Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnFogarty
Here's where I start to get rustled.
A simple overhead view of the field can be used to solve all disputes in FRC.
There is very little room to argue with this. FIRST could implement the system themselves as its not that Complicated of a system to put in place.
As to who's video? Obviously the only video that would be reviewed would be from FIRST's own camera system. There would be no 3rd party camera footage viewing allowed, similarly to how things are now.
This isn't sports. In FRC the game pieces are simple, the rules are simple, and the problem is no where as complicated as you think it is.
|
I call BS.
A simple overhead camera? I'm assuming you mean similar to the fisheye cameras used by FiM/MAR/Indiana. Because if you mean a true overhead camera, that's simply not a realistic option at the vast majority of FRC venues (and certainly not an option without additional rigging costs on the venue side). And if you mean some other static camera (or even a true overhead), there are still plenty of disputes that will not be able to solve. Was a robot's wheel touching the outerworks at the end of autonomous, or just their bumper overhanging? Did their mechanism extend more than 15" beyond the frame perimeter? Did their robot fully stop contacting the drawbridge door momentarily? What was the game clock at that second during the overhead view? Heck, I'm watching the Tippecanoe stream right now, and there are still quite literal blind spots behind easy drawbridge/portcullis (as well as smaller ones behind the towers). No single camera is going to solve all FRC disputes.
Nor did you address any of the other questions I raised.
e; To demonstrate my point, I just captured this from the NYC webstream. While the lack of quality is due to stream compression, the general point still stands. This is what typically constitutes an overhead view in FRC. Did the robot in the orange circle cross the defense? Commit a penalty?
