This year we need instant replay

[ChrisH]

I am currently the President of SCRRF, the local organization that plans events for teams in the Southern California area. These events include our famous Pre-Ship Scrimmage (bigger than many regionals) and the Fall Classic. I am also on the Southern California Regional Committee. So I am intimately involved in putting on three FIRST competitions every year, not to mention workshops, FLL and now Vex.

The logistical train to set up Instant Replay would be enormous relative to the other efforts to put on a competition. It might affect the outcome of a small fraction of matches. So we have a huge logistical problem for a small result.

In spite of that I would be willing to use one of our local off-seasons to experiment with this under the following conditions:

1) The effort is started and run by somebody who is not currently on our board or otherwise involved in putting on competitions. I can't afford to loose good help.

2) The effort is well planned in advance. I would need an equipment list and rules for use of IR in the competition at a minimum. At that point the board could think about authorizing further investigation.

3) The cost to SCRRF would have to be reasonable for the expected benefit. Note: I didn't say the cost had to be zero. Zero is good, but what are local organizations for but experimentation? On the other hand I would be irresponsible if we spent half our budget on it.

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?

5) Be part of the after event debrief.

In addition it would be helpful if the person performing this effort has a track record that indicates they actually will do what they say. I realize that it might be hard for a student to meet this requirement. Volunteering for a responsible job at a different competition and doing well go far in this respect.

I have no problem with IR as a concept. I think it might help in a few situations. While the teams involved might disagree with the Refs interpretations of their actions, what actually happened would be there for all to see, slowed down (I assume) so all parties can get a better view of what happened in what order. I think it could be valuable in resolving certain kinds of disputes, like just how one robot wound up on top of another.

But as an event organizer, it is just one more thing for me to worry about getting done. One more person for me to have to contact to make sure progress is being made. I'm not sure it is worth my additional effort, let alone yours. Then again once we try it we might wonder how we ever got along without it.

If somebody wants to pursue this in Southern California I'll be willing to bug them, it's the least I can do.

[Collmandoman]

Thanks for consideration of something that you might see as problematic, because you are willing to test somethign new. I really hope somebody steps up and organizes this - and I'd love to hear the result - whether positive or negative.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by 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.

I suggest you support your own statements then.

Please, since you insist one stationary camera is aqequate, find a match vid in which this is the only perspective given. Then proceed to explain exactly why this is adequate, and dismiss every concern that everyone else has posted.

The burden of proof is on you. You made a statement saying that one camera is enough. It is not our job to disprove it (which numerous people thoroughly have, by the way). It is YOUR job to find evidence in favor of your position.

[Collmandoman]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

'

http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2005/...ing/fl_001.wmv

[JVN]

I'm locking this one temporarily.
I don't care what either Cory or Colmandowhatever has to say anymore.

Time for a break.
Someone else can reopen when everyone has calmed down.