This year we need instant replay

[KenWittlief]

If you goto a competition

and you leave feeling your team was cheated in any way

then someone has seriously mis-led you concerning what FIRST is all about

and all the rule clarifications and instant replay cameras will only push you further down a mis-guided path.

Here is sportsmanship: whatever the head ref says, that is the call, that is the end. We all know we will get bad calls, thats part of the game.

The rest is up to you.

How you respond when things dont go your way is the best indication of your character and personality.

But just to make everyone happy (Ive made this offer many times before): if you feel your team was cheated out of a trophy or award, and you cant get over it, send me a PM, and I will make a trophy for you.

Its about 50¢ worth the plastic, and they take about 10 minutes to fabricate :^)

[Collmandoman]

I think many overestimate how much equipment you would need for instant replay. One camera would suffice mounted over the playing field. How formal would this have to be... not very(someone could run up grab the camera and move to the spot of the match). Video proof is proof - if there isn't 'indisputable' evidence then you move on. If there is - then do something about it. For people saying that it would be UN GP to have instant replay, I can only say send me directions to your utopia - I'd love to live there. Regardless it's not even an issue about GP.

Ok, so I'm working at Delphi designing whatnot, and I screw up pretty big. In this real world they don't say.. well you tried your hardest, and your intentions were right - here's a pat on the back. You can lose your job. People saying it's UN-GP to second guess a ruling are using GP as a control in a pretty ridiculous way. Many of you GP as some absurd defense mechanism- just think... are you sending the right message to the participants in FIRST?

Alot of teams come to regionals with a gameplan, that's the product of months of planning, strategizing, hardwork, cooperation and whatnot. (I know FIRST isn't just about winning a regional - so save me the time with that response) To have several months of dedication be eraced in one facet of the competition because of a bad call is kind of silly. There should be a safeguard against this, and unfortunatly it might make a day longer by about 20 minutes at a FIRST event. Ok, the brains behind FIRST are pretty smart-- they could plan this out and hand a videocam to every regional. Heck - ppl could even let FIRST borrow on for the weekend *shock*. I dunno many of you seem to think it would ruin FIRST or something. Had the technology been around 100 years ago in college football - you'd prob here about this year as the 100th anniversary of instant replay. So lets put the T in FIRST and actually consider this.
So lets say ... people actually do consider this...... FIRST tries to make an event that suits spectators. This could add to the excitement of a first event with proper planning and structuring. Imagine the final match being contested and the proper team wins the event. OMG EXCITEMENT OMG
If you want to scream GP, scream it if the system was implemented and complete harda**es keep asking for matches to be reviewed. That would be a lack of GP. I think as a FIRST community -- ppl would be mature and noble enough to contest rulings when it's absolutly appropriate.
So there you go- get instant replay-- only because most of you are so ridiculously-mindlessly against it(ad it would be pretty neat).

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I think many overestimate how much equipment you would need for instant replay. One camera would suffice mounted over the playing field. How formal would this have to be... not very(someone could run up grab the camera and move to the spot of the match). Video proof is proof - if there isn't 'indisputable' evidence then you move on. If there is - then do something about it. For people saying that it would be UN GP to have instant replay, I can only say send me directions to your utopia - I'd love to live there. Regardless it's not even an issue about GP.

Ok, so I'm working at Delphi designing whatnot, and I screw up pretty big. In this real world they don't say.. well you tried your hardest, and your intentions were right - here's a pat on the back. You can lose your job. People saying it's UN-GP to second guess a ruling are using GP as a control in a pretty ridiculous way. Many of you GP as some absurd defense mechanism- just think... are you sending the right message to the participants in FIRST?

