Poll-Video Replay

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

We can barely get robots to connect to the field. FTAs are already overworked and under appreciated. I don't think we need another piece of technology on the field to fail at the least opportune time.

I would suggest that if the field replay is unavailable due to a technical glitch, all replay requests are automatically deemed "insufficient evidence" and handled appropriately. If the FTA doesn't bother to make it available, we penalize whoever forgot to put 25 hours in the day.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would suggest that if the field replay is unavailable due to a technical glitch, all replay requests are automatically deemed "insufficient evidence" and handled appropriately. If the FTA doesn't bother to make it available, we penalize whoever forgot to put 25 hours in the day.

Then we'll start seeing threads like "Back-up Video Review System Needs to Happen Now"

-Mike

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I voted yes because I just want all matches* to be recorded and this is a great excuse. If this were to happen, I would like people to be able to come at the end of the regional to transfer the matches to a hard drive for future upload for the blue alliance.

Edit*: Or at least just elimination matches. I think that would be a happy compromise.

[pandamonium]

video replays are a part of sports that captures audience attention. It also is the easiest way to teach spectators the game. during the match resets an announcer does a little run down of the last few matches like game sense does at chezy champs.

[Boltman]

I voted YES in limited but seemingly critical scenarios.

1. High order ranking sorts in DAY 1 issues (70% of all matches) primarily for "end of day" ranking corrections.
2. Elimination W/L decisions.

This year ranking points and auto points are HUGE so my proposal is any team can request "Video review" at any time during day 1 (until end of the day offline, not during their match) to "correct" missing RP (Breach and/or Capture) , win vs loss or auto points..and in subsequent years any other "high order" ranking metric...this way "hopefully" at end of day 1 teams will know proper ranking to avoid an 8 seed wiping out a 1 seed because of bad rankings order and an overly powerful 8th alliance. Unfair to #1 seed.

Elimination issues need to be addressed by end of each match and available as an option each round (QF/SF/F) you get ONE challenge for video review. If its a "ludicrous low-chance review" you lose all subsequent challenges.

[logank013]

I love seeing this friendly debate. It is great to see both sides of the issue and handle it as needed. While putting my opinion of "Is FIRST really a sport" to the side, I'm going to compare this game to soccer. Here's a little background of me and soccer. I'm an official grade 8 soccer referee. I have refereed soccer for 5 seasons and I've noticed a few things when refereeing soccer and decided that things can't be too different.

In my soccer referee games, there are times I wish I had video replay. When I referee 8-10 year olds, it is only 1 referee on the field at once. It's impossible to keep your eye on the ball all the time as a referee. Sometimes a kid falls and you need to make sure they are ok. Sometimes you need to look behind you when running backwards to make sure you don't plow a little kid. Sometimes during these distracted moments, the ball gets kicked out and I have to make a guess about who has the throw in. My point is, if you aren't looking at the play, how are you expected to make the right call?

In this game, it's a little different than soccer. 5 referees. 6 robots. 18 boulders. 10 goals. 10 defenses. Lots of fouls to look for. My point is this game is complicated. With 5 referees and if each covers 1 robot, 1 robot isn't being looked at during any given time. Each time something is scored, they have to hit it into their tablet as scored. No stops to do that. The reason for bad calls in this game is because there are just so many things for referees to get distracted at while refereeing a match.

My comparison: FRC is super complicated. If there is a foul in my soccer game, I stop the game and explain the foul. If there is a foul in FRC, the referees waves a flag and has to enter that in withOUT stopping the match. If the ball goes out of bounds in soccer, the game is stopped and I make an educated guess on who has the ball. In FRC, all of a sudden a robot that was in the neutral zone when you looked down is now in the courtyard when you look up, you have to make a guess about which defense was crossed.

In a game like soccer, I see video replay as important. It tells which foot touched the ball when it went out of bounds. It could be used to see where a ball should be placed. In FRC, we can use it to see which defense was crossed. If a robot was actually on the batter or not. We could use it to see what errors were made in scoring auton.

