MAR Competitions

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Unless I really hit my head hard, didn't we have scorekeepers hold a plunger in 2015 after we needed them in 2014? I guess you could say that the scoring was far less subjective in 2015 than 2014 for assist points, but wouldn't we say that crossing a defense is pretty cut and dry?

Just like Aerial Assist, I like the core game mechanics and I understand it can't be automated, but it seems like ease in the administration of points was left by the wayside after it was an obvious lesson learned from 2014-2015.

It's incredibly hard to justify blaming a person for what is pretty obviously a systemic issue.

It actually COULD be automated. Robot RFID chips and field based readers could actually provide fairly precise location data. I know Zondag did some research and he found something stupid accurate. But this conversation was years ago and I don't remember the number. So we could absolutely track where teams are and automate transitions.

Originally Posted by Carl_the_Llama

Video replays would definitely be useful for playoff rounds. Yes it would take up time but the competitions are usually behind schedule anyway. The 2014 Mt Olive competition is a fantastic example. The winning team committed a tech foul that would've lost the competition for them. Someone had the match recorded and found the tech foul and went to bring it to the judges, but they didn't accept it as evidence.

Pet Peeve - JUDGES are not Refs. Refs, or Zebras as we sometimes call them, are responsible for rulings on the field. Judges generally have no clue what the rules of the game are (seriously, it's a 10 minute primer or so... less if the coffee hasn't arrived yet) Refs seem to have more spatial and temporal awareness than Judges too as I've yet to see a head ref have to spend 15 minutes of opening ceremonies frantically searching for their refs. I'm open to donations of bells [1]

And oh god no, no instant replay, no video review. That will make the events drag on. Think match turn times are bad now? Add in 6 teams all with videos of "calls" the refs "missed". Yeah, events would need to be 2 weeks long.





[1] Which, yes, I will make the judges wear at Boston if someone donates enough bells. I threatened funny hats last year.

[TylerS]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

And oh god no, no instant replay, no video review. That will make the events drag on. Think match turn times are bad now? Add in 6 teams all with videos of "calls" the refs "missed". Yeah, events would need to be 2 weeks long.

That's unfair to say imo. If it's done in an intelligent manner similar to timeouts, where it's only available in eliminations, then I see no reason why it could not be made feasible.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

It actually COULD be automated. Robot RFID chips and field based readers could actually provide fairly precise location data. I know Zondag did some research and he found something stupid accurate. But this conversation was years ago and I don't remember the number. So we could absolutely track where teams are and automate transitions.

I know NASCAR uses a stupid complex system that allows them to actually create a computer generated video of a race on demand. It's obviously not my field so I have no knowledge of feasible a stock solution or the general economies of scale would make it work in FRC. I guess I automatically didn't consider that level of automation happening in FRC after hot goals in 2014. That would be super dope to pull off, maybe making that a requirement of the next control system bid?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by TylerS

That's unfair to say imo. If it's done in an intelligent manner similar to timeouts, where it's only available in eliminations, then I see no reason why it could not be made feasible.

There are a myriad of technical reasons why it can't be done. But the biggest ones are time and money. Regionals are already running late, and as someone who has to help keep the whole show on it's rails, it's HARD. Add into that the camera gear the NFL uses for a game is probably a substantial portion of a regional budget. It's almost a non-starter. [1] Add into that we could avoid this whole issue by acknowledging that our refs are freaking human when planning how many volunteers we need and I don't know why it keeps coming up.

TL;DR - Add scorekeepers/more refs than you think you'll need. It's cheaper and easier.



[1] Oh but what about crowdsourcing! Shaky video from about a million feet away with digital zoom isn't gonna help clarify anything. And, to quote Gregory House, "Everybody lies!"

[TylerS]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

There are a myriad of technical reasons why it can't be done. But the biggest ones are time and money. Regionals are already running late, and as someone who has to help keep the whole show on it's rails, it's HARD. Add into that the camera gear the NFL uses for a game is probably a substantial portion of a regional budget. It's almost a non-starter. [1] Add into that we could avoid this whole issue by acknowledging that our refs are freaking human when planning how many volunteers we need and I don't know why it keeps coming up.

