Quote:
Originally Posted by efoote868
The scoring software and related items seem to be redone every year, as the game changes every year.
|
Ok. I don't know much about software, though externally the ref panels and most of what I see at the scoring table barely changed this year. The ref panels not at all, barring the 3.1.5.2 climb lights. After the capital investment, I'm not sure I see any additional reoccurring cost over what they do now certainly now. They don't have to maintain the ref panels (which live a hard life), and I don't see the logging panels changing more than the ref ones did if they keep the foul/tech foul and <G#> setup.
The team DS interface option might be harder; I don't know how much that's changing internally year to year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by efoote868
And yes, in the chain of communication, certain items towards the end can happen in parallel. For instance, once the infraction is logged, the information can be distributed immediately.
|
Yes. (Isn't that what I said?) I think it can be 3 steps total: ref radios, volunteer logs, score displays. (The last two happen almost simultaneously.) The GA can be on the ref channel so they don't have to wait for the logging to give the announcement and/or control the lights, or they can do it based on the log as the score displays. Of course, this still is slower than ref sees + ref logs, but hopefully once people get used to it, it's not much slower.
Albeit in reality some calls will be later. Especially this year we had to consult on the radios for a second to make sure it actually was contact (or what have you) from multiple angles. Those pyramids are so darn tricky. Better to get it right than to get it early though, I think.
This also opens the question of what to do if someone in the chain makes a mistake. If the team responds to the call and changes their behavior, is there any recourse for them? If not, will they be less likely to listen to calls they think are incorrect? There was at least one similar incident this year, where a ref mistakenly called a bad climb, and the team came down but the action made them miss the climb again. Ok, so one could argue the team was at fault for not knowing they would miss if they tried again, but imagine a less controlled (not single robot) situation.