Alot of teams come to regionals with a gameplan, that's the product of months of planning, strategizing, hardwork, cooperation and whatnot. (I know FIRST isn't just about winning a regional - so save me the time with that response) To have several months of dedication be eraced in one facet of the competition because of a bad call is kind of silly. There should be a safeguard against this, and unfortunatly it might make a day longer by about 20 minutes at a FIRST event. Ok, the brains behind FIRST are pretty smart-- they could plan this out and hand a videocam to every regional. Heck - ppl could even let FIRST borrow on for the weekend *shock*. I dunno many of you seem to think it would ruin FIRST or something. Had the technology been around 100 years ago in college football - you'd prob here about this year as the 100th anniversary of instant replay. So lets put the T in FIRST and actually consider this.
So lets say ... people actually do consider this...... FIRST tries to make an event that suits spectators. This could add to the excitement of a first event with proper planning and structuring. Imagine the final match being contested and the proper team wins the event. OMG EXCITEMENT OMG
If you want to scream GP, scream it if the system was implemented and complete harda**es keep asking for matches to be reviewed. That would be a lack of GP. I think as a FIRST community -- ppl would be mature and noble enough to contest rulings when it's absolutly appropriate.
So there you go- get instant replay-- only because most of you are so ridiculously-mindlessly against it(ad it would be pretty neat).

One camera is not enough. You can't tell anything from one camera mounted directly above the playing field. About all you'll see is boxes moving around.

Let's put it this way--if a ref standing less than two feet away, looking directly at a robot say, can't tell if it is or isn't in the loading zone, how on earth do you figure a camcorder mounted twenty feet above the field will?

Last I checked, someone working at Delphi was there to provide a service in return for monetary compensation. Provide an inadequate service, you don't get paid. Refs in FIRST are volunteers, completely different situation.

I don't like how "GP" is tossed around every 5 seconds, but it surely isn't appropriate for people to boo and crap on people who give up time out of their busy lives to come referee, when the majority of the time, the person doing the criticizing couldn't have done a better job themselves. You're right--we aren't sending the right message out to people. Far too many think this kind of behavior is OK. The objective of FIRST isn't to teach kids to be sore losers.

If one bad call ruins your entire weekend, you're probably not getting much out of this program. It would probably be wise to re-evaluate the reasons you participate.

How can you compare to college football? College football has clear cut, tangible results. It results in schools either making or losing large sums of money, in addition to increased alumni donations when teams are winning. Getting "screwed" out of a win in a college football game is a MUCH bigger deal than losing one utterly insignificant FIRST match. In addition, the refs get paid.

Since you're into making comparisons to college sports, tell me when the last time was that you saw a instant replay setup that included only one camera to watch all the action? You need a whole bunch of cameras, to cover as many angles as possible.

How would instant replay make the game more spectator friendly? All it will do is slow the gameplay, thus making it harder to sit there and keep from getting bored.

Let's stop beating this dead horse.

[Collmandoman]

Originally Posted by Cory

One camera is not enough. You can't tell anything from one camera mounted directly above the playing field. About all you'll see is boxes moving around.

Let's put it this way--if a ref standing less than two feet away, looking directly at a robot say, can't tell if it is or isn't in the loading zone, how on earth do you figure a camcorder mounted twenty feet above the field will?

Last I checked, someone working at Delphi was there to provide a service in return for monetary compensation. Provide an inadequate service, you don't get paid. Refs in FIRST are volunteers, completely different situation.

I don't like how "GP" is tossed around every 5 seconds, but it surely isn't appropriate for people to boo and crap on people who give up time out of their busy lives to come referee, when the majority of the time, the person doing the criticizing couldn't have done a better job themselves. You're right--we aren't sending the right message out to people. Far too many think this kind of behavior is OK. The objective of FIRST isn't to teach kids to be sore losers.

If one bad call ruins your entire weekend, you're probably not getting much out of this program. It would probably be wise to re-evaluate the reasons you participate.

How can you compare to college football? College football has clear cut, tangible results. It results in schools either making or losing large sums of money, in addition to increased alumni donations when teams are winning. Getting "screwed" out of a win in a college football game is a MUCH bigger deal than losing one utterly insignificant FIRST match. In addition, the refs get paid.

Since you're into making comparisons to college sports, tell me when the last time was that you saw a instant replay setup that included only one camera to watch all the action? You need a whole bunch of cameras, to cover as many angles as possible.

