This year we need instant replay

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Cory

The refs get more calls right than they do wrong. Far more calls right than wrong.

So I guess by this logic if in one year the state of California jails 2000 guilty criminals and 200 innocent people than they are doing okay because they are getting it right way more than they are getting it wrong. Something is flawed there. Anyway, I do agree with you on your points. It wouldn't be easy or cheap to implement.

EDIT: What I was saying is "correct over half of the time" or "correct most of the time" isn't good enough. Let's strive for near 100% perfection rather than "more perfect than not."

You can compare it to dozens of things (things that you will probably say have no relation, but anyway). For example the brakes in your car. As long as they work most of the time, it is okay? Or the teacher/professor in your class, as long as he shows up most of the time, it is okay? Or car payments, as long as you pay them most of the time, you are A OK? Or when you go to the auto mechanics, as long as they are ripping you off only once in a while it is okay because they are honest most of the time? If a surgeon specializing in amputations cuts off the wrong leg, it's okay because he got it right on 50 other patients? If a tire on your car goes flat, it's okay because you have 3 more that didn't? I can go on and on.

Sure, there will be the occasional slip up in refereeing. But, let's all remember, "good enough isn't" There is always room for improvement.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

...Something is flawed there. ...

[Spock][raised eyebrow] Highly illogical! [/Spock][/raised eyebrow]

FIRST competitions have nothing to do with the criminal justice system. :^)

[Tristan Lall]

We all know that FIRST doesn't like to be behind schedule, and that replaying matches, and watching videos has the potential to bring on more of that. So hypothetically, what about letting teams each make up to one video review request during the qualifying rounds (counting against all three* teams in the alliance, so all three must agree), and up to one per alliance in the eliminations (requested by the captain, and consuming the timeout). Then, teams are required to supply their own video to the referee within one minute of the match ending—if the cameraman they want to use is in the stands, he'd better fly; more likely, the camera is positioned in the cheering gallery. (If they can't supply a video of their own, or borrow one from a graciously professional camera operator, then too bad, no appeal. They bear the burden of proof.) They state their concern, and show the referees the video. The head referee then decides if there's enough evidence to warrant changing a call (or if the concern even has merit in the first place).

This would seem to limit it to a maximum of ≈28 possible requests for review during a large regional, and in practice, much less than that, since as a team uses its review, neither they, nor their current alliance partners in the qualifications can appeal any longer, irrespective of the gravity of the percieved error. I'd say that something like this is the only way to balance FIRST's concerns regarding the logistics, with the teams' natural desire for justice. It's hardly perfect, and it can still be unfair, but it seems like a practicable compromise, weeding out the egregious, obvious errors, while still keeping the flow of the event going.

Of course, is this even necessary? Maybe, and maybe not.

*Instead of three, substitute whatever the appropriate number is in 2006.

[Rod]

This is high school robotics for fun and education. Let's try and keep it that way.

[Collin Fultz]

One thing that has been mentioned in part is that the refs are volunteers. All other sports refs (including the pee wee baseball) are paid.

There isn't time to "extensively train" all the refs. They have jobs. If you start requiring training, your ref volunteer rate will fall. Then you'll have fewer refs per regional. Then people complain because there aren't enough refs.

What is funny is most of the time, the people who complain about the volunteers at regionals have never volunteered themselves.

Perhaps it just takes seeing FIRST from a new vantage point to see the true meaning. Is the competition of FIRST great and what drives some of the improvements? Absolutely. But is it everything? No.

Until the MLB brings in instant replay (which won't happen under Paul Tag.), don't expect it in FIRST (which won't happen ever).

P.S. I'm sure you can find more sob stories on these boards (maybe I even wrote some of them) about the refs if you look hard enough. Find comfort knowing you aren't the first and you won't be the last.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Then, teams are required to supply their own video to the referee within one minute of the match ending

It's my opinion that under no circumstances whatsoever should video produced by a team be used or even cosidered when making a decision.

Even if a ref stood there and watched the team taping, and everything was legit, this just should not happen. ever.

[edit] Plus, what if an alliance has nobody taping their robot when something questionable happens? Yes, a slim chance of happening, but totally unfair.

If you initiate an instant replay rule, it needs to be standardized across the board, ie: every single match needs to be taped from standardized view points, by a single entity. There's just no other way to make it fair, and this is clearly too large a monetary burden, as well as taking too much time, which precludes instant replay from ever happening in the first place

[Andy Baker]

No. FIRST should not adopt any sort of instant replay scheme. There are many reasons.

