This year we need instant replay

[Validius]

Instant replay.

Last year we got serously fouled (ramed in the loading dock) and have video proof of it. This foul was never called and it cost us the match.

Obviously GLR '05 is long gone. The ultament outcome of '05 would have prolly stayed the same (Novi, I am proud to be in one of your neigboring towns!!!). The point is that it shouldnt have happened. We were rookies last year and at the time this really dissapointed us.

Just somthing to think about.

-Mark


:Edit: I recieved a request for the video. I'm not sending it, if i showed who did the foul it would devert attention from the forward-looking point i am trying to make :/edit:

[Nitroxextreme]

i agree to some extent with this notion, but it would need to be regulated

many teams video tape and the refs may have trouble understanding the whole picture from only one angle

[Cory]

Won't happen now, or ever.

It takes long enough between matches already when it comes to questionable situations. The last thing that needs to be done is make it take even longer with instant replay.

Even if FIRST did allow it, some regionals probably have fewer cameras than others, and these guys are not trained in operating cameras in a FIRST situation, unlike NFL cameramen. Half the time they're off focusing on some random robot or part of the field, and not where the action is happening. If they aren't filming something when it happens, there's no point.

Sorry you got screwed, but Im sure you've benefitted from a call that could have gone either way and went in your favor. If you haven't, you will at some point.

[Billfred]

Anything is possible.

That said, I wouldn't hold my breath for instant replay. Why?

1) That requires a camera crew. Some regionals can't swing that kind of money.
2) Say you're at a Palmetto-sized event, and each team gets one review opportunity over the competition. Assuming each one takes five minutes to decide, you're talking an extra THREE HOURS waiting for the reviews to get handled. Boor-ing.
3) Having the old addage of "if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen" keeps life simple. You don't have to worry about whether this was right or wrong, nor whether the ref actually watched the tape, nor half a dozen other things.

[Timmyd]

i disagree i do not like this idea that goes against gracious professionalism there is a system of checks and balances already in place that is why there is more than one ref plus this would slow up game play

[Validius]

Why a camera crew? Why not just have a cieling cam or 2? I'm not talking about debating somthing small, i'm talking about getting ramed in the loading dock. The officials could easily take a look at the footage while the field is being set up.

Perhaps a system like in the NFL. If a team requests instant replay and no decisions are changed they loose 10 points. My dad's 1992 Hi8 cam caught this incidant, you dont need and kinda fancy hardware.

[Timmyd]

there in lies a problem if you are already down points and are going to lose what is going to stop every single team from doing this when they are going to loose yet again this leads to game lag

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Validius

Why a camera crew? Why not just have a cieling cam or 2? I'm not talking about debating somthing small, i'm talking about getting ramed in the loading dock. The officials could easily take a look at the footage while the field is being set up.

Perhaps a system like in the NFL. If a team requests instant replay and no decisions are changed they loose 10 points. My dad's 1992 Hi8 cam caught this incidant, you dont need and kinda fancy hardware.

I think you've underestimated the amount of equipment you need for instant replay.

You need a sufficient number of cameras to capture all relevant angles of the playing field.

If those cameras are stationary, that's extra cash that has to be found. If they're the same ones that are currently being used, the operators need intensive training as to what they should be filming and when. In the NFL, do you ever see the cameramen filming some offensive lineman that got clocked by the defense and is lying on the ground seeing stars?

The answer is no. In FIRST, the camera men LOVE to film robots that have been flipped and are sitting there spinning their wheels in the air. This would not work.

You need to record the match, and have a station setup where a/the refs can watch it. More cash needed.

A lot of regionals can barely afford what they're putting out on the field already. This would be a large burden.

The refs get more calls right than they do wrong. Far more calls right than wrong. We need to just trust them and stand by their decisions, right or wrong.

A FAR better use of resources would be to make sure that every ref has intensive training, and understand the rulebook, as well as the in match applications of it perfectly.

[Validius]

It seems that it comes down to a question of money as do many things in life and FIRST.

I cant help but to agree with Cory about the training.

[KenWittlief]

this year, sit up in the stands, in the top row, and zoom a Hi8 camera so it covers the whole field.

