Poll-Video Replay

[GMeyer]

So a few days ago, this thread went up, about video replay. Another thread related to the subject has gone up since. As it so happens, patar8746 was not the first to raise the issue-it had come up sporadically before, and at least one person has sent a message to FIRST about it before that. I think that the "Video Review Needs To Happen Now" thread has brought to the surface a simmering debate. We will hear much more about it in coming days, and eventually, FIRST will address it.

At this early stage, though, I was interested in what people think on the subject. Therefore, I have created a poll to address the issue. If you so desire, feel free to debate in this thread.

[gblake]

LOLz
If I simply click "No", will I be chastised?
When I simply posted "No." in one of those other threads, I was given the stink-eye by a few folks.

Blake
PS: Clear (1976) evidence that imagery doesn't lie.
What are Dave Lavery's rovers really doing up there???

[Richard Wallace]

I like the idea Ryan and others have been floating, to try video review at off-season events before allowing it at official FRC events. I believe there will be significant learning, development, and training required to make this work.

As EricH observed recently, red/yellow cards were only introduced to FRC events in 2010, after several years of use at IRI.

So I voted no, for now. I would like to see this implemented when the bugs are (mostly) worked out.

----------

P.S. Can we have another thread for Pole-Video Replay? I'd like to see a few matches from the DS-mounted, R94 legal-height pole POV.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

I don't think the issue is as binary as yes/no.

I think there SHOULD be some form of system in place outside of "sorry kid, that's what I saw", but there should be rules!

Like in the MLB how managers now get 1 or 2 challenges per game, or NFL coaches get x amount of challenges per game, FRC teams should get 1 challenge per event. You challenge correctly, you keep it. You challenge incorrectly, you lose it. You could even print out challenge coupons and have teams turn them in at the [?] box. Reset challenges for playoffs with Alliance Challenges, which are handed out along with the timeout and replacement robot coupons.

If done right, it wouldn't interfere with gameplay, and would divert pressure and misplaced anger away from the refs.

[Tyler_Kaplan]

I think that it should only be allowed in eliminations. I also think that setting in up with a system like other sports. For example, you can ask refs to look at a video replay (basically challenging the call on the field) and if the challenge was successful then you move on with the competition. If it was not, then a small penalty like loss of a timeout or a small point penalty. I think it works well in the NFL, and although not perfect, I think it has the opportunity to add more positive aspects than negative.

[SpaceBiz]

I think using it in quals might take too much time for what it's worth, but that's just me. I like zebra's idea of a challenge coupon for elims though. There should definitely be a point penalty for getting the challenge wrong but it should be applied in the next match. Otherwise, every elims would have 7 to 8 challenges.

[New Lightning]

I agree with the idea that it should be instituted on a trial basis at off-season events. I think that since there is more lee way on the rules at these events that implementing it wouldn't be impossible and might even lead to more excitement and audience interest in what is going on on the field. With this game there has been less trouble getting audience interest in the game because they have an impact on how it is being played with the audience selected defense. But other games, and especially last year there have been games that have been pretty boring to watch. Allowing video reviews could bring so much needed excitement to these very unentertaining games.

[Moskowapplepi]

Originally Posted by Tyler_Kaplan

I think that it should only be allowed in eliminations. I also think that setting in up with a system like other sports. For example, you can ask refs to look at a video replay (basically challenging the call on the field) and if the challenge was successful then you move on with the competition. If it was not, then a small penalty like loss of a timeout or a small point penalty. I think it works well in the NFL, and although not perfect, I think it has the opportunity to add more positive aspects than negative.

But in football you have three timeouts so it effects you less than it would in first. After any challenge where it was a close call there is one side entirely unhappy with the outcome to the point where fans will yell at the tv or refs. The system now is bad but wait until a freshman is screaming at your drive coach to throw the challenge flag over 3 points not awarded.

[Michael Corsetto]

I voted "no" because this isn't a professional sport and I'd rather not see officiating become the focal point of FIRST events.

1678 has been on both sides of controversial calls, at some point you just need to live and let live.

Maybe I'm just an old, crotchety FIRSTer who reminisces over the "good ole days"...?

Who am I kidding, FIRST is so much cooler now than it was when I was a youngin'!

-Mike

[Pat Fairbank]

I voted "no" because the solution I would rather see is for the GDC to design games in which there are fewer fouls that can be committed, in which fouls are blatantly obvious, and that are generally less burdensome on the referees. Too often, I feel the answer to "But we don't want teams to do X" is "Well, let's make it a foul then" instead of "Let's incentivize teams to do Y over X".

I know the VEX Robotics Competition manages to do this (offenses are either DQs, which are rare, or nothing); I'd think this approach to game design could scale at least partially to FRC.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I voted "no" for the exact same reasons as Mike and Pat as well as another.

We can barely get robots to connect to the field. FTAs are already overworked and under appreciated. I don't think we need another piece of technology on the field to fail at the least opportune time.

[alephzer0]

I'm still in favor of adding official scorers whose sole job is to track crossings.

On a completely unrelated note, someone needs to make an emoji of a guy putting two cents in a jar.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

I like the idea Ryan and others have been floating,

<snip>

So I voted no, for now. I would like to see this implemented when the bugs are (mostly) worked out.

Same reasoning for me, but I vote yes to show my support.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

We can barely get robots to connect to the field. FTAs are already overworked and under appreciated. I don't think we need another piece of technology on the field to fail at the least opportune time.

I would suggest that if the field replay is unavailable due to a technical glitch, all replay requests are automatically deemed "insufficient evidence" and handled appropriately. If the FTA doesn't bother to make it available, we penalize whoever forgot to put 25 hours in the day.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would suggest that if the field replay is unavailable due to a technical glitch, all replay requests are automatically deemed "insufficient evidence" and handled appropriately. If the FTA doesn't bother to make it available, we penalize whoever forgot to put 25 hours in the day.

Then we'll start seeing threads like "Back-up Video Review System Needs to Happen Now"

-Mike