This year we need instant replay

[Jay H 237]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

So lets say I post on a forum, and I break a rule... I should be reprimanded in some way. Now lets say someone else does, (look above) - and it's not noticed. Do we need instant replay for that? Maybe? Also, neither of you know me well enough to use my name on this forum - so please don't.

I'm not sure whar you're talking about.

If you do have a problem with another member you should privately take it up with one of the mods and not post about it on the open forum.

[Matt Krass]

Agreed, taking it out in public is no better than your complaint, take it to a mod.

Now on to the real topic at hand, I severely doubt we'll have instant replay, its a waste of time and resources and would simply cause trouble. Life isn't fair, FIRST isn't fair, sometimes things we don't like happen, deal with it.

Seriously, I find it kind of...well...stupid when teams persue things like call disagreements for weeks after the fact, and instant replay would just make more headaches.

[Collmandoman]

OK I'm going to skip taking this to a white-paper-(bc it's not that formal)

What is needed --

One video camera
Addition of Instant Replay clauses in rules
One person who knows how to work the camera( on the ref team)
Small addition to scoring software

How does this work --

Pre competition the ref teams decides on a location for the video camera. To keep this cheap there will not to be a need for remote viewing. The camera needs to be put in a location that shows the hold field at the least and offers the least ammount of 'other object impedence'. (by this I mean, objects in the foreground bloking the line of site of object behind them -- this can be achieved by having a camera over the playing field) There is a problem to this, getting a camera above the playing field and gaining quick access to it. So, the ref team would need to find the best suitable location that is quick and easy to gain access to.

Teams have an unlimited ammount of chances to contest a ruling on the field.
Pressure from the audience and GP will keep this from turning into having every match contested.

Things that can be contested -
Inaccruate scoring
Rule violations that were called, that a team feels were incorrectly called
EXTREME rule violations that were missed- that affected the outcome of a match - (example - a robot hits another high and knocks it over - and leaves it disabled for the rest of the match - and it was missed by the refs) also things that jeopardized the safety of individuals that was missed--

What can result from replay-
1 Indisputable evidence supporting the challenging team.
2 Indisputable evidence showing the challenging team was incorrect.
3 Not enough evidence to support challenging teams claim.

In the case of 1. The refs meet quickly to make the appropriate adjustments to the score.
In the case of 2. The challenging team takes a qualifying score of 0 for the match.
In the case of 3. Nothing, moves on just as it would have without replay.

Entire alliances must agree on whether or not to challange. If one team is unwilling, then the alliance can not challenge. So this will be another check in an alliance wanting to challenge.

The head ref takes the camera and the second ref in charge takes responsibilities for cleaning up the field and progressing to the next match. The ref makes a decision and announces it to the crowd, and the appropriate scores are given.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

What is needed --

One video camera

I suggest you revisit the first page of this thread.

I'll save you the time though--ONE CAMERA IS NOT ENOUGH

[Collmandoman]

Originally Posted by Cory

I suggest you revisit the first page of this thread.

I'll save you the time though--ONE CAMERA IS NOT ENOUGH

I respectfully disagree... if you need 4 cameras to sort out a problem.. there is a reason the refs missed the call..
I'll refer you to soap coverage of matches, one camera catches the entire field - I don't believe needing to get close enough to see the bearings gearboxes to be important. The issue that are usually contested are visable from 50 feet away.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I respectfully disagree... if you need 4 cameras to sort out a problem.. there is a reason the refs missed the call..
I'll refer you to soap coverage of matches, one camera catches the entire field - I don't believe needing to get close enough to see the bearings gearboxes to be important. The issue that are usually contested are visable from 50 feet away.

The SOAP feeds are mostly a composite of multiple cameras, with at least one operated by a human. As I noted earlier, that human doesn't know what to film, since they don't know anything about FIRST.

If you had one stationary camcorder sitting above the field, you won't be able to see squat.

The math has been done. It's been posted twice. What else is there to say?

[Collmandoman]

I've seen footage of matches... I've taken footage of matches.. with a pretty crummy camera... you can see practially everything going on -- before you are so quick to say you can't -- SHOW me proof that you can't -- of course you can't see the victors on the robot flashing-- but we dont need to see that-- I'm talking about OVERALL gameplay being able to be seen - if that's not conclusive- then it MAKES sense the refs missed it

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I've seen footage of matches... I've taken footage of matches.. with a pretty crummy camera... you can see practially everything going on -- before you are so quick to say you can't -- SHOW me proof that you can't -- of course you can't see the victors on the robot flashing-- but we dont need to see that-- I'm talking about OVERALL gameplay being able to be seen - if that's not conclusive- then it MAKES sense the refs missed it

Ok, you want proof.

Here's a match I happened to have saved to my computer. You'll notice it has only one camera, operated by a human.

You'll also notice that (aside from the horrible quality, which wouldn't be an issue at the even), the cameraman NEVER gives a full field perspective shot.

He's ALWAYS focused on one half of the field, or one goal, or one robot.

Please explain to me how on earth referees are supposed to review a foul on Team B, when the only thing the video shows is Team A, clear across the field?

Originally Posted by ChrisH

4) After final approval, the organizer would have to recruit and train required camera operators. Progress reports at our monthly meetings would be essential. All our other departments do this why not you?

This is key, and the reason it would never work in FIRST. Whatever AV company FIRST hires will not have trained cameramen.

