View Single Post
  #257   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-08-2016, 20:51
cgmv123's Avatar
cgmv123 cgmv123 is offline
FRC RI/FLL Field Manager
AKA: Max Vrany
FRC #1306 (BadgerBOTS)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,072
cgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Video Review Needs to Happen Now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri View Post
For quals, the requirement that it change one of the aggregates in the ranking algorithm (though I'm not positive that's what cgmv means) would be pretty loose in most years. This seems like a reasonable standard, since it's easy enough to know beforehand ("that would raise our auto score total") and speaks directly to the impact quals are supposed to have.
My intent was that ranking points (or the first order ranking sort in subsequent games) would need to be affected. For Stronghold, this would have meant changing the outcome of the match or awarding a point for a missed breach/capture. I'm reconsidering this now, because you correctly point out that the ranking tiebreakers can also matter. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though, because for Stronghold, the only scores that don't factor into at least one tiebreaker are foul points, and I don't think allowing a challenge to every single Qualification match score is worth it. I'm fine with Eliminations going deep into the evening if it takes that much time to get all of the calls right, but I think Qualifications should be expected to stick to the schedule a bit more.

Quote:
Not sure how I feel about requiring every member of a qual alliance to still have their challenge coupon. I think I'd be okay with "any" instead of "all". It likely means more challenges, but then normal teams can't be burned by being randomly assigned a trigger-happy alliance partner who wasted their coupon on match 1.
Yeah, I wasn't sure how fair/unfair it was for teams to be able to jeopardize future alliance partners by losing their challenges early. I do think it's fair to limit challenges in qualification matches to blatantly obvious errors with ranking implications, and the rules I proposed are written with that in mind. They're just a suggestion that I expect the GDC (Hi GDC!) to tweak before placing in the 2017 manual. :wink:

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH View Post
I disagree on the Finals being an automatic review, primarily because that means a minimum of 3 minutes where any refs involved aren't doing their between-match stuff (traffic control, overall monitoring), and also because if there's something tough in the Finals every ref is going to be in the huddle discussing the calls--we want to get the calls right the first time.
The automatic review wouldn't be done by a referee. It would be done by a "replay official" who would "confirm" most of the calls in the match right away and only call over a ref if they see something questionable.
__________________
BadgerBOTS Robotics|@team1306|Facebook: BadgerBOTS
2016 FIRST Championship Tesla Division | 2016 Wisconsin Regional Engineering Inspiration Award

2015 FIRST Championship Carson Division | 2015 Wisconsin Regional Chairman's Award

2013 FIRST Championship Curie Division | 2013 Wisconsin Regional Chairman's Award

2012 FIRST Championship Archimedes Division | 2012 Wisconsin Regional Engineering Inspiration Award, Woodie Flowers Finalist Award (Lead Mentor Ben Senson)

Reply With Quote