't have the time or patience to take on a significant portion of these responsibilities beforehand, then he/she should not volunteer for that position and instead help the event out elsewhere where such preparation is not as critical to doing a good job.

Devil's Advocate - If the above expectations were ever officially endorsed/tracked by FIRST (and not simply assumed), and we did observe a marked decrease in the number of volunteer refs because so many were unable/unwilling to live up to these expectations, as many claim would happen, then I would conclude this would be true evidence that room for improvement exists in the overall level of preparation among referees. One way to combat any mass exodus of volunteers would be to encourage FIRST to develop simpler game rules which make it much easier for these volunteers to do their jobs. Another would be to have FIRST kick regional committees (and themselves?!?) in the pants to seek out and lock down refereeing volunteers sooner rather than later. If, as Andy says, refereeing is truly one of the hardest jobs at a competition, then perhaps finding shoes to fill those positions should be treated with a greater sense of urgency by the event's planners? Is any of this possible? Do people try to do this already and it's just too dang hard to achieve any real progress? I don't know, but I hope we're at least trying.

While a referee is only accountable to himself for the decisions he makes, I feel he IS accountable to the competing teams if ever asked to COMMUNICATE the reasoning behind any *controversial* decisions. A referee has a right to his opinion, and according to the rules, his decision is final, so Jay/JVN are correct - never ask a ref to change his mind. It is an unproductive exercise - accept the call and move on. But a ref should never dismiss a team's explanation request and miss out on the opportunity to LEARN from the situation. If a coach or student politely asks a referee to explain his reasoning behind a call, I feel that ref is obligated to provide it. If that referee has prepared for the competition in the manner I described above, he should feel no guilt or hesistancy to explain the call to anyone who questions him in a respectful manner. And maybe, just maybe, through his conversation with the team, a ref may realize every so often that he was mistaken in that instance, and he will be more attentive in the future to see that the same mistake is not repeated? Woodie sez: communication is key. So it should be written, so it should be done.

Finally, to stick with the original thread topic regarding instant replay, I know replay will most likely never be used as a tool to reverse referee oversights (isn't that a more diplomatic term?), but I was wondering how feasible it would be to eventually implement video screen replay of the most exciting highlights of the matches, either after every match (preferable, but unlikely), or perhaps at a few evenly spaced times throughout the day (more likely)? I feel this would add more excitement to a competition and would permit some of the people who are slaves of the pits to possibly *catch up* on some of the action they might have missed. This video could even be presented one time per day, perhaps right before the awards ceremonies. You would have to have a pretty slick video editing person to accomplish this, no doubt. Just a thought.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Reminds me of "The Maltese Cat" by Rudyard Kipling. Several times in the story, The Cat says something to the effect of "We play the game." The other team lost because they were not playing The Game. So, let's make instant replay unnecessary by playing the game and not defense or offense or anything that violates a rule or results in a ref huddle. If the 1 team does something illegal, it's more likely to get caught if 4 -5 robots are just playing the game. Play the game. Avoid breaking rules if possible (and it's always possible). Refs have an easier time and can make better calls. Instant replay is unnecessary.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Offense and defense are two parts of a game. If you are trying to score points you are on offense. Good solid play also requires some defense.

You can't have a game without them.

Wetzel

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

So what were they doing for the 2001 FRC? :rolleyes:

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

In a backhanded sort of way, you might consider E-stopping out* a form of defence....

*For those who don't know, the 2001 game was 4-on-0, where the object was to score as much as possible. Scoring multipliers were applied if your alliance ended the match early by pressing all four E-stop buttons. This is also the reason why every set of FIRST rules since that year has included something to the effect of "The E-Stop buttons are intended for remote shut down during a match in the event of safety hazards and will not otherwise affect match scoring or duration."

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Trevor, I agree. Anyone who walks into the competition with little or no preparation is doing a disservice to the community. If a volunteer doesn't have time to properly prepare for their role, then they should find another aspect of the competition where they can help with less preparation.

Here, I have an objection. Most decisions don't become controversial until someone brings it here to vent in the public forum. Even after decisions are explained at competitions, we see folks who disagree with the interpretation and carry often venomous attacks onto CD. More often than not, the call made can be interpreted as the referee described, but someone thinks they were cheated, and no explanation will suffice. There have even been posts in these forums by referees to share with the community what was shared with the disgruntled team members. This is uncalled for.