TL;DR - Add scorekeepers/more refs than you think you'll need. It's cheaper and easier.



[1] Oh but what about crowdsourcing! Shaky video from about a million feet away with digital zoom isn't gonna help clarify anything. And, to quote Gregory House, "Everybody lies!"

I think you're making a completely unfair comparison with the NFL. Considering our field is much smaller and at many events the AV crew is already taking in multiple angles. It could be done well and not be prohibitively expensive if it was deemed high enough priority.

I think it's important for FIRST to give events all the tools capable to make consistent and fair calls especially when it's down to deciding the winner of the event. And just throwing more refs and scorekeepers in there is not the solution in my opinion because sometimes it's just too hard to tell from a field-side position what is going on.

But I digress FIRST has other problems and if I had to choose my top 3 things for them to fix this likely would not be one of them.

[Fusion_Clint]

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right.

Why would we ask so many people to spend so much of their life toward an endeavor and then say it isn't worth it to make sure the correct teams won?

I get that FIRST takes up a lot of time, I have 5 FTC teams, 1 FRC Team and a Lemelson-MIT InvenTeam.

If you are going to do it, do it right, the first time. I see no reason a video review could not be implemented like the timeout's in the playoffs.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by TylerS

I think you're making a completely unfair comparison with the NFL. Considering our field is much smaller and at many events the AV crew is already taking in multiple angles. It could be done well and not be prohibitively expensive if it was deemed high enough priority.

Define "well". Let me put it this way:

Can your camera system tell with 100% certainty that a robot's bumper was or was not across a defense when it stopped at the end of its crossing, reversed, went back through, and then moved back again? How about whether the robot is in contact with a defense?

Can a referee's eyes?

Now, I'm willing to admit that maybe a referee's eyes miss things--that's why there are multiple referees. I'm not willing to admit that the best camera system can pick up those details, PARTICULARLY with the angles generally used by the A/V crew. Full-field camera from 100 yards picking up that bumper, or the scale being high enough? Yeah. Right. 'Bout that. There are half a dozen referees around the field. Guess how many of them are working to make sure you're getting the points? (Would you believe... half a dozen?)


By the way, one note about the crossings this year: Per the Manual, in one of the blue boxes, referees are specifically instructed to NOT award Crossing points if they doubt that the Crossing happened.


Now, I've heard refs in the past state that if video replay were allowed/a part of the game, they'd quit. No joke. Guess what, it's hard enough getting refs to volunteer.

[D_Price]

I concur Don!

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

OK, so Carl, Aashay and whitetail need to confirm they've signed up in VIMS for an event, right? Until then, I don't want to hear your whining.

While volunteering and mentoring I understand, in a stressful situation people let the best of their emotions get to them but please please for one day step into those VOLUNTEER shoes. They are human as is ourselves and will make mistakes, not on purpose but on our instincts.

[Gdeaver]

HH was under extreme pressure from the time constraints caused by field failures. The complaint is that defense crossings were missed several times. The question should be how does this happen. Is it scoring platform related or human just didn't see it. This happened at other events and they took action to correct it. In total the subjective calls for penalties in my opinion were very, very good. So look to why it happened. Is there a problem that refs have? Can anything be done going forward. For a fast pace game the refs in general were very good.

[alephzer0]

Some good food for thought that's semi-relevant: this post by IndieFan.
Also, just one thing to add (I hope nobody said it already because I don't work for the U.S. Redundancy Dept. of Redundancy)--I'm almost positive that MAR isn't the only area of FIRST experiencing scoring errors and other week 1 kinks. So to the OP: why did you title this thread as if it were?

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Carl_the_Llama

Exactly. I noticed that 1640 and 2559 were cheated out of points for crossing outerworks. As well as 2559 being e-stopped for having a torn bumper. What are torn cloth and pool noodles going to do to a field or robot that a 120 pound robot wont do?

Teams that I was with this weekend, including my own, used our human player/spy to keep track of the lights for crossing. If our students saw that lights weren't lit, they signaled the drive team to go again to make sure the crossing was seen

Is this ideal? No.
Is this a solution? Yes.
Is this something you can do yourself? Yes.

