Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Collmandoman
I'll refer you to soap coverage of matches, one camera catches the entire field
|
Depending on which FIRST feed they use. But more often than not, I watch Soap videos that are zoomed in on one robot the entire game, one hook or appendage even. (not Soap's fault)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Collmandoman
EXAMPLE - Lets take the 2005 game- Some teams would descore tetras while trying to cap their own-[but we all know the decapped team owns that goal] but that was just never taken into account.. and it compl confused the scoring -- and even with all the refs looking at the field... the right calls were never made.. is this the refs fault? sorta, but mostly not- the limit or accuracy of a volunteering ref is less than if they were paid -- couple that with several rules that don't come up often .. and you can get yourself into a mess..
|
I'm sorry, what? The right calls were never made? Did you attend all 30+ regionals and championship fields simultaneously to justify this statement? Didn't think so. While this may be a small point to make, it very tiring to read grossly unfounded negative comments that aren't even realistic.
You're saying refs would be better if they were paid? The volunteer refs are slacking off because there's no money involved? Even paid refs make mistakes. People in this organization could care less about getting paid, and probably wouldn't do better if they were, because regardless they try hard to make even the most cynical person happy. If you need proof that it can't be done with one camera, we need proof that your statements are accurate. Find a similar game, organization, program, ref responsibilities to FIRST where refs are paid and show how they're accuracy is so much better.
Neg repping someone for their disagreed opinion? Good grief this is an abuse of that feature. Aren't we supposed to respect
your opinions? Maybe you get neg repped for your opinions, but my guess it's not necessarily the content, but the manner in which you display the opinion.
Mount a camera above the 2005 field, what's that, 40ft or more? You can't count the stacked game object to catch an incorrect score. You can't get any depth perception. You can't see if they were touching the loading zone (heck, robot design can make that nearly impossible 2 ft away). You can't see if there was really contact between robots at the loading zone unless blatantly obvious. You can't make one of the "interpretive" calls (tipping, ramming, etc). You need perspective angles. Mount it on the side of the field. We will always have field elements in the way, and you will invariably have robots blocking the perfect view of a camera. Ideally the perfect spot would be a few rows up in the stands. But I feel adding instant reply opens up a whole new can of worms with the complaints, whining, and turnaround time for matches.
Should heed Andy's suggestion. Until you make the effort to formally prove the "simplicity" of this idea, show the estimate costs associated, and have a well thought out plan (hmm, white paper?), it definitely isn't going anywhere... But, I'm sure this will go on and on. I just don't hear/see that many disasterous calls each year to justify a new system of replays. There's a lot of complaining about refs calls, but I'm not convinced that all those complaints are grounded with accurate knowledge of the rules.