Video Review Needs to Happen Now

[Tristan Lall]

Not much has changed in 11 years. People are still basically arguing that because it is impractical to have a perfect replay system, every replay system is detrimental or infeasible. But the point isn't to be perfect; the point is to be better.

Part of the process of implementing a replay system is establishing the rules for its use. If you're concerned that too many replays will slow down a regional, then limit the number of replays and the circumstances in which replays are available to teams. Maybe every team can have one replay in the qualifying matches, and one in the eliminations, and all the alliance partners have to spend their replays together. I would postulate that much of the benefit of a replay system is to give everyone the certainty that it's there in the rare occasions where it would clearly be beneficial—but making replays artificially scarce conveys the strong implication that they should be used wisely, and would put a tight cap on the likely quantity of delay. Obviously a good technical implementation would also serve to control delay.

Maybe a given replay scheme wouldn't address the rare situation where the referees are so terrible or overworked that nearly every match is questionable. But it would start to address the far likelier scenario that a team feels bad about an entire event (and perhaps the competition in general) because one major, game-changing call was blown. And even if the replay footage was inconclusive, the act of a review will serve to placate the team. Something was done, so it can't be as easily argued that the team is being ignored. And the team and the referee have an explicit common frame of reference to guide the conversation—even if the challenge is unsuccessful, that will cut down on speculation about motive or competence. In this way, the referees appear deferential instead of capricious (without compromising their authority), and it therefore makes the competition appear more credible.

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Side note: If you have never volunteered as a referee, you got nothing to say.

I can't get behind that. Referees know that they're subject to scrutiny, and should expect commentary substantiated by fact. And competitors should not be made to feel like they're not welcome to contribute their assessments of the problem—because obviously it's they, and not the referees, that are most affected by officiating errors.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'm going to leave it at this. Find me one example of a student who changed career paths because of a blown call in a FIRST match.

This is clearly an unreasonable way of looking at the problem. What if the effect was subtle or not yet realized (e.g. the student doesn't rejoin the team the next year, and instead joins the chemistry club, which might, in a couple years, lead them to get a degree in science not engineering)? How would you propose to find such a student, given that this probably isn't a metric that anyone tracks?

[patar8746]

Tristan's second link contained this Gem http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=15 but also both threads made me realize there's a problem: People have actually been saying the same things we are on this thread for over a decade. Anyone from FIRST know what's causing the decision to be made against video review?

[PayneTrain]

I love the FIRST Robotics Competition. Some people say "Wil, you complain a lot about FRC, why do you do something you obviously hate?" This is a program that has entirely enraptured me and to the chagrin of other obvious high priorities, I put a lot of time into my team. I know a lot of people put a lot of time into their teams as well. Don't we all want FIRST, an organization that by its very nature must always be sprinting forward instead of dragging its feet, to constantly be improving and tweaking the status quo to make the program better?

Some disagreements lie in both parties wanting to make the organization better in fundamentally different ways (2 champs), some disagreements lie in two parties wanting some change but have differences in methods (Chairman's feedback). The worst ones, and the ones that get me really fired up, are ones where under an almost instinctive impetus to make a change, the controlling party wants to actively fight against the change (Cali districts).

I think piloting a replay system at an event like IRI and other offseasons should lead FRC down the path to pilot it throughout the season in certain regions or globally, and see if it works by 2champs.

Raise your hand if you think missed calls are not a buzzkill and something no one ever feels bad about.

Stand and be counted if you think field disconnects make FRC better.

Shout from the high horse on which you ride, proclaiming "yes, I love to be in a program that says 'No! We cannot come up with any way of improving a problem that has existed for years! There is not even a problem! Scorekeeping errors enable teams, not disable them!"

I know who some of you are, I just want to see how this line of thinking will be swiftly dragged into the mud. FIRST can be all things to all people. It can be a program that transforms people of all ages and backgrounds. It can always be better.

[Briansmithtown]

Heres my input on this...

