Video Review Needs to Happen Now

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

Has there been a ref offering an opinion on this? I don't want to see a mass exodus of refs over this.

If everyone can call for a match review, would you be expected to review the match for the 6 objections made every match?

The refs all take this very seriously. Let the refs do their job.

On the flip side, perhaps I should start wearing a body camera to work. That will make my day go easier !!!

The concern about 6 objections every match is unjustified. At TRI, only one objection was made the whole event. I think that teams will understand that asking for silly reviews is a waste of time for everyone, and will only ask when needed. Six objections in one match (not to mention, every match) is going to be very very rare.

[BrennanB]

Something to add that watching volleyball in the Olympics reminded me of. They have a review system for balls being in/out. And you have as many challenges as you wish as long as your claim isn't proven to be incorrect.

Perhaps a system could be implemented so that all teams get as many vid reviews as they wish until a claim they have made is denied and thus lose the privilege to contest via video review.

To me this is a win win. Discourages claims without certainty, and if a team has two or more valid issues, they aren't punished for it.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Something to add that watching volleyball in the Olympics reminded me of. They have a review system for balls being in/out. And you have as many challenges as you wish as long as your claim isn't proven to be incorrect.

Perhaps a system could be implemented so that all teams get as many vid reviews as they wish until a claim they have made is denied and thus lose the privilege to contest via video review.

To me this is a win win. Discourages claims without certainty, and if a team has two or more valid issues, they aren't punished for it.

I think a reasonable set or rules regarding number of challenges could be:

• For the entire Qualification match schedule, each TEAM gets one unsuccessful CHALLENGE. For an ALLIANCE to issue a CHALLENGE, all 3 TEAMS on the ALLIANCE must have their CHALLENGE remaining, and all must agree to issue a CHALLENGE. If a CHALLENGE is successful, all TEAMS keep their CHALLENGE. If a CHALLENGE is unsuccessful, all TEAMS lose their CHALLENGE for the remainder of the Qualification MATCH schedule. If a TEAM still has their CHALLENGE at the end of the Qualification MATCH schedule, it does not carry over to the Elimination tournament. For a CHALLENGE to be successful, the ranking points awarded at the end of the MATCH must change as a result of review.
• In the Elimination tournament (except for Final MATCHES), each ALLIANCE gets one unsuccessful CHALLENGE. The ALLIANCE CAPTAIN determines when to issue a CHALLENGE. If a CHALLENGE is successful, the ALLIANCE keeps its CHALLENGE. If a CHALLENGE is unsuccessful, the ALLIANCE loses its CHALLENGE for the remainder of the Elimination tournament. For a CHALLENGE to be successful, the winner of the MATCH must change as a result of the review.
• All non-judgement calls in Finals and Einstein MATCHES are reviewed automatically during the ensuing FIELD TIMEOUT.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

• For a CHALLENGE to be successful, the ranking points awarded at the end of the MATCH must change as a result of review.

I don't know if I'd go this far. This would require teams to calculate in their own heads (or calculators) what the new score would be and if it would swing the game. I think this would just waste more time, and it'd be easier to just say points instead of ranking points.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

I don't know if I'd go this far. This would require teams to calculate in their own heads (or calculators) what the new score would be and if it would swing the game. I think this would just waste more time, and it'd be easier to just say points instead of ranking points.

If the score is 100-45, the losing alliance challenging to get an extra 5 or 10 points is a waste of time (assuming total score is not part of the ranking system). I think requiring the review have an effect outside of just the match is not unreasonable.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

If the score is 100-45, the losing alliance challenging to get an extra 5 or 10 points is a waste of time (assuming total score is not part of the ranking system). I think requiring the review have an effect outside of just the match is not unreasonable.

I agree on that. Anything from missing one breach ranking point on up is reasonable. If total score is part of the ranking system, that could be re-thought, but I'd suggest any score changes less than X amount (determined by the game and ranking, but let's call it one penalty of TBD type) would be unreviewable if the score differential was greater than 2X.

