pic: Video Review at TRI 2018

captioncontest
offseasoncompetition
2018
texasroboticsinvitational
texasroboticsinvitational2018

#1



We again had Video Review at TRI and again it worked wonderfully. It happened between Semifinal 2-2 and Finals 1.

Alliance #3 turned in their coupon after losing SF2M2 by 2 points and were assigned 25 penalty points. They asked that each of the cube herding penalties be reviewed. The refs reviewed the match footage and believed that each of the penalties was accurate so no changes were made to the score.

This seems like a very valid use of review, had a referee made a mistake, either miscounting the cubes or even hitting a button too many times could clearly be something that would be over turned. This review didn’t effect our schedule our event ran on time the entire way.

Here is the link to see SF2M2 - https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2018txri_sf2m2


#2

Hey Allen, during video review, were there multiple angles of video you all got to watch? Was there opportunity for refs viewing video from teams?

To streamline the process, do you limit the ticket to only video from the event itself?


#3

From footage I’ve seen it looks like they use 3-5 cameras with up to 3 views at a time, a full field view plus views of each side of the field (again, from what I’ve seen). I would assume for the sake of fairness and time they probably only review the official video.


#4

Correct, during video review the Refs are only able to watch the video from the venue. They are just watching the stream, if they can’t determine the call from the stream video the call stands as it was called during the match. We don’t record each camera separately, so they only have the mixed/switched feed to watch.


#5

Wait a minute - you had video review and the world didn’t end? I’ve been made to believe that video review is an impossibility because of posts on this very forum… I can’t believe people on CD could be wrong. That’s simply impossible.


#6

Here is the TRI video review rule, it has worked well for several years now.

Video Review

Given that the technology allows (video system doesn’t go down, etc), TRI will be instituting a video review process for the elimination rounds of the bracket.

Each Alliance is allowed one challenge/review in the playoffs. The alliance captain will be provided a video review coupon in addition to their timeout coupon.

Video review coupons must be given to the head ref during the same time periods in which timeout coupons are allowed following the match to be reviewed.

Only match-affecting calls and yellow/red cards can be reviewed.

The score or lack-of-score being reviewed must be significant enough to affect the outcome of the match. The Head Referee can choose to not review any call that they do not believe will change the outcome of the match.

Video evidence must be indisputable to change a call. The point is to receive credit for an obviously missed score, not debate further a close call that a referee already used their best judgment on. The Head Referee’s decision is final after a review.

Only the event provided video will be used by the Head Referee during a video review. Referees will not review any other video footage, including camcorders, phones, or tablets not provided by the event.

The Head Referee, at their discretion, may choose to review any ruling throughout the event. Please do not ask for a video review at any time other than giving the referee your alliance’s video review coupon during the playoffs. All other requests will not be granted. We don’t plan on ever having this happen, but we want to provide the best event possible to teams; video review of other situations may allow us to do this.


#7

Seeing how TRI handled this, I think it’s safe to say that FIRST Is 100% capable of introducing video review, and is just too lazy to. Who knows, maybe this will be the year they introduce it.


#8

Ill disagree. Theres still too many events with streams far below what anyone should consider anywhere close to “Acceptable” today (sub-480p), and i would not want to rely on ref’s looking at some grainy pixels to see if i racked up some tech fouls or not.


#9

I disagree with your disagreeing. Seems like this would be the perfect excuse to make the webcast units (with full-field match footage, to boot!) mandatory. Sounds like a win-win to me.

In the event that HQ doesn’t like that, I humbly suggest that they invest our registration funds into time-turner technology and get 1676 to record each event.


#10

Is there standardization in the equipment used at FIRST events for livestreaming? I heard somewhere that equipment is provided by either FIRST or the regional FIRST organizations (e.g. FiM, FIRST in Texas).

Many times the online stream doesn’t look suitable for any sort of VAR, with team numbers being barely readable. However, this could be just 720p video compressed at very high bitrates for online streaming, and no compression would be needed for running an aux output to the referee station.