Back in 2014, out last match (match 90) at NYC was.... horrible to say the least. 2 of out alliances failed in the first 3 seconds, and we were the only running robot (you would not want to hear the anger that was behind the alliance wall) During the match, we pushed an opponent bot into our ball, and the ball scored low goal... that caused mass confusion with the field crew... 14 seconds later, we finally got the ball, and we have video of it taking that long... now this is where i flip the table. No, there should not be video reviewing, and you should just accept the results. BUT if there were video reviewing, the rule should be that you get one per regional/district. Now why one? Because there is simply no time. Especially this year when the field reset crew has a lot to do. Yes, me and my team were angry with the results, and did it help make us lose? Sure it did. But over time you just learn to take one on the chin, raise your head up high, and be the better man. You can sorta turn it into a life lesson if you want, by saying its like the real world where a mistake happens, and it doest work out for you at all, but you learn to deal with it and just keep moving on. Because trust me, there have been plenty of times where I wish I could show video and get things right, but you simply just can't. Thats a FIRST lesson.

[VacioArconte]

While it has its merits, I think that a full video replay system is only going to be yet another stressor placed on event organizers, referees and FIRST.

Initially I was thinking: Why not just change the current rule? Often, teams go to the question box with a complaint about the way a foul was called or match was scored, and they try to argue their case without video evidence. If teams that go to the question box could simply provide the replay of the exact moment of the missed call, would it be too unreasonable for the refs to use that as evidence to overturn a call?

But this only introduces the potential for more delays. The Alamo Regional was a full 2 hours behind schedule, and lord knows how much more time would be lost scrutinizing every detail of a match just played.

One other (smaller) factor: video replay of every match would mean that scores would be delayed 2-3 minutes after a match. I can't see that being well-received by the audience

[patar8746]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

...Don't we all want FIRST, an organization that by its very nature must always be sprinting forward instead of dragging its feet, to constantly be improving and tweaking the status quo to make the program better?

Some disagreements lie in both parties wanting to make the organization better in fundamentally different ways (2 champs), some disagreements lie in two parties wanting some change but have differences in methods (Chairman's feedback). The worst ones, and the ones that get me really fired up, are ones where under an almost instinctive impetus to make a change, the controlling party wants to actively fight against the change (Cali districts).

I think piloting a replay system at an event like IRI and other offseasons should lead FRC down the path to pilot it throughout the season in certain regions or globally, and see if it works by 2champs.

Raise your hand if you think missed calls are not a buzzkill and something no one ever feels bad about.

Stand and be counted if you think field disconnects make FRC better.

Shout from the high horse on which you ride, proclaiming "yes, I love to be in a program that says 'No! We cannot come up with any way of improving a problem that has existed for years! There is not even a problem! Scorekeeping errors enable teams, not disable them!"

I know who some of you are, I just want to see how this line of thinking will be swiftly dragged into the mud. FIRST can be all things to all people. It can be a program that transforms people of all ages and backgrounds. It can always be better.

Well said. We all know no one will stand for those reasons when put the right way. FIRST is about more than the robot, its about inspiring students and always becoming better, whether it be robot capability, gracious professionalism, or running of the competition itself.

Originally Posted by Briansmithtown

Heres my input on this...

Back in 2014, out last match (match 90) at NYC was.... horrible to say the least. 2 of out alliances failed in the first 3 seconds, and we were the only running robot (you would not want to hear the anger that was behind the alliance wall) During the match, we pushed an opponent bot into our ball, and the ball scored low goal... that caused mass confusion with the field crew... 14 seconds later, we finally got the ball, and we have video of it taking that long... now this is where i flip the table. No, there should not be video reviewing, and you should just accept the results. BUT if there were video reviewing, the rule should be that you get one per regional/district. Now why one? Because there is simply no time. Especially this year when the field reset crew has a lot to do. Yes, me and my team were angry with the results, and did it help make us lose? Sure it did. But over time you just learn to take one on the chin, raise your head up high, and be the better man. You can sorta turn it into a life lesson if you want, by saying its like the real world where a mistake happens, and it doest work out for you at all, but you learn to deal with it and just keep moving on. Because trust me, there have been plenty of times where I wish I could show video and get things right, but you simply just can't. Thats a FIRST lesson.