I disagree on the Finals being an automatic review, primarily because that means a minimum of 3 minutes where any refs involved aren't doing their between-match stuff (traffic control, overall monitoring), and also because if there's something tough in the Finals every ref is going to be in the huddle discussing the calls--we want to get the calls right the first time. What I'd do instead would be to reset challenges (I'm in favor of LIMITED challenges, and I'll explain why in a minute) to full for finals regardless of prior usage.


The reason I prefer limited challenges (probably 1/alliance in playoffs, with a second if the first is successful) is that by the second challenge from the same alliance, if the Head Ref hasn't shuffled the crew, he or she probably needs to. And it may be obvious on the reviews that one ref or another needs to be shuffled to break or another field position if possible. For those that aren't refs, the ref crews tend to find their weak links quickly and strengthen them as needed. If there's two challenges, chances are that there's a ref that needs more strength--or it's possible that the alliance is just trying to game the system.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

I don't know if I'd go this far. This would require teams to calculate in their own heads (or calculators) what the new score would be and if it would swing the game. I think this would just waste more time, and it'd be easier to just say points instead of ranking points.

For quals, the requirement that it change one of the aggregates in the ranking algorithm (though I'm not positive that's what cgmv means) would be pretty loose in most years. This seems like a reasonable standard, since it's easy enough to know beforehand ("that would raise our auto score total") and speaks directly to the impact quals are supposed to have. We could probably keep the same condition for elims for simplicity's sake. Alliance Captains should be smart enough by that point not to risk losing a challenge on a ruling that wouldn't actually benefit them in the bracket.

Not sure how I feel about requiring every member of a qual alliance to still have their challenge coupon. I think I'd be okay with "any" instead of "all". It likely means more challenges, but then normal teams can't be burned by being randomly assigned a trigger-happy alliance partner who wasted their coupon on match 1.

I suggest some kind of time limit rule as well, like the completed coupon must be submitted to the head ref by no later than the starting whistle 3? matches after the match in question (match 4 for a challenge in match 1) or before the next elim level. The latter gets tricky if you're the last QF match to play.

I currently envision the challenge coupons including team name, match number, alliance color, specific challenge (from the list of acceptable ones), approximate time and field location, and a FOUO section for review outcome. Anything else? (Refs would archive the submitted slips; if you're right you'd get another blank one.)

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Siri

For quals, the requirement that it change one of the aggregates in the ranking algorithm (though I'm not positive that's what cgmv means) would be pretty loose in most years. This seems like a reasonable standard, since it's easy enough to know beforehand ("that would raise our auto score total") and speaks directly to the impact quals are supposed to have.

My intent was that ranking points (or the first order ranking sort in subsequent games) would need to be affected. For Stronghold, this would have meant changing the outcome of the match or awarding a point for a missed breach/capture. I'm reconsidering this now, because you correctly point out that the ranking tiebreakers can also matter. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though, because for Stronghold, the only scores that don't factor into at least one tiebreaker are foul points, and I don't think allowing a challenge to every single Qualification match score is worth it. I'm fine with Eliminations going deep into the evening if it takes that much time to get all of the calls right, but I think Qualifications should be expected to stick to the schedule a bit more.

Not sure how I feel about requiring every member of a qual alliance to still have their challenge coupon. I think I'd be okay with "any" instead of "all". It likely means more challenges, but then normal teams can't be burned by being randomly assigned a trigger-happy alliance partner who wasted their coupon on match 1.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how fair/unfair it was for teams to be able to jeopardize future alliance partners by losing their challenges early. I do think it's fair to limit challenges in qualification matches to blatantly obvious errors with ranking implications, and the rules I proposed are written with that in mind. They're just a suggestion that I expect the GDC (Hi GDC!) to tweak before placing in the 2017 manual. :wink:

Originally Posted by EricH

I disagree on the Finals being an automatic review, primarily because that means a minimum of 3 minutes where any refs involved aren't doing their between-match stuff (traffic control, overall monitoring), and also because if there's something tough in the Finals every ref is going to be in the huddle discussing the calls--we want to get the calls right the first time.

The automatic review wouldn't be done by a referee. It would be done by a "replay official" who would "confirm" most of the calls in the match right away and only call over a ref if they see something questionable.

[bdaroz]

Quick thought with regard to the 'must affect ranking points'....

