Movement Towards Video Review

[Nathan Streeter]

I think 3 things should happen in regards to improving the accuracy of rule enforcement...

1. The GDC needs to develop rules that aren't based on subjective factors... things like intent and crossing boundaries that are hard to visualize. I think the GDC did well with the latter this year (boundaries pretty much all were based on contact with carpet, which is easier), but we all know some rules just require too much judgment of intent... looking at you, G24. I think G28 and G43 are pretty good examples of rules that take the judgment of intent out of the rule... I'd like to see a rule that describes what contact can make a flip (G24) result in a red card. Clearly if a robot tips themselves over, G24 is irrelevant, but some robots every year are tippy enough (at least when they have a tall elevator or arm up) that even ordinarily fair contact can unintentionally result in a tip. I've proposed using bumper-to-bumper contact as the deciding factor. If a robot can be tipped from only bumper-to-bumper contact, G24 shouldn't be relevant. I could see it reading like:

Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping or entanglements are not allowed. Destruction or inhibition is not considered strategic if it results exclusively from contact between ROBOT BUMPERS.

Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy, RED CARD.

2. The Head, Head Referee (Aidan Brown) key FIRST HQ staff (i.e., Frank Merrick? GDC staff?) should be made aware of the tough calls and "controversies" at each event (and appropriate flowdown should occur afterward). If these aren't being consistently flowed up, there should be a process in place by which teams can submit their perspective of what happened and/or shouldn't have happened. Nothing should be done retroactively, but this is for future improvements... Each competition week at least the Head Referees volunteering that weekend (if not all Head Refs) should be made aware of how to call the controversial rules of the year (and how to handle the bizarre situations that sometimes result) as valuable case studies. I think this should help continuity significantly.

Related to this, the Aidan Brown, Frank Merrick and the GDC (or whoever is ultimately responsible for Head Ref training) should take special care to flow down a mindset to the Head Refs... if they want to accuracy and fairness to always be the top priority, then make that a top priority. If they want to minimize opening up and reviewing match decisions (reviewing calls, changing decisions, adjusting scores, etc.) for the sake of time or efficiency, then make that the top priority. Head Refs should know what should be prioritized above all else so that individuals are dealing less with the particular personality of the ref, and more with the policies standard across all events and matches.

3. Video Review should be implemented in clearly defined situations. I'd say ordinary fouls (called or not) shouldn't be reviewable. Yellow and Red Cards definitely should be reviewable. Scoring actions probably should be reviewable. Whatever the defined circumstances are, make them explicit. Also define the allowable time frame for review. Require that the teams be in the question box by X minutes (after arena reset signal? after scores are posted?) and define that if team supplied video is to be allowed (rather than event video only), it be submitted within a certain time window (perhaps in addition to the time to be in question box). Define if it is allowable for Qual matches and for Elim matches, or for one only. Give a single video review coupon per team for Quals and/or per alliance for Elims.

I think if implemented correctly, Video Review should actually take a lot of stress off referees... a lot of the time only a single zebra-ref is watching a play that is a critical, match-deciding call. Perhaps its a red/yellow card... with only one set of eyes and a situation that may have occurred quickly, that particular individual is under an enormous amount of pressure. When the refs huddle afterward to discuss, the only facts that they have available is usually a single account of a situation that happened in a matter of seconds. Its not an enviable situation, and if video review is implemented well, it can be dramatically minimized.

All-in-all, I do think the Head Refs and Refs do a tremendous job. They volunteer a lot of time and know they're in a position of which teams have tremendous expectations... They're a fantastic bunch whose dedication to fairness inspires the community to expect even more of them.