Have bad calls been made during competitions? Yes.
As many as are represented by the threads you can find here? Not by a long-shot.

Every time I hear "we need instant replay" it usually is followed by "because we got cheated this way or that". It's never because the other team or alliance got cheated.

Replays for judgement calls = BAD
Replays of matches to see good moves = GOOD

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Instant Replay would be a good thing to have for those plays that seem fishy (whatever term you prefer). It would also make for some good video in the off time, during lunch. Imagine watching the play of the day in slow motion. True, it could be abused for every penalty but if it's setup right so it's not abused, I say let's setup the instant replay.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

DISCLAIMER <i didnt take the time to read the last 4 pages of this thread, just the first and this page>

But it hurts me to see the people are still upset that refs miss or blow a call once in a while...

heres my proposition for you, being a ref and all i have every right to say, go ref a competition and see how hard it is (Especially this year with 6 robots) to have 8 people watching 6 robots + 4 loading zones and the players stations that right there in a perfect world would be 12 refs, usually a regional will have 8 refs + 1 head ref. SO I beleive that being undermanned the refs do a pretty darn good job....
Even if you think you got fouled, you can always go to the head ref before the next match and we can huddle over it and possibly with enough votes from the refs discussion the penalty might be given.

So in retrospect i think video would be good to give another set of eyes, HOWEVER i also see it as a waste of time, regionals allready run too long as it is....

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Are you crazy??

Do you really think the way events should run, is for every team who feels they were penalized to go "ask" the refs for a call? Either the refs saw it, or they didn't. Either they make the call on their own, based on their own impressions of the match, based on their own opinions, or they don't.

On 229, we sent our kids up after the call was made, to get a clarificiation on what happened. This is a preventive measure; we don't want to make the same mistake twice.

"Tattle-tale" complaints to refs are silly, and I hope they are smart enough to ignore them. They saw it, or they didn't. No one should be telling the refs what happened, and expecting them to vote on it.

JV

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

john the way i worded it was incorrect, you hit the nail on the head with how you said it, thats what i was striving for. sorry about that

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

If everyone spent half as much time reading and understanding the rules as they do complaining, arguing, and disagreeing about rules, we might not even be having this discussion.

If you are on the drive-team, if you're a coach, if you're a strategy person, heck if you're just on a team, or if you plan to ref, you darn well better study those rules. Many teams have a game test. It becomes very apparent who has not even glanced at the rules. If you're a spectator that's going to complain about a "bad" call, you darn well better know for a FACT that the call was "bad". You better have read those rules from start to finish, asked "good" questions on Q/A, read all the updates, and re-read them 10+ more times. You might even be able to recite the rule number off the top of your head.. :)

Sometimes there are definitely very blatant incorrect calls or "made-up rules" (especially in early weeks and many rule revisions). And, I knew the rules inside and out to be able to say that. But, most of the time what I see, is the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of a rule that gets argued about. I cannot even begin to count the number of unncessary questions on the Q/A forum. Questions are good - but when the answer is literally written in black and white in the rules - you didn't read them thoroughly. It's frustrating.

I have complained about calls at events, and I will probably continue to (not on the field though). So..... I reffed a tough IRI this past summer to see what refs go through. I'm hooked - I loved reffing - even though I did get yelled at by spectators. But, in reality, our calls were "right". The spectators did not seem to know the rules and that we clearly made the right call. I made the time to review the rules many times (since it had been several months since events) and to ask for clarifications on how things would be called so as to be consistent.

The point is - there are many improvements to be made on every side - ref training, game design committee reducing number of possible penalties, clarifying rules in their definitions, and everything else mentioned previously. But the fact remains, rules will always be there, and if you do not make the time or effort to get a solid understanding of them, there will always be unnecessary ranting and raving, arguing with refs, asking for replays, and so on. This is not always the case - but it is a large portion of the cases. The root cause is not always "the ref made a bad call".

I like 229's method (and many others') - that is how it should be. Ask for clarification or explanation from the head ref in a calm, professional manner, then accept it. How would you feel if someone got in your face telling you about what you did wrong? Right. So, don't expect a ref to respond very well to that.

