Video Review Needs to Happen Now

[Foster]

Ryan's point about 200 posts ago was that events could trial video replay to give some HARD data on what they did, how many reviews, outcomes, issues, etc.

One data point at TRI. One coming up in Oct from an event that Ryan is running.

Any other off seasons done or planning to do replays?

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Foster

Ryan's point about 200 posts ago was that events could trial video replay to give some HARD data on what they did, how many reviews, outcomes, issues, etc.

One data point at TRI. One coming up in Oct from an event that Ryan is running.

Any other off seasons done or planning to do replays?

I'm going to try to convince a local offseason we attend and do the Webcast for to do them. Its not my team that hosts the event though so I'm not too sure If it will get the green light.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

I'm going to try to convince a local offseason we attend and do the Webcast for to do them. Its not my team that hosts the event though so I'm not too sure If it will get the green light.

Asking is most of the battle, thanks for trying!!

[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 !!!

[Sperkowsky]

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 !!!

There have been refs in this thread.

Here is the way I see it. A ref wants the right call to be made. No one wants their mistake to hurt a team. A safety net stopping some mistakes from hurting teams is something I can't see anyone mad about.

[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.

[Siri]

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 !!!

This ref's opinion*: I'm good with it provided the FTA side is on board there are clear bounds to it. Official video only, set situations each year that can be appealed, published mechanisms for doing so, teams cannot mandate reviews of judgment calls (they can question box it and/or refs can decide look ourselves). Maybe we need to cap the challenges per team; I'd be okay experimenting with either plus a blue box warning of possible changes mid-season. It also needs to be piloted more, not because I think I'll change my mind but because there are far too many nuances, procedures, and edge cases left to work out. We do not want to be fumbling over something like this in Week 1 on top of everything else when it could've been honed in off-season. Trust me, you don't want us to be either.

*I feel I can speak with some credibility on both how difficult this is and how much it can suck, but that does make me not a "pure" referee. I am a veteran ref and off-season head ref but also a veteran coach and have been burned by reviewable missed calls before. This includes a district champs playoff loss, though without lingering bitterness (we made Einstein that year). Consume with however much salt you want.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Siri

This ref's opinion*: I'm good with it provided the FTA side is on board there are clear bounds to it. Official video only, set situations each year that can be appealed, published mechanisms for doing so, teams cannot mandate reviews of judgment calls (they can question box it and/or refs can decide look ourselves). Maybe we need to cap the challenges per team; I'd be okay experimenting with either plus a blue box warning of possible changes mid-season. It also needs to be piloted more, not because I think I'll change my mind but because there are far too many nuances, procedures, and edge cases left to work out. We do not want to be fumbling over something like this in Week 1 on top of everything else when it could've been honed in off-season. Trust me, you don't want us to be either.

*I feel I can speak with some credibility on both how difficult this is and how much it can suck, but that does make me not a "pure" referee. I am a veteran ref and off-season head ref but also a veteran coach and have been burned by reviewable missed calls before. This includes a district champs playoff loss, though without lingering bitterness (we made Einstein that year). Consume with however much salt you want.

No salt needed, I'm good

Side no review: Too hard, no tech, refs are volunteers, match play times, adds too much to the competition, we all do the best we can

Side review: Tech isn't that hard, less than 1/12 of a Dean speech to the schedule, we all do the best we can.

As a VEX event producer I've said these words more often than I can count. "The referees rule is final. This is a robot competition that has referees watching each second. The referees rule, and their ruling is final. But in the event they are wrong, and that is a possibility, pull me aside and we will talk it over, as long as you want, but the last words out of my mouth will be 'the referees rule is final'.

But like Siri, I've been on the wrong side of calls and have blown calls DRAT YOU CELL PHONE VIDEO !!!

But this thread is on possibilities. Can we do it, can it work, can it be a positive method, how do we make it work?

Most of the thread has posts of "No", "Umm no", "Don't want to" "Will kill refs" "Will end civilization as we know it" (and worse)

So again, the fall is busy with off season as we build interest, try it out.

As the lone science guy in this thread hard data beats feelings every day.

Siri asked for some boundary conditions (FTA's, process, etc) and I think thats a key thing. But FIRST isn't going to even test fly without some data points. Lets get the data points. And if the data points are "will end civilization as we know it" then we can close this off.

[JohnBoucher]

Can anyone cite a real world example where this is used and works?

I am struggling to find a situation that this would apply.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

Can anyone cite a real world example where this is used and works?

I am struggling to find a situation that this would apply.

Outside of sports? MLB, NHL, NFL, NBA all have review; MLS doesn't have much if at all.

I'd have to say security video--there's a number of potential uses there. Though often in that sort of case the call is known, but the reasoning isn't.

[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.

[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.)