This year we need instant replay

[EricH]

I see three sides to this. One is the team who loses on what they see as a bad call and asks for a replay. Another is the refs' side. The third is the team who has the replay go against them. For the team who asks, instant replay would solve the problem of losing (maybe). For the refs, each individual replay is a new piece of hassle, more teams mad at them, and they still have many more matches to go.

But what about the team that loses due to replay? No one has brought them up yet. How would they feel? They would most likely feel bummed that they lost, probably angry at the refs, and possibly annoyed enough to quit FIRST. Then where does the inspiration go for that school?

I have only reffed at an FLL scrimmage between two teams from the same school. That was hard enough. Having to note when to remove scoring objects and dealing with field damage that could affect points was annoying enough. I didn't have teams coming to me and complaining and asking for instant replay. I know this is FLL, but I think that just from that, I am not sure I want to even attempt reffing a FRC event. I am amazed that the refs even volunteer for these tough calls. Why make their job harder by using instant replay?

If instant replay would make things easier on everyone, I personally would probably say go for it, but it will make things harder on at least one group of the three covered above, and it will disappoint one of the other groups.

[Collmandoman]

ok then

pls don't use my name - for reasons that are very personal - and I'm not going to explain to you or anyone, and I hope you honor that

also don't post peoples rep messages - I believe that is a forum rule

thank you,
me

You may reach me on aim at stealingshrimp

[Madison]

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.

If we do not know you well enough to use your name, certainly we do not know you well enough to consider your opinion.

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about people having opinions about all sorts of things they're genuinely unqualified to speak about; however, we can choose when to ignore those people.

[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.

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

ok then

pls don't use my name - for reasons that are very personal - and I'm not going to explain to you or anyone, and I hope you honor that

also don't post peoples rep messages - I believe that is a forum rule

thank you,
me

Well, Stu Bloom said that you refused to recieve messages through this forum, so there was no other way to ask you about the very confusing negative rep point you submitted to him.

[Brandon Martus]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

Well, Stu Bloom said that you refused to recieve messages through this forum, so there was no other way to ask you about the very confusing negative rep point you submitted to him.

Please continue this discussion privately, and keep this this thread on the original topic.

[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

[Mike Martus]

To: Collmandoman
Please contact me via e-mail since you choose not to accept e-mail contact thru the site.

Mike Martus
mmartus@chiefdelphi.com

[petek]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate for a minute: I like Andy's suggestion

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.

Maybe we could apply (gasp!) technology to the problem. Like have a camera zoomed in on each robot, put a different color target (visible from above) on each robot, and use a CMUCam to run each camera pan/tilt! Keeping a tight zoom on the robot would help with resolution, though perspective might still be a problem...

Any takers on Andy's challenge?

[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?

[Steve W]

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.

This year at Canada's Wonderland there was an incident that occurred. It involved my team. After the match a couple of students came down and made their point to the head ref. They had been sitting back from the field and "saw it all happen". The problem was that I was standing right next to the head ref and we both saw the same incident from our closer point of view. I immediately ask the students to back off on their claims because the call was the correct call and they were mistaken.

I am a firm believer, as person that has called many matches and seen things up close, that the refs get it right about 99% of the time. I have had many discussions with the refs and I have found that the biggest issue is not them missing a call but with interpretation of a call. WE, non refs, are not in on all of the conference calls that are used to bring the refs together on the interpretation of the rule. This causes us to question the refs or to say that they have gotten it wrong. It is really us that through our lack of official clarification that are really wrong. It's just that we didn't know it.

[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