If you think they made a truly incorrect call or are doing something blatantly against what a rule says, then ask if you can show them. They can say no, but if you're cool about it, they might listen to improve their reffing. There might be times where refs missed an update (should never happen, but has), so it might be helpful to point something out, in a calm manner. Just don't expect your match outcome to change.

Oh by the way, I say NO to replays. It would be cool for highlights, but shouldn't be used for deciding calls. That's not what FIRST is about.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Rather than instant replay, which many have pointed out is a severe logistic challenge (and which I think is overkill), one change to match scoring I would like to see is greater transparency in the scoring. Specifically, the score components for each alliance (but not each team necessarily) should be posted along with the total scores.
For example,
xx points for tetras placed,
xx bonus for x triple plays, and
minus xx points for a (name it) penalty equals total score

That data is certainly available on the judges scoring sheets, the only downside I can see is the time to type in that data for spectators to see.

Don

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I can't believe that this thread keeps going on-

do the results of any given match really matter?

if you lose the match do you lose your budget? your hand or your life?

The games are supposed to be fun.

I'd like to see less rules and more competition. I am sure the game guys know this and are moving towards repairing the shortcomings of this season's game.

But ask yourself- did you have ANY fun this season? Did you do something you can be proud of?

If you managed to build a machine and get to a competition I am sure you could answer "yes"
If you come up with "NO" then you probably should reexamine why you are in FIRST.

My guys had a great season, one of our best ever- and didn't win a regional. We live with it. And we don't need a replay to somehow prove we were cheated.

WC

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Every competition I've ever seen video of or been to has had fairly low hanging lighting scaffolds. Would it really break the bank to put a camera on these? Simply dedicate one referee to watching the top down view, and give them a jog wheel so they can zip back. When a match is over, ref's huddle and the replay ref weighs in...

Even if you can't go for top down view, just set up a camera on the sideline. Even if it prevents one bad call it's worth it. Sure, it won't catch all of them, but it's better than nothing.

Everyone seems to paint these events as logistical nightmares, but those I've seen seem to be pretty mellow "backstage". The solution to all of these problems in automated scoring and "intelligent" feild elements, eliminating the need for calls at all. If you can't enforce a rule, like agressive play, just scrap it. It's not worth the subjectiveness of having people make calls.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

It wouldn't require any extra time, the scorekeeper already has to input all those things.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

wait, Ive seen this before

it was in a movie.....

ROLLERBALL! (the original)

JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN! JOHNATHAN!

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

My last post in this thread. It seems that you really don't understand anything that has been said to date. Let me be blunt.
1 - It costs MONEY to put up a camera(s)
2 - More than a camera is involved, remote pan equipment, monitor, computer,etc
3 - Time is a factor at these events
4 - Regionals are having a tough time as it is raising money
5 - Refs are doing a good job
6 - FIRST is not about winning a match
7 - Refs are doing a good job
8 - Even you have said that replay would not catch everything
9 - Nothing is fair
and most importantly
10 - Refs are doing a good job

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

That's true, but it doesn't feel good to be cheated out of anything, no matter how small.

Everything costs money. :p
As people have said before, just hanging a camera above the feild so you could see generally what's going on would be good.
But as I said above, it's not fun to be cheated out of anything.
You don't have to catch everything; just the general movement of the robots.
That's no reason not to try to make it fair.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

If all you've seen of an event is the three days of the competition, you've missed 99% of the work that made it happen.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

This topic has recently been debated ad nausem, with the general concensus being that instant reply doesn't really have any place at FIRST competitions. Steve hit the nail on the head for all the points. Yes, I know how sometimes you feel cheated by a call, and you might lose a match or two. But just as often, you may actually benefit from a bad call. The refs are just volunteers. FIRST is not about robots or end results. FIRST is about the process, about inspiring teens to careers in science, technology, and engineering. Who wins or loses will not really matter in twenty years. But the inspiration of the students to become engineers will. As it has been said plenty of time before,

It's just a game.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Repeated for emphasis.

Back when I raced remote-controlled cars, there were times when people would gripe and complain about bad calls/turn marshalling/etc. Someone came up with the reminder that we were "racing toys for bowling trophies." And whenever I'd get annoyed about something during a race, I'd remember that line.