How would instant replay make the game more spectator friendly? All it will do is slow the gameplay, thus making it harder to sit there and keep from getting bored.

Let's stop beating this dead horse.

yes one video camera over the playing field actually turns the robots into unrecognizable boxes that blur the video site - infact a view from above would confuse most watchers, as they have never seen a robot from above? I guess I just dont understand you

I dont believe it's the calls the refs are 2 feet away from ppl are having problems with. It's the ones when they are looking the other way, or distracted by somethign else.

Ok hey, I volunteer at the redcross 20 hours a week, but that doesn't make it right for me to make mistakes. And I'm not saying they are purposefulyl making mistakes - if I could have a system in place where I could quickly fix somethign I did wrong.. even i was volunteering I would opt for it... pretty simple

I don't believe anyone is booing or crapping on the refs.. and I certaintly am not. If they could be aided to correct something they didn't see... I don't think they would mind. and if they did... um.. well that complex should keep them from volunteering in first

for the record, I've never been the result of a bad call.. so I'm not arguing for some past anger.. it just makes sense to atleast consider this

um, I was simply making a comparison to another organization with replay, and might I add - bc of it - things are nearly perfect --
think of this strange situation.... Some sponsor drops you because they dont' get enough recognition bc you lost the regional! (I know that's complame) BUT OMG what if?! I guess they aren't in FIRST for the right reasons then!! right?! but that doesn't matter, you dont' have money now-- boohoo

I think this is the cool thing, one camera can cover the entire field, with a pretty good view, and sense a camera taking footage over a field doesn't have any angle blindness it would most likely work very well. Think about it before you refuse it so quickly.

Teams could take a penalty for incorrectly challenging a call, or possibly gain everything by challenging. Fans like to see things disputed, especially ones without any team bias. Drama sells! If you disagree, turn on your tv and look for this pretty new "reality" tv thing sweeping into yours and my livingrooms'!

I think a thread is dead if it's locked - this horse is very alive.

[Steve W]

OK, I get sucked into another one. Again I will say, it takes more than 1 camera to make a difference. Take the NHL for example. There are usually 3 cameras trained on 1 goal. Even after looking at slow motion they still can't tell the difference. 3 cameras per goal and you believe that you could see a whole field from 1 camera placed above the field? I will also challenge the bad call argument. The ref would only go to replay if they were not sure AND the play results in a goal/non-goal. The argument that you are really making is missed calls. I believe that last year there were between 8 and 10 refs per match. That is a lot more eyes than 1 camera. I have seen calls go both ways. I have watched a play, consulted with the ref after and we both had different views of what happened. We were standing next to each other.

If you want to make the game better then get the designers, builders, drivers and human players to stop making mistakes and design perfect robots, use perfect strategy and perfect control. If this was done then we can start questioning the refs and the system for minor, questionable points of view.

[Andy Baker]

For those who wish to implement instant replay in FIRST, I suggest you do 1 of 3 things:

1. Volunteer as a referee. VIMS is up and running. Sign up for a regional, help out, and learn from an experienced head ref. Your opinions about instant replay will become more credible if you are an experienced FIRST ref.

2. Create an off-season competition and implement tweaks to FIRST's rules as you wish. If you want to add instant replay to the game, go right ahead. Just make sure the teams know of this adjustment when they sign up for your event.

3. Convince someone else who runs an off-season event to implement instant replay. Offer to run this system for them, by providing the plan, equipment, and implementation details. Don't just say "you need to do this", but rather offer a solution and provide the resources to get it done. Also, don't assume that if you offer a complete package that this will be accepted by the people hosting this event. (the people who put on these off-season events have enough to worry about without this as an additional thing)

Reffing a FIRST event is unlike being an ump or a ref at any other event. Where else is a game invented each year and over 1000 teams play this game within 3 months of its birth? Game interpretations and rules are not always black and white. Instant replay will not solve disagreements with calls, it is as simple as that. If you do not understand this, please look to doing items 1 or 2 above.