To anyone who knows about this, what a standard FRC stream setup? Asking because I do live video/IMAG for my church. Also, what changes needed to be made to the streaming setup at TRI to accommodate video review?


#11

Starting in 2017, yes, but

  • Not all events got it
  • it was not used outside the US (to my knowledge)
  • Half of the streams were never properly saved (dont tell me Twitch VOD’s are a save, therye not, and they can dissapear at any given time dependent on FIRST’s sponsorship with twitch ending)

There are still events (cough Canada cough Florida cough) that are using resolutions as low as 265p.

This depends wildly on who is hosting event (PNW is going to be different from the FIRST Trailer which will be different from Aus) and if its contracted out. (cough champs cough) The basic things needed though is a connection to the FMS for the scores/next match/things like that along with something to key all of it, a switcher if you use more than a camera (or want to switch to sponsor panes and things like that), a camera that can be run on wire power and show what it see’s to a computer, a computer (obviously), a way to feed audio, and some internet to stream. Im probably forgetting some things and its really not as simple as it sounds, even for a simple stream. To do the Replays (now termed Highlights) that PNW DCMP does, it required its own seperate switcher that had to be manually controlled to record, rewind, and play, while another switching crew had to put it on air for everyone to see.


#12

To counter the bad stream quality argument, there are plenty of bad streams that you can still get the majority of needed info. Most concerns I’ve heard about bad calls come from protected area penalties, scoring not being counted, missed pins, missed auto quests, missed climbs, etc. These things would be totally noticeable even on a bad quality, pixelated stream.

Now as far as those events that prefer “action shots” instead of full field, that is another story.


#13

There isn’t a specific standard, most of the regionals will have the webcast units next year but district regions are on their own for streaming/recording matches.

The TRI complete AV setup costs around $6000](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mZcYSu_H9RVZqucvCBRoZgKafdyt2B7jbJUJIooqIfY/edit#gid=0) plus the use of some personal laptops, etc.


#14

(The shoutcast setup used this year was separate from this, that was just my personal desktop and some gaming headsets, plus some monitors borrowed from a computer lab.)


#15

At least the events with action shots use cameras that can show you more than a few pixels…


#16

I though Video Review was an interesting thing, and to see it in action was exciting.

What happens if an alliance makes a mid-match call based on the score, and that score includes penalties? And after the match with review, those penalties are removed? Does that unfairly punish the other alliance?

This also might be part of another problem of inconsistency of adding stuff to the score. For example, this year some refs added climbs during the match and some added after. Hopefully next year the manual is clearer about these things.


#17

I’m thinking that having video review capability available for offseasons is a good thing. Whether or not it’s actually officially used–somebody’s got to be the guinea pig.

I’ve suggested it before for the local one, might suggest it again. 3 cameras (end/end/middle of the audience side), some capability for replay.

I will admit to occasionally watching matches (after the event ends, never before) where tough calls were made to see if I’d make it differently on review. There was one this year that I think I’d call it slightly differently, but the outcome would still be the same–different rule, same penalty.


#18

It’s already possible for refs to change a call after the match. That happens all the time, video review just gives them more of a chance to get the call correct. I’d much rather lose after the refs change their mine and get a call correct, then to win because the refs made a mistake.


#19

Right, but 1) how often does this happen and 2) those changed calls are usually big things such as cards or certain rules that don’t happen so often. Small calls which result in the opponent getting 5 or 25 points aren’t those that are being changed, which are the ones that mostly affect matches. I’m all for yellow and red card level decisions being reviewed on video, but not for fouls and techs.

The equivalent of this in let’s say basketball is reviewing flagrant calls for a fight after the match which is fine because the penalty is fines which don’t affect the match, but lets say they reverse/give a goal tending call to one team. That could not only affect the match outcome but also even affect whether the team plays to stall or to shoot etc.


#20

They review/reverse 3 point foot on the line calls that swing 1 point, almost every game in the NBA now.