[patar8746]

Originally Posted by Donut

I'll bite. I was a student Coach and Driver for 3 years, mentor Coach for 2, and have reffed the last 2 years (I'll be a Coach at AZ West later this year also). As alicen and EricH noted I'm sure there are a growing number of alumni who have been on both sides...

...I think video review could help with getting calls correct, but it needs to be used in limited cases to keep events running smooth and to limit its use to fixing errors that are significant and can be reasonably evaluated. Building off of other suggestions in this thread I would propose:

• Each Alliance is allowed one challenge/review in the playoffs. Unlimited challenges will result in reviewing every somewhat close match since no one wants their event/season to end. If the system works it could be expanded to each team having one challenge for all qualification matches also but not more to limit review quantities.
• Head Ref leads the review process and delivers the final call, with other refs who were involved in that call assisting if necessary. The rest of the refs keep the next match getting setup correctly so that minimal time is added to normal field reset. Adding a review process should not require an increase in referee headcount given the difficulty in finding referee volunteers already.
• Only match scoring errors (and penalties that lead to an automatic score) can be reviewed. This year that would mean defense crossings, challenges, scales, autonomous points, G13, G28, and boulders (though I am not sure if allowing review of an automatically scored element is reasonable to review, counting balls/disks scored in a match from a video is time consuming and more prone to error). Fouls are not reviewable as it is not easy to determine what fouls were assessed from a video and many involve a judgement call by a referee who has a better view than a camera or driver in their station will.
• The score or lack of being reviewed must be significant enough to affect the outcome of the match (or an RP being awarded for games like this year). Reviewing whether a crossing was awarded in autonomous or teleop in a 40 point blowout is a waste of time and the implications on ranking tiebreakers are not significant enough to justify the resources for that.
• Video evidence must be indisputable to change a call. The point is to receive credit for an obviously missed score, not debate further a close call that a referee already used their best judgement on (such as barely breaking contact with the Outer Works and Sally Port door)...

Overall I think that a review system would only be helpful in a small handful of circumstances, such as a missed stack last year or an obvious defense crossing this year...

...Also I thought I'd throw in that I love Stronghold, the referee jobs are hard this year but this is one of the best games (especially for spectators) I've seen in FRC.

^^^EXPERIENCED REF AND DRIVER

This ruleset is great, and I think this could be our base rules, minus defining where cameras are to be placed and what video feeds can be used. Some variations to try would be changing how many reviews a team gets (especially allowing them to keep reviewing if they aren't ever wrong), allowing foul reviews, implementing other penalities for baseless video requests, and whether or not to allow review in quals vs elims. Great start.

For camera placement, I'd suggest using existing stream setups to start. Variations could be placing cameras at or as close to bird's eye as possible, and not adding new cameras but allowing fans/media reps to submit video, and referee body cams?

Originally Posted by gblake

My reply is, "No."

No chute door?