Andy B.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

OK, I get sucked into another one. Again I will say, it takes more than 1 camera to make a difference. Take the NHL for example. There are usually 3 cameras trained on 1 goal. Even after looking at slow motion they still can't tell the difference. 3 cameras per goal and you believe that you could see a whole field from 1 camera placed above the field?

And in the NHL, if there's no conclusive evidence, the play stands as called. Isn't that what's being suggested? It's a stretch to say that one camera can't catch enough to be useful. I'm not sure if directly above is necessarily the best place for it (because of lens issues, mostly), but that doesn't negate the suggestion.

Originally Posted by Steve W

If this was done then we can start questioning the refs and the system for minor, questionable points of view.

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't like how "GP" is tossed around every 5 seconds, but it surely isn't appropriate for people to boo and crap on people who give up time out of their busy lives to come referee, when the majority of the time, the person doing the criticizing couldn't have done a better job themselves.

Isn't this a variation on what Andy said earlier, about offending the volunteers? My skepticism regarding this still stands; the referees realize that people will disagree with them, and they realize that their authority will ultimately be final. Whether or not people seethe over bad calls shouldn't be an issue—both the referees and the competitors ought to be reasonable enough to examine the matter on the basis of the only evidence that matters; the referee's view of the play, be it live, or, as has been suggested, in a video replay. The fact that they're volunteers doesn't absolve them of any errors that they may make, nor does it remove teams' prerogative to criticize (objectively), irrespective of whether or not the team member could have done a better job.

Of course, as has been repeated ad infinitum, the outcome doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but, in principle, wouldn't it be nice if more matches were decided correctly, rather than, when a dispute arises, throwing up our hands and saying "it's just a game", with an implicit "we're not willing to discuss the possibility that we may have just blown a call". Nobody questions the fact that the referees' decision is final, but can we say that if some practical method of implementing a replay were found, and it were applied judiciously, it could help to cut down on whatever bad calls do take place, and cut down on the arguments over calls, because of the additional evidence?

In fact, maybe I'm being too harsh with the characterization of officials as being dismissive; this is not to say that it doesn't occur, but I would point out that it not endemic. Certainly, they can only call plays based on what was observed, and beyond that, there is no possibility of the call being reversed. I think that the idea of a replay is to give them a second look; if nothing comes of that second look, then who can argue with it? Once the referee has seen a replay, a team can't argue that the official didn't see the play, because the team just caused them to watch it again—shouldn't that end the argument, then and there? And if the replay shows nothing, the referee can say "sorry, but you've got nothing to show me"; though objectively, it's the same call as was originally made, it gives the appearance of the referee having attempted to make a concilliatory gesture—in other words, it ought to make arguing much more difficult, since the referee can't be characterized has having dismissed the concern without due consideration. It's far harder to vilify someone who's made an attempt to help, than it is to vilify someone who (despite being within his rights, and acting fairly and responsibly) refuses to discuss the issue.

From looking at the responses above, I think that most of the opposition comes on technical/cost grounds, or on the principle that it's just a game, and doesn't matter. The first point, regarding technical issues, is reasonable, but there are lots of cheap ways to handle something like this; why are we thinking big, when thinking small might be sufficient? The second point is borderline apathetic, and seems to dismiss the problem without due consideration.

Maybe it isn't cost-effective to put a replay system in place. Maybe it won't catch as much data as we'd like. But is it a bad idea in principle? Are we arguing that something about a replay will kill the game, kill the spirit of the competition? If so, what?

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

But is it a bad idea in principle? Are we arguing that something about a replay will kill the game, kill the spirit of the competition? If so, what?

Anything that can improve is not bad. This idea is bad. Will it kill the game? Yes! The time taken to replay adds up. By NHL standards it is at least 5 minutes per call. Teams right now complain that there are not enough matches to seed correctly. If we take time for video replay you can knock off 1 game per team to allow for replays. Last year we had a tough time trying to stay on schedule just with refs calls.