The video replay isn't to tell the referees they are doing bad. It's a tool I think they would find useful. I'd find it really useful in moments I get distracted in soccer. So why wouldn't an FRC referee find it useful for when they get distracted?

I agree with one post I saw earlier. Video replay shouldn't be used to negotiate fouls. Fouls are typically an opinion thing. The video would be perfect for things that are quantitative like defense crossings that are a definite yes or no thing.

Hopefully my comparison made sense to you all, but video replay if used correctly should make teams, referees, and spectators happy. There is no loss in using video replay (except money because that of live archive tool needs).

[New Lightning]

I like the concept of review only applying to scoring and not to fouls. I believe it would significantly cut down on the number review that people would want, and make things more efficient.

[connor.worley]

It should be beta-tested at some events, and if it works properly I would be happy to see it rolled out across FRC - if FIRST runs the system end to end perhaps they can also use it to save high quality match recordings.

[Caleb Sykes]

I voted no. I reserve the right to change my opinion after the potential off-season trials. If we ever do get video replay, I hope it is only for scoring, not for fouls.

I agree with above posters though. The game design should have fewer fouls, and fouls should generally not be used to dictate how games will flow.

[Tom Line]

No. It will add time to an already very long process. It will add stress and burden to already over-burdened refs. And.... to top it off...

Even professional sports who have invested hundreds of millions in it have routine bad calls. The NFL, for example, utilizes dozens of camera and has an entire room of techs watching each game.

The NHL, probably the game you would assume to be the easiest to use replay, still has issues with replace because all to often objects are obscured.

FIRST, on the other hand, changes games completely on a yearly basis and would have to work out how to do replay for a totally new game every year. It's simply not feasible.

[ceb515]

There should be another option, "During Quarter-, Semi-, and Finals Matches"

[Wayne Doenges]

I'm missing something here. You mention wasting time. Do you think that EVERY team will ask for a video review of EACH match? I don't think that would happen.
If a team comes up and ask for a video review because they think there was a mistake made, the Head Ref should deny the request. If a team says that a crossing was missed and can give you an approximate time the crossing was made, than the Head Ref should consider the request.
We had one of the defenses come loose during a match (I won't say which match) and I feel it cost us the match. I could see it move every time a robot crossed it. That would also be a good time for a review.
But, just like in the NFL, you could maybe have a consequence for falsely asking for a review. I think this would limit to the ones that really occurred.
Just my $.05.
*puts on flame proof under garments

[christheman200]

After losing on a foul point tie breaker in quarters in GTRC, a video review would have been nice. Is it practical? I don't think so. The delays between matches were already long enough. However, if implemented it should be consistent from event to event, in other words fool proof. I like the idea of testing this at offseason events for a few years, and seeing where it goes.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by christheman200

However, if implemented it should be consistent from event to event, in other words fool proof.

I think something got lost in translation.

For one thing, "fool proof" doesn't exist. There's "fool resistant", but nothing is EVER fool proof. Anybody who thinks something is fool proof severely underestimates the ingenuity of the common fool (and the uncommon fool on top of that).

And for another, "fool proof" means that it's hard to mess up. Consistent from event to event means that it's the same in multiple places (within a certain degree of tolerance). Now, something that's consistent is likely to be MORE difficult to mess up the setup on, but they aren't the same thing. Example: If you want to be consistent, you use the same type of connector on all your wiring. If you want to be foolproof, you make sure that any given connector side can only go into it's matching one, and not into any others!


I think that for the initial rounds of testing (AKA, offseason events), variation--intentional variation--is good. This is called "exploring the alternatives". For example, will any old video work? That's one possible way to cut the costs down. Or camera variety A vs. camera variety B. Various locations can be checked (food for thought, if you've got a driver-cam, you probably can't tell if you actually got a Crossing on it unless it's a pole-mounted one).

After those initial rounds, everybody compares notes (publishes) and then the "standardization" work can begin. Run a couple rounds of checks on what's been shown to work decently, compare notes, repeat until you have a process.