Let me count the ways to say no to this:

1. FIRST refs are volunteers. If instant replay comes around, these volunteers will go away, as said above.
2. FIRST events have enough delays in schedules as it is. More scrutiny over a call that may not be overturned is exactly not what this competition needs.
3. Most perceived "bad calls" are simply mis-interpretation of the rules. A team person sees it one way while the ref sees it another. All refs call things slightly different. A videotape won't change someone's mind about how a rule is interpreted. I remember many times when people would disagree with a call I made and want to show me the videotape. Regardless of the fact that showing the tape is against FIRST rules, in each case I saw the action take place, at a closer view than the video. Once I explained why the call was made, the video evidence was moot.

Until FIRST starts putting referees on the payroll, don't expect instant replay.

For the people who complain about refereeing, I challenge them to step up and serve as a volunteer. I will be the head ref at IRI this summer. If you wish to gain some refereeing experience at this top-notch event in Indiana, feel free to PM me.

Being a FIRST referee (especially the head ref) is one of the 3-4 hardest jobs at a FIRST event. Not only are these people scrutinized for making the right call, they are also partially responsible for coordination with the scoring table, match timing, field reset, field safety, field cueing, and field operation. They have to constantly scan the field during a match. They must be a leader in order to coach, empower and make quick decisions with other referees. They need to be skilled in psychology in order to listen to, debate with, and console drive teams. Also, the refs must have the patience of a saint in order to deal with uppity announcers and m/c's. Oh, yeah, and they need to know the rules better than everyone else (or staff their crew with someone who does... like Amy P. this year at IRI).

All this and more... If a debatable call is made, refs have to deal with the on-line scrutiny that takes place on these forums. No one is calling out the field queing person or the pit administrator for 2 weeks after the event. Let's see some love for these fine people. Let's give it up for the refs.

Andy B.

[ngreen]

I agree with most everyone else that replay is not an option for FIRST for the many reasons laid out (mostly time).

I also agree that refs don't make 100% of their calls right no matter how hard they try. And watching FIRST refs I have seen them make outstanding calls in tough situations.

That being said it should be an objective of the game design committee to minimize the opportunities for missed calls in both the manner of making the game fair and safe.

With the loading zones this year their was more flags and more opportunities for missed calls than in some previous years. Some thought should be given for ways to eliminate the need for the refs sight and judgment in certain situations.

Most penalties come from a need of safety and in eliminating the situations where they are needed you will create a safer, fairer game. But also you may eliminate vital parts to the game such as human/robot interactions.

So basically, thinking about how penalties will play into the game and finding ways to get rid of them when possible can avoid headaches like missed calls or the need for some type of instant replay. Also, maybe it would let more games be won by a team and not lost on penalties.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

No. FIRST should not adopt any sort of instant replay scheme. There are many reasons.
Also, the refs must have the patience of a saint in order to deal with uppity announcers and m/c's. Oh, yeah, and they need to know the rules better than everyone else (or staff their crew with someone who does... like Amy P. this year at IRI).

Andy B.

Andy, what are you saying?

Actually I know exactly what he is saying because I am one of those of whom he speaks. The banter that goes on sometimes is worse that with the teams. Even though you have not reffed an event that I have attended, to all refs, I apologize.

Refs are humans just as the students are. How many times have teams lost because their partners forgot to turn on their robot or properly plug in the battery or put in a fresh battery or charge the auto mode or ..........

If we wish to keep this event great and fast paced then video replay is NOT to be introduced. We are not talking a sporting event where 2 teams are playing a 2 - 3 hour game. We are talking about 4 - 6 teams in a 135 sec event. Calls will be missed (even with video replay), games will be won or lost, lessons learned and we will all be the better for it. I love 229's philosophy, now I must learn to live by it.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Cory

It's my opinion that under no circumstances whatsoever should video produced by a team be used or even cosidered when making a decision.

Even if a ref stood there and watched the team taping, and everything was legit, this just should not happen. ever.

[edit] Plus, what if an alliance has nobody taping their robot when something questionable happens? Yes, a slim chance of happening, but totally unfair.

If you initiate an instant replay rule, it needs to be standardized across the board, ie: every single match needs to be taped from standardized view points, by a single entity. There's just no other way to make it fair, and this is clearly too large a monetary burden, as well as taking too much time, which precludes instant replay from ever happening in the first place

I just threw that idea out as something of a compromise, to see what both sides' reactions would be.