Without putting down the hard work we put into our robots, we are still on the field competing for bowling trophies. If getting that piece of shiny acrylic is your main goal, you may want to pause and examine why you're competing.

Have fun, play hard, get inspired, and if you get one of those aforementioned bowling trophies, all the better.

(Side note: Yes, FIRST's trophies are nicer than bowling trophies. You know what I mean.)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

If you goto a competition

and you leave feeling your team was cheated in any way

then someone has seriously mis-led you concerning what FIRST is all about

and all the rule clarifications and instant replay cameras will only push you further down a mis-guided path.

Here is sportsmanship: whatever the head ref says, that is the call, that is the end. We all know we will get bad calls, thats part of the game.

The rest is up to you.

How you respond when things dont go your way is the best indication of your character and personality.

But just to make everyone happy (Ive made this offer many times before): if you feel your team was cheated out of a trophy or award, and you cant get over it, send me a PM, and I will make a trophy for you.

Its about 50¢ worth the plastic, and they take about 10 minutes to fabricate :^)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I think many overestimate how much equipment you would need for instant replay. One camera would suffice mounted over the playing field. How formal would this have to be... not very(someone could run up grab the camera and move to the spot of the match). Video proof is proof - if there isn't 'indisputable' evidence then you move on. If there is - then do something about it. For people saying that it would be UN GP to have instant replay, I can only say send me directions to your utopia - I'd love to live there. Regardless it's not even an issue about GP.

Ok, so I'm working at Delphi designing whatnot, and I screw up pretty big. In this real world they don't say.. well you tried your hardest, and your intentions were right - here's a pat on the back. You can lose your job. People saying it's UN-GP to second guess a ruling are using GP as a control in a pretty ridiculous way. Many of you GP as some absurd defense mechanism- just think... are you sending the right message to the participants in FIRST?

Alot of teams come to regionals with a gameplan, that's the product of months of planning, strategizing, hardwork, cooperation and whatnot. (I know FIRST isn't just about winning a regional - so save me the time with that response) To have several months of dedication be eraced in one facet of the competition because of a bad call is kind of silly. There should be a safeguard against this, and unfortunatly it might make a day longer by about 20 minutes at a FIRST event. Ok, the brains behind FIRST are pretty smart-- they could plan this out and hand a videocam to every regional. Heck - ppl could even let FIRST borrow on for the weekend *shock*. I dunno many of you seem to think it would ruin FIRST or something. Had the technology been around 100 years ago in college football - you'd prob here about this year as the 100th anniversary of instant replay. So lets put the T in FIRST and actually consider this.
So lets say ... people actually do consider this...... FIRST tries to make an event that suits spectators. This could add to the excitement of a first event with proper planning and structuring. Imagine the final match being contested and the proper team wins the event. OMG EXCITEMENT OMG
If you want to scream GP, scream it if the system was implemented and complete harda**es keep asking for matches to be reviewed. That would be a lack of GP. I think as a FIRST community -- ppl would be mature and noble enough to contest rulings when it's absolutly appropriate.
So there you go- get instant replay-- only because most of you are so ridiculously-mindlessly against it(ad it would be pretty neat).

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

One camera is not enough. You can't tell anything from one camera mounted directly above the playing field. About all you'll see is boxes moving around.

Let's put it this way--if a ref standing less than two feet away, looking directly at a robot say, can't tell if it is or isn't in the loading zone, how on earth do you figure a camcorder mounted twenty feet above the field will?

Last I checked, someone working at Delphi was there to provide a service in return for monetary compensation. Provide an inadequate service, you don't get paid. Refs in FIRST are volunteers, completely different situation.

I don't like how "GP" is tossed around every 5 seconds, but it surely isn't appropriate for people to boo and crap on people who give up time out of their busy lives to come referee, when the majority of the time, the person doing the criticizing couldn't have done a better job themselves. You're right--we aren't sending the right message out to people. Far too many think this kind of behavior is OK. The objective of FIRST isn't to teach kids to be sore losers.

If one bad call ruins your entire weekend, you're probably not getting much out of this program. It would probably be wise to re-evaluate the reasons you participate.

How can you compare to college football? College football has clear cut, tangible results. It results in schools either making or losing large sums of money, in addition to increased alumni donations when teams are winning. Getting "screwed" out of a win in a college football game is a MUCH bigger deal than losing one utterly insignificant FIRST match. In addition, the refs get paid.

