Video Review Needs to Happen Now

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by gblake

Folks,

Now that the summer of 2016 is almost over, does anyone want to report any new (previously unreported) results of experimenting with video replay ("hard" data or anecdotes) during off-season tournaments/scrimmages?

What about any non-tournament / non-scrimmage experiments to determine numbers of cameras needed for good results (for Stronghold), or best camera locations (for Stronghold), or minimum useful frame rates (for fast robots and game pieces), or estimated time needed to accurately review each/any protested ruling (for Stronghold (for each rule and/or scoring event)) or ...

Blake

I would ask again in the fall. Most offseasons happen in the spring or fall; relatively few in the summer.

While I think nobody can expect perfect camera coverage of the field, even a single full field view results in some things being reviewable. If someone tries to get a review and there isn't clear video, the outcome doesn't change and the situation is no worse than having no video review at all.

I feel like a "it has to be perfect or it isn't worth doing at all" attitude here will really hold people back from experimenting with this.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

. If someone tries to get a review and there isn't clear video, the outcome doesn't change and the situation is no worse than having no video review at all.
.

Other than the additional time wasted.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Other than the additional time wasted.

During the time the video review is happening. Pre match things can be going on. Ie connecting robots, and reseting the field. I can't see very much time wasted at all unless the system to replay matches is not working at all.

Besides I would rather spend 30 minutes longer at ever Frc event then see anyone leave an event how MY team did this year. (go look at the start of the thread my team was on that alliance). If there was video review we would have atleast been semi finalists. But, being our alliance set a higher score then that semi finals alliance there was a good chance if video review existed we could have been finalists. I have thought through every scenario I could have done to make the outcome different. Design choices, driving choices, repair choices, ect. But the bottom line is our season ended because of a bad ref call. I don't fault the refs. This game was ridiculously hard to referee. But, the fact of the situation is still there.

Video review would help the teams, and help the refs. It doesn't cost that much to implement and maybe it can be integrated into an frc dedicated livestream setup. Which would be a huge win.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

...
Video review would help the teams, and help the refs. It doesn't cost that much to implement and maybe it can be integrated into an frc dedicated livestream setup. Which would be a huge win.

In what well-designed experiments has this been qauntified?

Originally Posted by gblake

... leave endless cycles of hand-waving behind.
...
Well designed experiments are exactly what this topic needs.

Without proof that the net effect (the entire gestalt) will be better (in some well-defined sense) outcomes, both you and I are just announcing our opinions while figuratively waving our hands in the air.

Blake

[Hitchhiker 42]

I think that one of the biggest things we always need to keep in mind is the goal of FIRST and FRC. What are we really trying to achieve? Inspiration.

The next question we have to ask is "Is it really worth it to implement video review systems, or will the goal of inspiration* be just as attainable even with the few (and far between) errors of the ref?"

*Yes I understand that having teams' hard work recognized plays a part in this. That's why this is a question, not a statement.

[Tyler Olds]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

"Is it really worth it to implement video review systems, or will the goal of inspiration* be just as attainable even with the few (and far between) errors of the ref?"

The term inspiration is very subjective and to me having a higher percentage of calls correct is much more inspiring.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

I think that one of the biggest things we always need to keep in mind is the goal of FIRST and FRC. What are we really trying to achieve? Inspiration.

I think the point trying to be made is video replay may not be inspiring, on it's own, but it's a tool to prevent the kids from getting discouraged by bad calls. Thus it's a net positive to inspiration overall.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by Tyler Olds

The term inspiration is very subjective and to me having a higher percentage of calls correct is much more inspiring.

Originally Posted by bdaroz

I think the point trying to be made is video replay may not be inspiring, on it's own, but it's a tool to prevent the kids from getting discouraged by bad calls. Thus it's a net positive to inspiration overall.

I definitly agree with you both. My question is whether this (however amount) increase in inspiration is worth the longer waits, and possible teams leaving to prior awards, which, in my mind, decreases inspiration to those members (trying to quantify an unquantifiable thing ).

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

I definitly agree with you both. My question is whether this (however amount) increase in inspiration is worth the longer waits, and possible teams leaving to prior awards, which, in my mind, decreases inspiration to those members (trying to quantify an unquantifiable thing ).

The one example of video replay so far at TRI literally happened during the setup for the next match and didn't hold up the match at all.

The argument saying time would be wasted is a bad one because it can be done so quickly that very little time is wasted.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

The one example of video replay so far at TRI literally happened during the setup for the next match and didn't hold up the match at all.

The argument saying time would be wasted is a bad one because it can be done so quickly that very little time is wasted.

Fair enough. All I'm saying is that benefits/costs should be weighed carefully. If it takes up little extra time and allows better calls, I'm all for it.

[bigbeezy]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

The one example of video replay so far at TRI literally happened during the setup for the next match and didn't hold up the match at all.

The argument saying time would be wasted is a bad one because it can be done so quickly that very little time is wasted.

Can you elaborate on what happened? What was the call on the field/what was the challenge?

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by bigbeezy

Can you elaborate on what happened? What was the call on the field/what was the challenge?

More info here: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...=146411&page=2

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

...
The argument saying time would be wasted is a bad one because it can be done so quickly that very little time is wasted.

Given all the opinions (so far) about what Video Review should or shouldn't be, the word "it" in this sentence is very poorly defined.

For that reason, still color me undecided.

YMMV.

Blake

[s_forbes]

I like the concept of video reviews being used to make sure the correct call is made, using technology to make the competition better seems like a very FIRSTish thing to do. We have loads of regionals, maybe FIRST could do a trial run at a few and see how it turns out?

One potential downside is that there might be more people in the front rows waving their iPads in the air. If that's a sacrifice we'd have to make, then I don't wanna do it.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

One potential downside is that there might be more people in the front rows waving their iPads in the air. If that's a sacrifice we'd have to make, then I don't wanna do it.

If there's video review at an event, it's gonna be from official cameras or camera stations. I don't see any other way to make it fair to the teams whose entire team + supporters are on drive vs the teams with 5 students and a mentor on video.

Honestly, if I was to do a replay--and this is what I'd be pitching to offseason events--I'd figure out where the most non-judgement calls* were going to be. For 2016, that's the Defenses (and possibly the Secret Passage). It'll vary by year. That's where any cameras get pointed, probably one per area. If whatever is being contested is in view, then it's review time. If not, you're right out of luck, better luck next time.

One other element that I'd be considering would be a case of "what if something else got missed?" My opinion would be that whatever gets caught on video but missed by the refs should be taken into account when determining if the outcome of the match was affected--and unless the outcome is ruled to be affected, the only thing that is reviewed is the original request.


*Defined as a call where, if it's seen, it happened, and there is no room for interpretation. Examples are non-judgement calls; Counter-Examples are judgement calls. Example, defense crossing. Example, two balls in the robot. Example, Secret Passage violation. Counter-Example, intentional tipping. Counter-Example, egregious behavior. Counter-Example, robot with ball bumps another ball out of the way or drives over it. Example, zone entry in 2014. You get the idea.