The point isn't to make it totally fair; in fact I think that we've certainly agreed that that's infeasible. The reasoning is that anyone who wants to dispute an error must prove that an error took place, or forget about it—there's even less room to argue, because you know that if you don't have proof, the referees will ignore you completely. On the other hand, if you do have conclusive proof, and the head referee thinks that it's a big deal, the ruling can be modified. If you don't want to take advantage of this, simply don't use a cameraman.

Actually, the idea is similar to the appeal in baseball, in that it's only granted at the discretion of the official, it may change nothing, and there are consequences for using it injudiciously (i.e. you can't appeal again, for one reason or another).

With a one-minute time limit from then end of the match to the beginning of the appeal, the only trickery that could reasonably occur in such a short span of time would be for a team to substitute extraneous footage. Even that would be somewhat difficult to pull off convincingly, and would depend on a conscious decision to cheat, requiring the collaboration of several team members (at least the on-field rep. to appeal, and the cameraman to show footage) and their alliance partners (to agree). That's why I don't have a problem with a team showing the referees their video, under these relatively controlled circumstances. Impartial observers making recordings would obviously be superior, but it isn't really necessary, nor is it practical.

Now, maybe a better question is raised by Andy (and by Ken earlier): can we expect video replays to have sufficient definition to make them useful for anything other than determining rough positions on the field? A video from the cheering gallery, with a regular handheld camera ought to be sufficient for some purposes, but for fine detail (like zip-ties hanging down into a loading zone), the footage is largely useless. In fact, maybe that leads to the best question: will introducing replays simply result in a lot of inconclusive judgments, which then simply revert to the referees' original decision? That certainly would diminish the usefulness of a review process.

I'm not sure that I agree with Andy's contention that "If instant replay comes around, these volunteers will go away". I'm not offended by video replay, and I can't reasonably contemplate choosing not to officiate, simply because of its presence. If it is allowed to be used as a delaying tactic, or is used injudiciously for baseless accusations, then I can see it being troublesome—but I don't think that anyone wants either of those things, and I think that if a compromise were desirable, one could be achieved without wasting too much time between matches, or giving the officials too much to deal with.

Now remember, I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, myself; I just want to see if we can find a good enough reason to throw it away (rather than resorting to our distaste for the video goal judge, or appealing to the status quo).

[Cory]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

So I guess by this logic if in one year the state of California jails 2000 guilty criminals and 200 innocent people than they are doing okay because they are getting it right way more than they are getting it wrong. Something is flawed there. Anyway, I do agree with you on your points. It wouldn't be easy or cheap to implement.

There's a difference between the justice system and a FIRST match.

It takes weeks to months for a trial to occur.

When was the last time the outcome of a single match was issued a month after it was played? Given how little time refs are given to make decisions, and with only being able to go with what they saw in the heat of the moment, they're doing a darn good job.

[Jay Trzaskos]

I agree with Cory and Ken 100%, Every team has team has had one or two calls against them that they don't agree with. If you think that the refs made a mistake, go talk to the Head ref and tell him what you saw or what he/they may have missed on the field. But always be profesional about it, don't go up there and yell at the Head Ref. And don't bring up a tape from a match that happened an hour ago, or 6 months ago. they aren't going to take the time to look at it, and i doubt they ever will, because they have to much going on. With that said, in 999/1000 cases, it will not affect your outcome in the regional.

To sum it up, the system that FIRST has going is all that we really need, yeah a little better training when it comes to the refs would be nice (especially when you have Baker out there throwing flags left and right ) but they do an awesome job and we need to thank them, not insult them by bringing in instant replay.

JT

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jay Trzaskos

we need to thank them, not insult them by bringing in instant replay.

This comment made me think about a semi relevant situation.

It's seemed like that with the addition of instant replay to most (all?) major conferences in college football, the refs have almost been using it as a crutch, in that they're less likely to flag something, due to not wanting to make the wrong call, and knowing that it can be reviewed upstairs.

No idea if this would happen in FIRST (and we surely never will, as there will never be instant replay), but I'd rather see a ref throw a flag anytime they see something questionable, and then if they convene and decide it wasn't a violation, they can pick it up and go about their business.

Better to throw a flag and pick it up that not throw a flag and have a violation go unenforced.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Jay Trzaskos

Every team has team has had one or two calls against them that they don't agree with. JT

Now tell everyone what we taught you kids on 229, about arguing a call.

[Jay Trzaskos]

My bad John. ASK for clarification, don't argue with the refs... never argue with the referees. They are going to call what they see, and they aren't going to change a call, and you can't make them change a call. Remember they are volunteers, and they are doing the best they can. 229 never asked to have a call changed, we asked to clarify a call once or twice, but never asked to have it changed.

Sorry John,
JT