Since you're into making comparisons to college sports, tell me when the last time was that you saw a instant replay setup that included only one camera to watch all the action? You need a whole bunch of cameras, to cover as many angles as possible.

How would instant replay make the game more spectator friendly? All it will do is slow the gameplay, thus making it harder to sit there and keep from getting bored.

Let's stop beating this dead horse.

yes one video camera over the playing field actually turns the robots into unrecognizable boxes that blur the video site - infact a view from above would confuse most watchers, as they have never seen a robot from above? I guess I just dont understand you

I dont believe it's the calls the refs are 2 feet away from ppl are having problems with. It's the ones when they are looking the other way, or distracted by somethign else.

Ok hey, I volunteer at the redcross 20 hours a week, but that doesn't make it right for me to make mistakes. And I'm not saying they are purposefulyl making mistakes - if I could have a system in place where I could quickly fix somethign I did wrong.. even i was volunteering I would opt for it... pretty simple

I don't believe anyone is booing or crapping on the refs.. and I certaintly am not. If they could be aided to correct something they didn't see... I don't think they would mind. and if they did... um.. well that complex should keep them from volunteering in first

for the record, I've never been the result of a bad call.. so I'm not arguing for some past anger.. it just makes sense to atleast consider this

um, I was simply making a comparison to another organization with replay, and might I add - bc of it - things are nearly perfect --
think of this strange situation.... Some sponsor drops you because they dont' get enough recognition bc you lost the regional! (I know that's complame) BUT OMG what if?! I guess they aren't in FIRST for the right reasons then!! right?! but that doesn't matter, you dont' have money now-- boohoo

I think this is the cool thing, one camera can cover the entire field, with a pretty good view, and sense a camera taking footage over a field doesn't have any angle blindness it would most likely work very well. Think about it before you refuse it so quickly.

Teams could take a penalty for incorrectly challenging a call, or possibly gain everything by challenging. Fans like to see things disputed, especially ones without any team bias. Drama sells! If you disagree, turn on your tv and look for this pretty new "reality" tv thing sweeping into yours and my livingrooms'!

I think a thread is dead if it's locked - this horse is very alive.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

OK, I get sucked into another one. Again I will say, it takes more than 1 camera to make a difference. Take the NHL for example. There are usually 3 cameras trained on 1 goal. Even after looking at slow motion they still can't tell the difference. 3 cameras per goal and you believe that you could see a whole field from 1 camera placed above the field? I will also challenge the bad call argument. The ref would only go to replay if they were not sure AND the play results in a goal/non-goal. The argument that you are really making is missed calls. I believe that last year there were between 8 and 10 refs per match. That is a lot more eyes than 1 camera. I have seen calls go both ways. I have watched a play, consulted with the ref after and we both had different views of what happened. We were standing next to each other.

If you want to make the game better then get the designers, builders, drivers and human players to stop making mistakes and design perfect robots, use perfect strategy and perfect control. If this was done then we can start questioning the refs and the system for minor, questionable points of view.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

For those who wish to implement instant replay in FIRST, I suggest you do 1 of 3 things:

1. Volunteer as a referee. VIMS is up and running. Sign up for a regional, help out, and learn from an experienced head ref. Your opinions about instant replay will become more credible if you are an experienced FIRST ref.

2. Create an off-season competition and implement tweaks to FIRST's rules as you wish. If you want to add instant replay to the game, go right ahead. Just make sure the teams know of this adjustment when they sign up for your event.

3. Convince someone else who runs an off-season event to implement instant replay. Offer to run this system for them, by providing the plan, equipment, and implementation details. Don't just say "you need to do this", but rather offer a solution and provide the resources to get it done. Also, don't assume that if you offer a complete package that this will be accepted by the people hosting this event. (the people who put on these off-season events have enough to worry about without this as an additional thing)

Reffing a FIRST event is unlike being an ump or a ref at any other event. Where else is a game invented each year and over 1000 teams play this game within 3 months of its birth? Game interpretations and rules are not always black and white. Instant replay will not solve disagreements with calls, it is as simple as that. If you do not understand this, please look to doing items 1 or 2 above.