By the way, does anyone have any idea of what percentage of calls have been reversed (not decided) due to video replays.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Isn't this a variation on what Andy said earlier, about offending the volunteers? My skepticism regarding this still stands; the referees realize that people will disagree with them, and they realize that their authority will ultimately be final. Whether or not people seethe over bad calls shouldn't be an issue—both the referees and the competitors ought to be reasonable enough to examine the matter on the basis of the only evidence that matters; the referee's view of the play, be it live, or, as has been suggested, in a video replay. The fact that they're volunteers doesn't absolve them of any errors that they may make, nor does it remove teams' prerogative to criticize (objectively), irrespective of whether or not the team member could have done a better job.

I don't mean to say that refs should get a free pass just because they're volunteers. Objective criticism is fine. I don't think any ref would have a problem with someone saying "Hey, Mr or Mrs ref, can you explain why this call you made went the way it did?" It's when people start saying things like "OMG TEH REFS SUCK SO BAD, I HATE THEM!!!!" that's an issue.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I think many overestimate how much equipment you would need for instant replay. One camera would suffice mounted over the playing field.

we did an analysis of this back on page one of the thread. A typical video camera has a horizontal resolution of 500 or 520 pixels. Watching the entire 60 foot field with one camera you have a visual resolution of about 3" (per pixel) - which means your one camera will not be able to see hands, feet, arms and extensions sticking out of robots, the tires on the robots, or even to clearly define the lines on the floor. One camera will be useless for instant replays.

Video proof is proof - if there isn't 'indisputable' evidence then you move on. If there is - then do something about it. For people saying that it would be UN GP to have instant replay, I can only say send me directions to your utopia - I'd love to live there. Regardless it's not even an issue about GP.

when you work with technology its easy to start thinking that everything else in the world is cut and dry, black and white, ones and zeros. Its not. Everyone who plays sports knows at some point errors will be made, fouls will be missed by the refs, and bad calls will be made. Sporting events are not 100% fair. That is part of the game. That is not a cop-out, its not GP nonsense, its the reality of the situation.

And this is the misdirected path I was talking about at the top of this page. Once you start down this path, thinking "it should be possible to make the game 'fair' with the right technology", then your basic reasoning is misguided. No sport game can ever be 100% fair - at some point you have to accept that fact, have the personal character to accept it: gracefully. Thats what 'sportsmanship' is all about - understanding this is a game, its not life and death.

You play your best, the refs do their best, and at the end of the day we are FIRST, collectively. Nobody is going to lose a college scholarship, or their job, because their team lost a FIRST match.

Some sponsor drops you because they dont' get enough recognition bc you lost the regional! (I know that's complame) BUT OMG what if?! I guess they aren't in FIRST for the right reasons then!! right?! but that doesn't matter, you dont' have money now-- boohoo

if that really were the case then I believe you will be better off not having that team anymore. The students on a team that only exists to further the image of a corporate sponsor will have a miserable experience, and that team will do a great deal of damage to FIRST as a whole.

[petek]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

For those who wish to implement instant replay in FIRST, I suggest you do 1 of 3 things:

1. Volunteer as a referee. VIMS is up and running. Sign up for a regional, help out, and learn from an experienced head ref. Your opinions about instant replay will become more credible if you are an experienced FIRST ref.

2. Create an off-season competition and implement tweaks to FIRST's rules as you wish. If you want to add instant replay to the game, go right ahead. Just make sure the teams know of this adjustment when they sign up for your event.

3. Convince someone else who runs an off-season event to implement instant replay. Offer to run this system for them, by providing the plan, equipment, and implementation details. Don't just say "you need to do this", but rather offer a solution and provide the resources to get it done. Also, don't assume that if you offer a complete package that this will be accepted by the people hosting this event. (the people who put on these off-season events have enough to worry about without this as an additional thing)

Reffing a FIRST event is unlike being an ump or a ref at any other event. Where else is a game invented each year and over 1000 teams play this game within 3 months of its birth? Game interpretations and rules are not always black and white. Instant replay will not solve disagreements with calls, it is as simple as that. If you do not understand this, please look to doing items 1 or 2 above.