They will not be able to be trained in less than one day, during Thursday practice matches, either. This means you'd need to have a stationary camera above the field, looking down, in addition, which we've already clearly established is not adequate.

[Collmandoman]

Please read entire posts before you respond. I took the time to write all that out, so before you are so quick to say NONONO please read and give your then helpful input.
if you read my considerations for replay.. you will note that one camera will be mounted showing the whole field
Please watch soap matches when the one stationary cam is on the field- even with the reduction of quality to put it on their site - it's still decent footage
training involves being able to use the rewind/foward and pause buttons on a camera...

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

Please read entire posts before you respond. I took the time to write all that out, so before you are so quick to say NONONO please read and give your then helpful input.
if you read my considerations for replay.. you will note that one camera will be mounted showing the whole field
Please watch soap matches when the one stationary cam is on the field- even with the reduction of quality to put it on their site - it's still decent footage
training involves being able to use the rewind/foward and pause buttons on a camera...

Find me a match in which the only perspective is a camera mounted above the field, and I'd be happy to take what you said into consideration.

Until then, I've taken everything else you've said into consideration, and it doesn't add up.

[Collmandoman]

http://soap.sigmacatrobotics.com/v2/...ase/movie/2005
any of them - wait for a full shot view

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

http://soap.sigmacatrobotics.com/v2/...ase/movie/2005
any of them - wait for a full shot view

You need to find me one match, where the camera is STATIONARY the entire time.

I'm not going to waste my time downloading video after video until I can find one that comes somewhat close to your fantasy situation.

If I did, I'd see the same exact things happening as in the video I linked to.

The only match vids I can think of that were filmed purely from an overhead perspective were the archived 2001 national finals.

It's a shot of the field from ~40+ feet away from the side. It's hard enough to make out which team is which. There's no way you could tell things like how many tets were stacked, or who hit who, or if someone was in a loading zone, etc.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

Please read entire posts before you respond. I took the time to write all that out, so before you are so quick to say NONONO please read and give your then helpful input.
if you read my considerations for replay.. you will note that one camera will be mounted showing the whole field
Please watch soap matches when the one stationary cam is on the field- even with the reduction of quality to put it on their site - it's still decent footage
training involves being able to use the rewind/foward and pause buttons on a camera...

Might wanna take a chill pill, that attitude is uncalled for.

About the camera, I've seen images from a stationary camera, high quality, low quality, close, far, up, down, left and right....

I've also seen penalties handed out for teams sort of in, sort of not in the loading zones. Tell me, if a ref right there, watching, can't tell, how is a camera going to? A team speared our robot and ripped our RC power cables out right in front of the driver station, we couldn't see it, 2 feet in front of us, while we were all watching our robot carefully. One stationary camera will not do it and its just another expense on an already tight bank account.

I'm sticking with my vote against instant replay unless somebody can prove that the camera has better eyes than a team of refs, and that it's a viable option for FIRST.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I'll refer you to soap coverage of matches, one camera catches the entire field

Depending on which FIRST feed they use. But more often than not, I watch Soap videos that are zoomed in on one robot the entire game, one hook or appendage even. (not Soap's fault)

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

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 never 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..

I'm sorry, what? The right calls were never made? Did you attend all 30+ regionals and championship fields simultaneously to justify this statement? Didn't think so. While this may be a small point to make, it very tiring to read grossly unfounded negative comments that aren't even realistic.

You're saying refs would be better if they were paid? The volunteer refs are slacking off because there's no money involved? Even paid refs make mistakes. People in this organization could care less about getting paid, and probably wouldn't do better if they were, because regardless they try hard to make even the most cynical person happy. If you need proof that it can't be done with one camera, we need proof that your statements are accurate. Find a similar game, organization, program, ref responsibilities to FIRST where refs are paid and show how they're accuracy is so much better.

Neg repping someone for their disagreed opinion? Good grief this is an abuse of that feature. Aren't we supposed to respect your opinions? Maybe you get neg repped for your opinions, but my guess it's not necessarily the content, but the manner in which you display the opinion.

Mount a camera above the 2005 field, what's that, 40ft or more? You can't count the stacked game object to catch an incorrect score. You can't get any depth perception. You can't see if they were touching the loading zone (heck, robot design can make that nearly impossible 2 ft away). You can't see if there was really contact between robots at the loading zone unless blatantly obvious. You can't make one of the "interpretive" calls (tipping, ramming, etc). You need perspective angles. Mount it on the side of the field. We will always have field elements in the way, and you will invariably have robots blocking the perfect view of a camera. Ideally the perfect spot would be a few rows up in the stands. But I feel adding instant reply opens up a whole new can of worms with the complaints, whining, and turnaround time for matches.

Should heed Andy's suggestion. Until you make the effort to formally prove the "simplicity" of this idea, show the estimate costs associated, and have a well thought out plan (hmm, white paper?), it definitely isn't going anywhere... But, I'm sure this will go on and on. I just don't hear/see that many disasterous calls each year to justify a new system of replays. There's a lot of complaining about refs calls, but I'm not convinced that all those complaints are grounded with accurate knowledge of the rules.

[Collmandoman]

amy...
I neg repped him him because he only said no.. I believe common knowledge of a forum is to support your statement.. and save the rest of the community time by saying NO!!. Sadly, I have to defend that for the entire community now. Please read the rest of my posts, because I have explained several things you have brought up. I never said refs were slacking off. Also when I said the refs never made the right calls, I was referring to the times they didn't make the rigth calls. I'll remove never so it's not confusing.