Andy B.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

And in the NHL, if there's no conclusive evidence, the play stands as called. Isn't that what's being suggested? It's a stretch to say that one camera can't catch enough to be useful. I'm not sure if directly above is necessarily the best place for it (because of lens issues, mostly), but that doesn't negate the suggestion.

Isn't this a variation on what Andy said earlier, about offending the volunteers? My skepticism regarding this still stands; the referees realize that people will disagree with them, and they realize that their authority will ultimately be final. Whether or not people seethe over bad calls shouldn't be an issue—both the referees and the competitors ought to be reasonable enough to examine the matter on the basis of the only evidence that matters; the referee's view of the play, be it live, or, as has been suggested, in a video replay. The fact that they're volunteers doesn't absolve them of any errors that they may make, nor does it remove teams' prerogative to criticize (objectively), irrespective of whether or not the team member could have done a better job.

Of course, as has been repeated ad infinitum, the outcome doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but, in principle, wouldn't it be nice if more matches were decided correctly, rather than, when a dispute arises, throwing up our hands and saying "it's just a game", with an implicit "we're not willing to discuss the possibility that we may have just blown a call". Nobody questions the fact that the referees' decision is final, but can we say that if some practical method of implementing a replay were found, and it were applied judiciously, it could help to cut down on whatever bad calls do take place, and cut down on the arguments over calls, because of the additional evidence?

In fact, maybe I'm being too harsh with the characterization of officials as being dismissive; this is not to say that it doesn't occur, but I would point out that it not endemic. Certainly, they can only call plays based on what was observed, and beyond that, there is no possibility of the call being reversed. I think that the idea of a replay is to give them a second look; if nothing comes of that second look, then who can argue with it? Once the referee has seen a replay, a team can't argue that the official didn't see the play, because the team just caused them to watch it again—shouldn't that end the argument, then and there? And if the replay shows nothing, the referee can say "sorry, but you've got nothing to show me"; though objectively, it's the same call as was originally made, it gives the appearance of the referee having attempted to make a concilliatory gesture—in other words, it ought to make arguing much more difficult, since the referee can't be characterized has having dismissed the concern without due consideration. It's far harder to vilify someone who's made an attempt to help, than it is to vilify someone who (despite being within his rights, and acting fairly and responsibly) refuses to discuss the issue.

From looking at the responses above, I think that most of the opposition comes on technical/cost grounds, or on the principle that it's just a game, and doesn't matter. The first point, regarding technical issues, is reasonable, but there are lots of cheap ways to handle something like this; why are we thinking big, when thinking small might be sufficient? The second point is borderline apathetic, and seems to dismiss the problem without due consideration.

Maybe it isn't cost-effective to put a replay system in place. Maybe it won't catch as much data as we'd like. But is it a bad idea in principle? Are we arguing that something about a replay will kill the game, kill the spirit of the competition? If so, what?

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Anything that can improve is not bad. This idea is bad. Will it kill the game? Yes! The time taken to replay adds up. By NHL standards it is at least 5 minutes per call. Teams right now complain that there are not enough matches to seed correctly. If we take time for video replay you can knock off 1 game per team to allow for replays. Last year we had a tough time trying to stay on schedule just with refs calls.

By the way, does anyone have any idea of what percentage of calls have been reversed (not decided) due to video replays.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I don't mean to say that refs should get a free pass just because they're volunteers. Objective criticism is fine. I don't think any ref would have a problem with someone saying "Hey, Mr or Mrs ref, can you explain why this call you made went the way it did?" It's when people start saying things like "OMG TEH REFS SUCK SO BAD, I HATE THEM!!!!" that's an issue.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

we did an analysis of this back on page one of the thread. A typical video camera has a horizontal resolution of 500 or 520 pixels. Watching the entire 60 foot field with one camera you have a visual resolution of about 3" (per pixel) - which means your one camera will not be able to see hands, feet, arms and extensions sticking out of robots, the tires on the robots, or even to clearly define the lines on the floor. One camera will be useless for instant replays.

when you work with technology its easy to start thinking that everything else in the world is cut and dry, black and white, ones and zeros. Its not. Everyone who plays sports knows at some point errors will be made, fouls will be missed by the refs, and bad calls will be made. Sporting events are not 100% fair. That is part of the game. That is not a cop-out, its not GP nonsense, its the reality of the situation.

