Video Review Needs to Happen Now

[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.

[waialua359]

tl;dr.

I am a full supporter of video review.
If matches/events take longer as a result, then let it go longer.
I can see where subjective calls not being reviewed is fine.
But for missed calls such as breaching defenses in 2016, definitely could have used some video review.

I cant see anyone arguing or being upset, if a call was overturned to get it right, where an alliance ends up losing a match instead of winning. Getting a right call trumps that.

[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.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

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 ).

(First - /agree with the earlier comments about not necessarily causing a delay but...)

This is basically a thought exercise, but if you ignore team sizes for a moment, which is more de-inspirational, potentially ending your season on a bad call, or having to leave the event that's run late a few minutes early?

Another thought here is that wouldn't Gracious Professionalism suggest that a short delay, if needed, to get the call correct, be the right thing to do?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by bdaroz

...
Another thought here is that wouldn't Gracious Professionalism suggest that a short delay, if needed, to get the call correct, be the right thing to do?

Follow the rules.

Encourage or discourage FIRST to change the rules from one season to the next, but once they are established, follow them.

[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.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by gblake

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.

My definition of 'it' is what I already posted in this thread on what we will be using at GRC in October. Link in case you need to go read it again -

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...2&postcount=49

[GaryVoshol]

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.

This presumes every game has a long reset period and robots take a long time to sync up. Sure, if that's the case, then there could be time for a review. I know I've spent many a reset period minute discussing situations with students in the question box.

But really, shouldn't we be looking to make matches run quicker, with less down time?

[Lil' Lavery]

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.

The argument regarding additional time is not centered around the time to conduct the video review (hopefully there is a definite time cap on that), but rather the fact that blown calls lead to replayed matches. A single replay at a single event that did not change the outcome of a match does not change that factor in the least.