By the way, if you're going to talk trash, at least do it with your team name and number showing. Don't be a coward about it.

MAR definitely has ref issues, and they've been around for years (specific people have been around for years yet make the same mistakes as ever), but if you're going to make that assertion, do it with your name and number associated with it like many of us have done in the past.

.

[Macktack]

I have been involved in FIRST for a very long time now and I have been a volunteer for many years as well as hosted FRC FLL and Jr.FLL events at my school so I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on behind the curtain. First off, Id like to say that I know all the head refs for MAR, and most of the regular refs as well, and they are all absolutely amazing people. I would trust them with almost anything. While I do agree that the current system of refing is flawed, I would not put all the blame on these people. The problem with FRC refing is that they have very little opportunity to do "what is morally correct" because they are bound by the strict rules given by FIRST. This is very unfortunate and I think that the solution to the problem should start with giving refs a little more opportunity to do what is morally correct regardless of what is written in the rules. Second, I find it to be quite frankly stupid to have a system where you have 6 refs and 6 robots but each ref is supposed to watch more than one robot at a time. As far as I know, there isnt much going on on the field unless there is a robot involved, which begs the question, why isnt each ref assigned one of the six robots to watch for that match? I have been asking myself and others this question for years and I have yet to hear a strong argument for why this wouldnt work. I understand that refs are volunteers and that they need to rest but I really dont think it would be hard to fine one or two more people that could ref so that you could have a total of six refs on the field for each match. So now that I have said that, please tell me that I am not an adult, tell me that I dont know what the time commitment is, tell me that humans get things wrong sometimes, I can handle it. Just keep in mind that I am an adult, I have been the first one in and the last one out (because I get a ride with the guy who has the keys), and I work 18 hours a day seven days a week for the entire summer so I understand what time commitment is.

[Jessi Kaestle]

Originally Posted by Macktack

Second, I find it to be quite frankly stupid to have a system where you have 6 refs and 6 robots but each ref is supposed to watch more than one robot at a time. As far as I know, there isnt much going on on the field unless there is a robot involved, which begs the question, why isnt each ref assigned one of the six robots to watch for that match? I have been asking myself and others this question for years and I have yet to hear a strong argument for why this wouldnt work.

The main reason that I can think of that this isn't done is that the robots are going all over the field and you can not always see with great clarity what is happening in the opposite corner. Normally they have one ref per quadrant plus the head ref, then in the more complex years, like this one, they add a 5th ref to help watch a specific part of the field that is likely to get a lot of action.

The one thing I will say with everyone coming out and attacking the ref's is that you need to remember that your vantage point is different than theirs and that the rules state that if a ref is unsure they should NOT award the cross. This comes in to play most for the sally port and for the robots that cross "just enough" then back-up to cross again.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Macktack

The problem with FRC refing is that they have very little opportunity to do "what is morally correct" because they are bound by the strict rules given by FIRST. This is very unfortunate and I think that the solution to the problem should start with giving refs a little more opportunity to do what is morally correct regardless of what is written in the rules.

Except that this is a slippery slope. This only breeds more inconsistencies across events & does more harm than good.

[cbale2000]

As someone who runs the A/V system at a district in Michigan, I can say that while video replay would be plausible, as it currently stands it would not be practical. Firstly, while A/V systems at some events have multiple camera angles, only the camera angle that the audience/livestream sees are actually being recorded. Secondly, some events record the entire day as a single file and break up the match recordings later, this would make it extremely impractical to replay the video from a single match as you would have to stop the recording and then seek to the exact 2 minute window on a 5+ hour long video that you needed.

Don't get me wrong, this is something I would like to see available at some point (maybe even having a separate recording/caching system that makes the previous match immediately available to the refs to review), but the systems we use now would be problematic to use for a feature like this.


On a side note, this thread is one of the main reasons (along with field delays) that my team avoids week 1 (and, to a lesser extent, week 2) events at all costs. We've been burned by way too many field coms issues, inexperienced refs, or match delays in the past at early events, starting week 3 or later makes much more sense IMO as most of the bugs have been worked out by then. Someone else can be the guinea pigs.