And this is the misdirected path I was talking about at the top of this page. Once you start down this path, thinking "it should be possible to make the game 'fair' with the right technology", then your basic reasoning is misguided. No sport game can ever be 100% fair - at some point you have to accept that fact, have the personal character to accept it: gracefully. Thats what 'sportsmanship' is all about - understanding this is a game, its not life and death.

You play your best, the refs do their best, and at the end of the day we are FIRST, collectively. Nobody is going to lose a college scholarship, or their job, because their team lost a FIRST match.

if that really were the case then I believe you will be better off not having that team anymore. The students on a team that only exists to further the image of a corporate sponsor will have a miserable experience, and that team will do a great deal of damage to FIRST as a whole.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Amen, Brother!

In 2005 I volunteered at the NJ and Philly regionals (field reset & robot insp respectively), and after finding myself second-guessing the refs, decided I should walk in their shoes a bit - so I reffed at PARC and Ramp Riot. After that experience I decided that Triple Play was designed primarily to challenge the refs and scorekeepers! That is one tough game to ref fairly, not made any easier during the early season by constant rules "clarifications".

Even if instant replay could be instituted without adding 5 minutes per match I am certain that there would be fewer volunteers, more rather than less contention and a whole lot less fun had by all. If people really want to see "better" refereeing, they should see what they can do to help FIRST make better (more clear-cut) rules and get the bugs out before competition begins.

Proving my inability to learn from experience, this year I'm on VIMS for three regionals where I requested to ref, and am head ref for the DE FVC event. I'm curious to know what those who want instant replay are doing this year?

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Once again, let me clarify that I'm not specifically in favour of instant replay for a given game, though I think that it's worth looking into, provided that reasonable limits are specified for its use.

Now with that said, I'm not unaware of what it takes to be an official. I've twice been a ref at the Wonderland invitational, I was both an inspector and assistant scorekeeper at the last GTR, and assistant scorekeeper and head inspector at Waterloo. I'll probably be doing the same this year, and maybe also at one other event. (Actually, I've also umpired baseball, and refereed at the Toronto Kickoff Challenges.)

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

can you see another robot hit another with one camera over a field.. in fact several things can be seen-- but this is not the main thing.. for instance I have seen several mathes that have just not been socred correctly - some resulting in another team losing -
EXAMPLE - Lets take the 2005 game- Some teams would descore tetras while trying to cap their own-[but we all know the decapped team owns that goal] but that was just never taken into account.. and it compl confused the scoring -- and even with all the refs looking at the field... the right calls were not made.. is this the refs fault? sorta, but mostly not- the limit or accuracy of a volunteering ref is less than if they were paid -- couple that with several rules that don't come up often .. and you can get yourself into a mess.. VIDEO REPLAY would be to aid them -- it would also be for the other rare cirumstances when the rules of the game are ridiculously not upheld, bc of refs looking the wrong way or what not... and a team wanting to challenge the call...
so listen... you don't need 39 cameras strategically placed to hit every angle.. if it can't be solved with one camera above the playing field -- then it makes sense the ref missed it... you smell what I'm stepping in!?

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

You've restated your point. Since you are passionate about this, I suggest you create a detailed plan including logistics, equipment, costs, and implementation factors. Get into the details. For instance, how many "challenges" does each team get per competition (similar to NFL coaches getting 2 challenges per gam)?

Once you do your homework, put your findings into a white paper and post it so more FIRSTers can see your work. If feasible, the plan will get better with more input. More detailed feedback will be received this way, and we all could be convinced if this is even a possibility. Sell it to the rest of us. Be productive as opposed to simply suggesting that this must happen.

Andy B.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Yeah, well you're definitely stepping in something :ahh: !

It sure is easy to sling all of this smelly stuff when you hide behind a screen name on some forum, with NO identifying information in your profile.

AND ... I was going to reply personally and directly to you ... but since you don't accept any messages or emails thru this site I have no choice but to respond publicly:

And one more thing ... PLEASE re-read Andy's posts above and see if you can't take his advice. We might all be better off for your efforts.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I see three sides to this. One is the team who loses on what they see as a bad call and asks for a replay. Another is the refs' side. The third is the team who has the replay go against them. For the team who asks, instant replay would solve the problem of losing (maybe). For the refs, each individual replay is a new piece of hassle, more teams mad at them, and they still have many more matches to go.

