I would like to reiterate match logistics and explain a few reasons why Video review is out of the question, and should never be considered. I am a field staff volunteer, and have work with a few different teams.
Let us start with event logistics from the point of view of field staff, and refs for that matter. A district event typically has around 36 to 40 teams. For that matter lets actually use an event for logistics. How about
FIM Southfield event this year.
The event had 39 teams, and 10 hours worth of time scheduled for qualification matches on the public schedule. Each team was set to play 12 matches each giving you 78 matches. That gives you about 7.5 minutes per match.
Now let’s think about game play. What has to happen for a match? The field needs to be configured, robots need to connect, teams need to be announced, the match needs to be played, the scores need to be submitted, then posted, and robots need to clear the field. How long does this all take? About 7 minutes. Exactly the time allotted to each match, and that’s without having any problems with robots or the field that delay the start of a match, match replays (when needed), field repairs, and any number of other factors that may result in a delay of a match on the part of teams or the field. This 7-minute cycle time is just about the limit. it takes 30 seconds or so to prep the field for team connections, 3 to 4 minutes for the teams to setup robots on the field and connect, match time running about 2.5 minutes, then give the refs 30 seconds to confirm the score and for it to be posted. That adds up to about the 7 minutes depending on how long each of these steps takes. Can we make this faster? not without teams setting up robots faster. Even then, with field configuration, robot connection time and the time it takes for matches to run, and scores to be submitted and posted, the fastest time that matches tend to run is 5 and a half minutes, and that only gets hit at most once an event if that. Matches tend to run between 6.5 and 8 minute cycles.
Where in there do you plan to fit in video replay? Replaying a full match would take 2.5 minutes. Not to mention times to analyze what they are seeing, and re watch parts if needed. Maybe add 30 second to adjust and verify and scores that need to be after that? that gives you about 3 minutes to add onto match cycles. so that scores can be posted, so the field can be configured for the next match. Plus, who is to say that there won't me a few additional minutes of discussion about what’s being watched and if those points were counted. How much time do you really want to add to score review? how much is too much? well if you add the three minutes that we gave above, probably the lower end of the range, that gives us 10 minutes per match, and with 78 matches as at Southfield, that gives you 13 hours of game play. You now have to add 3 more hours on to the first day of qualification matches so that you can get done in time. This means keeping students at the venue as late as 10 PM in the case of Southfield. Some people would say that’s reasonable, but some teams traveling more than an hour to events, that’s unreasonable as an hour back to the school and then time to get home, puts students arriving home at 12 PM. That won't fly with many school districts, and do you really want students, mentors and volunteers running on that little sleep? Well think about it. Southfield's event opened at 8 AM the last day. with an hour bus rides, students need to meet before 7, and wake up at 6 to get there by then, and well we all know they don't go to sleep right away.
Now let’s think more about how this entire replay thing would work anyways. Okay so you record the video from the audience screen right? well what’s that? a full field camera? reasonable, but it can't get everything, can't see close details. Okay so you record all the cameras? Well Most setups have 3. Full field, and one for each alliance. Most of the feeds for the walls did not fully catch the defenses, so you don't get to see the exact defense crossed, or even this year, having the portcullis or drawbridge block the view of part of the camera feed. So you add more camera. that works to solve those problems. say one more for each alliance. covering the parts that the others don't see? Now you end up having to allow for video mixing, feed switching, rewind replay, and watching multiple camera screens. That is extra time in each match review that you want to have. maybe say 30 seconds or a minutes? That’s reasonable since the entire point of this is to not miss any detail right? well we have now added at least another hour onto our matches. Where does that fit into the schedule.
Now well you have your 11-minute cycle times, your cameras, your all ready for match review. What’s the cost? well say $500 for a good camera. so $3000 for all of them. Let’s add $500, for wires tripods, and another $500 for the screens and controls so that the video could be watched. You also need a device to record the video. We can use a
Tricaster 40 which is $5,000 on B&H. That says our video replay system starts at around $10,000 once you get everything you need. Well that’s not too bad for a video setup, it’s fairly low end, but probably all you need to watch the matches. And remember that needs to be on 20 fields per week. So that is $200,000 for just your video replay system. Let’s also remember that additional time and cost needs to go into training for use of the system, a volunteer spot to possibly man the computer to help the refs, and time and the resources that are needed to prepare the system and vet the options. Still think it’s reasonable?
Okay you want to argue that not every second of every match needs to be replayed? So, you want to play part of a match, you have to seek through the full footage to find those 10 seconds for review, and maybe you still watch it twice? well the time to find the clip, might be 20 seconds and then 20 seconds to watch it twice. so that's 40 seconds. 20 seconds of thinking about how to proceed (that would be super-fast for most people. Please make a decision in 20 seconds for me). and there we have an entire minute added onto game play. Or maybe refs have their own station to watch matches? Okay fork over an additional $20,000 per field for a more advanced streaming device. And we still have the concept of not watching every second of every match. Arguable if you are going to do video review, then it need to happen on every match, since if you only do it when you think you have missed something, or a team asks a question, then that's unfair, since what if a team did not realize the ref did not count a defense crossing they made? Well why should they not get those points and have another team get them since they were being picky? So that means every match gets watched in full. That’s the only way to make it fair for every team.
So you want to argue the time problem? reasonable. Teams can setup for a match while video review is going on. That works. except, it does not change that hard cutoff that it takes the field itself to pre start and run a match. You need to leave 3 minutes for that. and your field staff (FTA, FTAA, CSA, Scorekeeper) won't have any idea about what robots are having connection problems until the field has been pre started, and then fixing any problems could take a minute or two. so you won't save yourself much time here.
You also need to consider the technical aspect of running the equipment. In an ideal world, nothing goes wrong. But that never happens. Cameras will go offline, break, the video streaming boxes won't work, cables will die, balls will fly out of the field and knock over or break video equipment. What happens when something goes wrong. It’s not fair to give a team extra points for crossing a missed defense in one match, but in the next when it happens again, but the opposing alliance hit the camera making it record the ground during those 20 seconds, none because it "was not on camera?" that's not fair now is it. And don't tell me "it won't happen," because you know that it will, and it will be your team that lost points because of it.
All in all, Yes the idea is great. It works for Football, Soccer, Baseball, or other sports that run for 3 hour long games, since 5 minutes don't matter, it’s just a commercial break. but in the fast passed games of FIRST, it’s not the time and place, and in the end you will be doing more bad then good. Feel free to pick this apart, but take a chance to see why it’s really unpractical for this to work.