Record several matches, then watch them carefully and see what you can observe on the video.

Hi8 has a resolution of about 500 x 480 pixels. The playfield is what? 60 feet long? thats 720 inches. So your whole-field video has a resolution of about 1.5" - so you will be able to discern objects about 3" and larger.

That means you cant see hands, or robot arms, or the lines on the floor clearly.

You would need a high defintion camera recording system, like 1024p HD TV, and you would need 2 or 3 to cover all sides of the field + the human players. It gets expensive really fast.

Professional sports: they use camera operators to follow the play action, and they zoom in on whoever has the ball, and the major players in several zones on the field.

Who has the ball in a FIRST match? how many cameras would it take to track 4 or 6 robots on the field, plus all the human players, plus the drive teams and coaches to make sure they dont break any rules?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Cory

The refs get more calls right than they do wrong. Far more calls right than wrong.

So I guess by this logic if in one year the state of California jails 2000 guilty criminals and 200 innocent people than they are doing okay because they are getting it right way more than they are getting it wrong. Something is flawed there. Anyway, I do agree with you on your points. It wouldn't be easy or cheap to implement.

EDIT: What I was saying is "correct over half of the time" or "correct most of the time" isn't good enough. Let's strive for near 100% perfection rather than "more perfect than not."

You can compare it to dozens of things (things that you will probably say have no relation, but anyway). For example the brakes in your car. As long as they work most of the time, it is okay? Or the teacher/professor in your class, as long as he shows up most of the time, it is okay? Or car payments, as long as you pay them most of the time, you are A OK? Or when you go to the auto mechanics, as long as they are ripping you off only once in a while it is okay because they are honest most of the time? If a surgeon specializing in amputations cuts off the wrong leg, it's okay because he got it right on 50 other patients? If a tire on your car goes flat, it's okay because you have 3 more that didn't? I can go on and on.

Sure, there will be the occasional slip up in refereeing. But, let's all remember, "good enough isn't" There is always room for improvement.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

...Something is flawed there. ...

[Spock][raised eyebrow] Highly illogical! [/Spock][/raised eyebrow]

FIRST competitions have nothing to do with the criminal justice system. :^)

[Cory]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

So I guess by this logic if in one year the state of California jails 2000 guilty criminals and 200 innocent people than they are doing okay because they are getting it right way more than they are getting it wrong. Something is flawed there. Anyway, I do agree with you on your points. It wouldn't be easy or cheap to implement.

There's a difference between the justice system and a FIRST match.

It takes weeks to months for a trial to occur.

When was the last time the outcome of a single match was issued a month after it was played? Given how little time refs are given to make decisions, and with only being able to go with what they saw in the heat of the moment, they're doing a darn good job.

[Bill Moore]

Instant Replay??? AAAAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

When are people going to understand that the competitions are not the "end" that FIRST is trying to achieve? If they were, FIRST would be a "for profit" corporation and run them like a business, just like any other sports league.

The competitions are only a means to an end. That "end" being to inspire students and give them an opportunity to participate in a fun experience, that encourages them to consider science and technology as career choices.

Who wins is immaterial, as long as all go through the process and are exposed to the goals of FIRST.

Two or three years from now, the metal on a ribbon will be collecting dust; but, the memory of when you challenged yourself to produce more than you thought you were capable of doing will be a great source of personal pride and encouragement.

[Jay Trzaskos]

I agree with Cory and Ken 100%, Every team has team has had one or two calls against them that they don't agree with. If you think that the refs made a mistake, go talk to the Head ref and tell him what you saw or what he/they may have missed on the field. But always be profesional about it, don't go up there and yell at the Head Ref. And don't bring up a tape from a match that happened an hour ago, or 6 months ago. they aren't going to take the time to look at it, and i doubt they ever will, because they have to much going on. With that said, in 999/1000 cases, it will not affect your outcome in the regional.

To sum it up, the system that FIRST has going is all that we really need, yeah a little better training when it comes to the refs would be nice (especially when you have Baker out there throwing flags left and right ) but they do an awesome job and we need to thank them, not insult them by bringing in instant replay.

JT