But what about the team that loses due to replay? No one has brought them up yet. How would they feel? They would most likely feel bummed that they lost, probably angry at the refs, and possibly annoyed enough to quit FIRST. Then where does the inspiration go for that school?

I have only reffed at an FLL scrimmage between two teams from the same school. That was hard enough. Having to note when to remove scoring objects and dealing with field damage that could affect points was annoying enough. I didn't have teams coming to me and complaining and asking for instant replay. I know this is FLL, but I think that just from that, I am not sure I want to even attempt reffing a FRC event. I am amazed that the refs even volunteer for these tough calls. Why make their job harder by using instant replay?

If instant replay would make things easier on everyone, I personally would probably say go for it, but it will make things harder on at least one group of the three covered above, and it will disappoint one of the other groups.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

ok then

pls don't use my name - for reasons that are very personal - and I'm not going to explain to you or anyone, and I hope you honor that

also don't post peoples rep messages - I believe that is a forum rule

thank you,
me

You may reach me on aim at stealingshrimp :o

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

If we do not know you well enough to use your name, certainly we do not know you well enough to consider your opinion.

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about people having opinions about all sorts of things they're genuinely unqualified to speak about; however, we can choose when to ignore those people.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I'm not sure whar you're talking about.

If you do have a problem with another member you should privately take it up with one of the mods and not post about it on the open forum.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Well, Stu Bloom said that you refused to recieve messages through this forum, so there was no other way to ask you about the very confusing negative rep point you submitted to him.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Please continue this discussion privately, and keep this this thread on the original topic.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

Agreed, taking it out in public is no better than your complaint, take it to a mod.

Now on to the real topic at hand, I severely doubt we'll have instant replay, its a waste of time and resources and would simply cause trouble. Life isn't fair, FIRST isn't fair, sometimes things we don't like happen, deal with it.

Seriously, I find it kind of...well...stupid when teams persue things like call disagreements for weeks after the fact, and instant replay would just make more headaches.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

OK I'm going to skip taking this to a white-paper-(bc it's not that formal)

What is needed --

One video camera
Addition of Instant Replay clauses in rules
One person who knows how to work the camera( on the ref team)
Small addition to scoring software

How does this work --

Pre competition the ref teams decides on a location for the video camera. To keep this cheap there will not to be a need for remote viewing. The camera needs to be put in a location that shows the hold field at the least and offers the least ammount of 'other object impedence'. (by this I mean, objects in the foreground bloking the line of site of object behind them -- this can be achieved by having a camera over the playing field) There is a problem to this, getting a camera above the playing field and gaining quick access to it. So, the ref team would need to find the best suitable location that is quick and easy to gain access to.

Teams have an unlimited ammount of chances to contest a ruling on the field.
Pressure from the audience and GP will keep this from turning into having every match contested.

Things that can be contested -
Inaccruate scoring
Rule violations that were called, that a team feels were incorrectly called
EXTREME rule violations that were missed- that affected the outcome of a match - (example - a robot hits another high and knocks it over - and leaves it disabled for the rest of the match - and it was missed by the refs) also things that jeopardized the safety of individuals that was missed--

What can result from replay-
1 Indisputable evidence supporting the challenging team.
2 Indisputable evidence showing the challenging team was incorrect.
3 Not enough evidence to support challenging teams claim.

In the case of 1. The refs meet quickly to make the appropriate adjustments to the score.
In the case of 2. The challenging team takes a qualifying score of 0 for the match.
In the case of 3. Nothing, moves on just as it would have without replay.

Entire alliances must agree on whether or not to challange. If one team is unwilling, then the alliance can not challenge. So this will be another check in an alliance wanting to challenge.

The head ref takes the camera and the second ref in charge takes responsibilities for cleaning up the field and progressing to the next match. The ref makes a decision and announces it to the crowd, and the appropriate scores are given.

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

I suggest you revisit the first page of this thread.

I'll save you the time though--ONE CAMERA IS NOT ENOUGH

Re: This year we need instant replay
 

To: Collmandoman
Please contact me via e-mail since you choose not to accept e-mail contact thru the site.

Mike Martus
mmartus@chiefdelphi.com