That to me is a lesson in just giving up. Do we want our future engineers to accept defeat when they fail? No, that is not a FIRST lesson. You wished you could show a video, what if you could? We identified a problem, and are working to solve it. Being the better man is not giving up, though solid GP for not getting mad, but while part of being the better man is accepting what you can't change, the other part that is just as important is working at the things you CAN. We can't change results from past regionals but we can do our part to stop it from happening again by implementing a review system. This was never about complaining about the past. Over time, things do get better, often teams get another shot, but there are plenty of Seniors that dont get another chance. You say it can't happen but don't say why. How about you help us try? I'd love to be proven wrong, but at least give it a chance.

See earlier posts concerning the time issues, and proposals have already been made regarding limiting challenges and I fully agree, though I'd like to allow teams to continue to challenge if they get the call right. Losing your ability to challenge for being wrong would be a HUGE incentive for teams to not overuse that option, eliminating time problems resulting from too many reviews.

Originally Posted by VacioArconte

While it has its merits, I think that a full video replay system is only going to be yet another stressor placed on event organizers, referees and FIRST...

...The Alamo Regional was a full 2 hours behind schedule, and lord knows how much more time would be lost scrutinizing every detail of a match just played.

One other (smaller) factor: video replay of every match would mean that scores would be delayed 2-3 minutes after a match. I can't see that being well-received by the audience

Again, video replays would only be called upon in contested situations, and incentives can easily be provided to make sure this privilege is not abused (described above).

Also, whether you're for or against replays, I think we should all work together to test ideas at offseason events. How else can we say with any sort of confidence which option is better? Contact your local offseason coordinators to see how you can help get this together, I know I will.

[Briansmithtown]

Originally Posted by patar8746

Well said. We all know no one will stand for those reasons when put the right way. FIRST is about more than the robot, its about inspiring students and always becoming better, whether it be robot capability, gracious professionalism, or running of the competition itself.





That to me is a lesson in just giving up. Do we want our future engineers to accept defeat when they fail? No, that is not a FIRST lesson. You wished you could show a video, what if you could? We identified a problem, and are working to solve it. Being the better man is not giving up, though solid GP for not getting mad, but while part of being the better man is accepting what you can't change, the other part that is just as important is working at the things you CAN. We can't change results from past regionals but we can do our part to stop it from happening again by implementing a review system. This was never about complaining about the past. Over time, things do get better, often teams get another shot, but there are plenty of Seniors that dont get another chance. You say it can't happen but don't say why. How about you help us try? I'd love to be proven wrong, but at least give it a chance.

See earlier posts concerning the time issues, and proposals have already been made regarding limiting challenges and I fully agree, though I'd like to allow teams to continue to challenge if they get the call right. Losing your ability to challenge for being wrong would be a HUGE incentive for teams to not overuse that option, eliminating time problems resulting from too many reviews.







Again, video replays would only be called upon in contested situations, and incentives can easily be provided to make sure this privilege is not abused (described above).

Also, whether you're for or against replays, I think we should all work together to test ideas at offseason events. How else can we say with any sort of confidence which option is better? Contact your local offseason coordinators to see how you can help get this together, I know I will.

It's not a lesson of giving up, it's a lesson knowing that you've been beaten. Would I have liked their to be a rematch for my last match? Sure. Would video helped? Definitely. Definitely after an extremely rough build season where teams most likely would've folded... And it was my last year too. You're not the first team to feel like there must be video review, and you won't be the last. It's something you have to deal with. And it wouldn't matter now anyway, because it's over, and here's no going back.