Andy B.

Amen, Brother!

In 2005 I volunteered at the NJ and Philly regionals (field reset & robot insp respectively), and after finding myself second-guessing the refs, decided I should walk in their shoes a bit - so I reffed at PARC and Ramp Riot. After that experience I decided that Triple Play was designed primarily to challenge the refs and scorekeepers! That is one tough game to ref fairly, not made any easier during the early season by constant rules "clarifications".

Even if instant replay could be instituted without adding 5 minutes per match I am certain that there would be fewer volunteers, more rather than less contention and a whole lot less fun had by all. If people really want to see "better" refereeing, they should see what they can do to help FIRST make better (more clear-cut) rules and get the bugs out before competition begins.

Proving my inability to learn from experience, this year I'm on VIMS for three regionals where I requested to ref, and am head ref for the DE FVC event. I'm curious to know what those who want instant replay are doing this year?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by petek

Proving my inability to learn from experience, this year I'm on VIMS for three regionals where I requested to ref, and am head ref for the DE FVC event. I'm curious to know what those who want instant replay are doing this year?

Once again, let me clarify that I'm not specifically in favour of instant replay for a given game, though I think that it's worth looking into, provided that reasonable limits are specified for its use.

Now with that said, I'm not unaware of what it takes to be an official. I've twice been a ref at the Wonderland invitational, I was both an inspector and assistant scorekeeper at the last GTR, and assistant scorekeeper and head inspector at Waterloo. I'll probably be doing the same this year, and maybe also at one other event. (Actually, I've also umpired baseball, and refereed at the Toronto Kickoff Challenges.)

[Collmandoman]

can you see another robot hit another with one camera over a field.. in fact several things can be seen-- but this is not the main thing.. for instance I have seen several mathes that have just not been socred correctly - some resulting in another team losing -
EXAMPLE - Lets take the 2005 game- Some teams would descore tetras while trying to cap their own-[but we all know the decapped team owns that goal] but that was just never taken into account.. and it compl confused the scoring -- and even with all the refs looking at the field... the right calls were not made.. is this the refs fault? sorta, but mostly not- the limit or accuracy of a volunteering ref is less than if they were paid -- couple that with several rules that don't come up often .. and you can get yourself into a mess.. VIDEO REPLAY would be to aid them -- it would also be for the other rare cirumstances when the rules of the game are ridiculously not upheld, bc of refs looking the wrong way or what not... and a team wanting to challenge the call...
so listen... you don't need 39 cameras strategically placed to hit every angle.. if it can't be solved with one camera above the playing field -- then it makes sense the ref missed it... you smell what I'm stepping in!?

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

so listen... you don't need 39 cameras strategically placed to hit every angle.. if it can't be solved with one camera above the playing field -- then it makes sense the ref missed it... you smell what I'm stepping in!?

You've restated your point. Since you are passionate about this, I suggest you create a detailed plan including logistics, equipment, costs, and implementation factors. Get into the details. For instance, how many "challenges" does each team get per competition (similar to NFL coaches getting 2 challenges per gam)?

Once you do your homework, put your findings into a white paper and post it so more FIRSTers can see your work. If feasible, the plan will get better with more input. More detailed feedback will be received this way, and we all could be convinced if this is even a possibility. Sell it to the rest of us. Be productive as opposed to simply suggesting that this must happen.

Andy B.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

... you smell what I'm stepping in!?

Yeah, well you're definitely stepping in something !

It sure is easy to sling all of this smelly stuff when you hide behind a screen name on some forum, with NO identifying information in your profile.

AND ... I was going to reply personally and directly to you ... but since you don't accept any messages or emails thru this site I have no choice but to respond publicly:

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Did you intend for that to be negative feedback? If so, while I respect your right to your opinion of my opinion, I value
Dave Lavery's opinion MUCH more.

BTW ... how many matches have you refereed?

And one more thing ... PLEASE re-read Andy's posts above and see if you can't take his advice. We might all be better off for your efforts.