If there is a) a time limit to make the call b) you need all 3 teams on the alliance to agree and c) need the ranking points to change then:

1) Is there enough time as robots are being pulled from the field to coordinate with the other two teams?
2) AND in the event that a 100-90 loss was a missed breech and would have resulted in a match point tie, is there still enough time to find and calculate the tie-breaker while coordinating with two other teams?

End of match is hectic as it is... If a team/alliance is feeling slighted by a call (or non-call), it's even more so. While I agree there should be reasonable limits the challenging team should have sufficient opportunity to avail itself of the rule.

To that end I would change the rule to be that the challenge, if successful, must either change the ranking points awarded, or change the win/loss/tie result of the match, without regard to the tie-breaking formula.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

My intent was that ranking points (or the first order ranking sort in subsequent games) would need to be affected. For Stronghold, this would have meant changing the outcome of the match or awarding a point for a missed breach/capture. I'm reconsidering this now, because you correctly point out that the ranking tiebreakers can also matter.

I'd stick with first-order sort, possibly 2nd-order. Most times the sorting doesn't seem to go beyond 2nd order. 2nd-order sort generally being auto, those would be quick reviews (15 seconds or less).

The automatic review wouldn't be done by a referee. It would be done by a "replay official" who would "confirm" most of the calls in the match right away and only call over a ref if they see something questionable.

And this is where you need to remember something: the replay official is going to need to have at least some referee training. Otherwise, how are they going to know a questionable call? I know we're taking judgement out of it as much as possible, but, for example, when we're looking at crossings, there's an awful lot of nuances to crossings (for robot and for boulder) that sometimes people don't quite grasp--I once had a team complain during practice day after I called them for not finishing a Crossing before returning to the NZ from scoring in the high goal. So if they're going to need to have referee training anyways, then you may as well make them a referee. And if they're a referee, you may as well make them work the field for a few matches, particularly if you're short-handed. So that means that several refs may as well have training on the replay system.

I think the best way to handle replay would be to have the "off" ref in the rotation handle it, or have two "off" refs (one assigned to replay at any given time). Now, finding the refs over and above the field crew can sometimes be difficult. But I think with enough effort, someone could be found... And actually, that would speed up replays a bit--if you've got an off-field referee going through them during a match, then the only thing they need to do is to advise the head ref (NOT a regular ref, BTW, that's another thing--this is a call reversal or not) that this-that-and-the-other is the case, or that he needs to take a look as somebody's asking for a judgement call, or what-have-you.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

I'm not sure where to draw the line, though, because for Stronghold, the only scores that don't factor into at least one tiebreaker are foul points

In Quals, yes, fouls don't factor, but in Playoffs they are the 1st tie-break in a tied score. Cleaner played match wins. [5.4.4]

[Siri]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

My intent was that ranking points (or the first order ranking sort in subsequent games) would need to be affected. For Stronghold, this would have meant changing the outcome of the match or awarding a point for a missed breach/capture. I'm reconsidering this now, because you correctly point out that the ranking tiebreakers can also matter. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though, because for Stronghold, the only scores that don't factor into at least one tiebreaker are foul points, and I don't think allowing a challenge to every single Qualification match score is worth it. I'm fine with Eliminations going deep into the evening if it takes that much time to get all of the calls right, but I think Qualifications should be expected to stick to the schedule a bit more.

We could hedge it and say "changes Nth (likely 1st/2nd) order ranking points or changes rank". Presumably any team looking at a deeper ranking aggregate is on-the-ball enough to determine whether a changed call would move them. It leaves out edge cases where it'd move you closer to jumping someone without actually passing them, but it does have to stop somewhere (I'd argue).

[Foster]

Caveat -- I'm not trying to reopen the battle about if there should be a video review or not. I just wanted to ask a simple question.

There has been much discussion about the technology needed to do video reviews and some teams have said that they have that level of equipment.

Since we are in the final weeks of off season events, are there any events that are planning to allow for video review?

Thanks!

[gblake]

Ryan's folks have one coming up sometime in October.

[EricH]

I asked about doing one at one of the local offseasons, as a pilot. No-go with the planning committee.

On the other hand, they did approve one of my other ideas... If that goes well, I may find myself needing to write a report on it.