This year we need instant replay

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

OK, I get sucked into another one. Again I will say, it takes more than 1 camera to make a difference. Take the NHL for example. There are usually 3 cameras trained on 1 goal. Even after looking at slow motion they still can't tell the difference. 3 cameras per goal and you believe that you could see a whole field from 1 camera placed above the field?

And in the NHL, if there's no conclusive evidence, the play stands as called. Isn't that what's being suggested? It's a stretch to say that one camera can't catch enough to be useful. I'm not sure if directly above is necessarily the best place for it (because of lens issues, mostly), but that doesn't negate the suggestion.

Originally Posted by Steve W

If this was done then we can start questioning the refs and the system for minor, questionable points of view.

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't like how "GP" is tossed around every 5 seconds, but it surely isn't appropriate for people to boo and crap on people who give up time out of their busy lives to come referee, when the majority of the time, the person doing the criticizing couldn't have done a better job themselves.

Isn't this a variation on what Andy said earlier, about offending the volunteers? My skepticism regarding this still stands; the referees realize that people will disagree with them, and they realize that their authority will ultimately be final. Whether or not people seethe over bad calls shouldn't be an issue—both the referees and the competitors ought to be reasonable enough to examine the matter on the basis of the only evidence that matters; the referee's view of the play, be it live, or, as has been suggested, in a video replay. The fact that they're volunteers doesn't absolve them of any errors that they may make, nor does it remove teams' prerogative to criticize (objectively), irrespective of whether or not the team member could have done a better job.

Of course, as has been repeated ad infinitum, the outcome doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but, in principle, wouldn't it be nice if more matches were decided correctly, rather than, when a dispute arises, throwing up our hands and saying "it's just a game", with an implicit "we're not willing to discuss the possibility that we may have just blown a call". Nobody questions the fact that the referees' decision is final, but can we say that if some practical method of implementing a replay were found, and it were applied judiciously, it could help to cut down on whatever bad calls do take place, and cut down on the arguments over calls, because of the additional evidence?

In fact, maybe I'm being too harsh with the characterization of officials as being dismissive; this is not to say that it doesn't occur, but I would point out that it not endemic. Certainly, they can only call plays based on what was observed, and beyond that, there is no possibility of the call being reversed. I think that the idea of a replay is to give them a second look; if nothing comes of that second look, then who can argue with it? Once the referee has seen a replay, a team can't argue that the official didn't see the play, because the team just caused them to watch it again—shouldn't that end the argument, then and there? And if the replay shows nothing, the referee can say "sorry, but you've got nothing to show me"; though objectively, it's the same call as was originally made, it gives the appearance of the referee having attempted to make a concilliatory gesture—in other words, it ought to make arguing much more difficult, since the referee can't be characterized has having dismissed the concern without due consideration. It's far harder to vilify someone who's made an attempt to help, than it is to vilify someone who (despite being within his rights, and acting fairly and responsibly) refuses to discuss the issue.

From looking at the responses above, I think that most of the opposition comes on technical/cost grounds, or on the principle that it's just a game, and doesn't matter. The first point, regarding technical issues, is reasonable, but there are lots of cheap ways to handle something like this; why are we thinking big, when thinking small might be sufficient? The second point is borderline apathetic, and seems to dismiss the problem without due consideration.

Maybe it isn't cost-effective to put a replay system in place. Maybe it won't catch as much data as we'd like. But is it a bad idea in principle? Are we arguing that something about a replay will kill the game, kill the spirit of the competition? If so, what?

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

But is it a bad idea in principle? Are we arguing that something about a replay will kill the game, kill the spirit of the competition? If so, what?

Anything that can improve is not bad. This idea is bad. Will it kill the game? Yes! The time taken to replay adds up. By NHL standards it is at least 5 minutes per call. Teams right now complain that there are not enough matches to seed correctly. If we take time for video replay you can knock off 1 game per team to allow for replays. Last year we had a tough time trying to stay on schedule just with refs calls.

By the way, does anyone have any idea of what percentage of calls have been reversed (not decided) due to video replays.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Isn't this a variation on what Andy said earlier, about offending the volunteers? My skepticism regarding this still stands; the referees realize that people will disagree with them, and they realize that their authority will ultimately be final. Whether or not people seethe over bad calls shouldn't be an issue—both the referees and the competitors ought to be reasonable enough to examine the matter on the basis of the only evidence that matters; the referee's view of the play, be it live, or, as has been suggested, in a video replay. The fact that they're volunteers doesn't absolve them of any errors that they may make, nor does it remove teams' prerogative to criticize (objectively), irrespective of whether or not the team member could have done a better job.

I don't mean to say that refs should get a free pass just because they're volunteers. Objective criticism is fine. I don't think any ref would have a problem with someone saying "Hey, Mr or Mrs ref, can you explain why this call you made went the way it did?" It's when people start saying things like "OMG TEH REFS SUCK SO BAD, I HATE THEM!!!!" that's an issue.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I think many overestimate how much equipment you would need for instant replay. One camera would suffice mounted over the playing field.

we did an analysis of this back on page one of the thread. A typical video camera has a horizontal resolution of 500 or 520 pixels. Watching the entire 60 foot field with one camera you have a visual resolution of about 3" (per pixel) - which means your one camera will not be able to see hands, feet, arms and extensions sticking out of robots, the tires on the robots, or even to clearly define the lines on the floor. One camera will be useless for instant replays.

Video proof is proof - if there isn't 'indisputable' evidence then you move on. If there is - then do something about it. For people saying that it would be UN GP to have instant replay, I can only say send me directions to your utopia - I'd love to live there. Regardless it's not even an issue about GP.

when you work with technology its easy to start thinking that everything else in the world is cut and dry, black and white, ones and zeros. Its not. Everyone who plays sports knows at some point errors will be made, fouls will be missed by the refs, and bad calls will be made. Sporting events are not 100% fair. That is part of the game. That is not a cop-out, its not GP nonsense, its the reality of the situation.

And this is the misdirected path I was talking about at the top of this page. Once you start down this path, thinking "it should be possible to make the game 'fair' with the right technology", then your basic reasoning is misguided. No sport game can ever be 100% fair - at some point you have to accept that fact, have the personal character to accept it: gracefully. Thats what 'sportsmanship' is all about - understanding this is a game, its not life and death.

You play your best, the refs do their best, and at the end of the day we are FIRST, collectively. Nobody is going to lose a college scholarship, or their job, because their team lost a FIRST match.

Some sponsor drops you because they dont' get enough recognition bc you lost the regional! (I know that's complame) BUT OMG what if?! I guess they aren't in FIRST for the right reasons then!! right?! but that doesn't matter, you dont' have money now-- boohoo

if that really were the case then I believe you will be better off not having that team anymore. The students on a team that only exists to further the image of a corporate sponsor will have a miserable experience, and that team will do a great deal of damage to FIRST as a whole.