Practically, the simpler solution is use a three person officiating team, like in soccer, where the assistant refs on the sides are able to have a closer view of their areas of the field. Using the scoring referees to each watch one side of the field, like the platform this year, really makes sense. It would result in match times being the same, and easier to implement consistently.
Thatâs the standard way we run events. I know for a fact, because Iâve been a head ref, that even with three people watching the field and a simpler game than this yearâs that there are times where we wished we had a video replay because we simply didnât know what actually happened.
Iâve said it time and time again when it comes up - thereâs not enough money to really implement a replay system.
You know what the NFL, NBA and other sports do? Invest millions in it, with paid professionals.
We donât have that level of money and time investment for a school robotics event.
Why is it that the cameras have to be the ones also being used for live-streaming? Whatâs wrong with just watching video that someone recorded on their phone? If it has the angle needed, I donât see why that canât just be used.
Inevitable bias there, also not all phone camera qualities are the same.
If youâre going to do this, you need to be as fair and impartial as possible, which just is thrown out the window when you review it on someoneâs phone.
Location, location, location. I want that view and the opposite view. And that second view is what we donât have.
Just get 1 video from each alliance, or 1 video from someone in the stands.
If youâre making a call and youâre reviewing video, the last thing youâre going to want to do is to review video from someone way in the stands which is a bad vantage point in most cases.
This whole thing just scales in impracticality.
Or just a top down view?
Not only does it scale impractically, there is no guarantee that a wrong-call will be corrected in all cases.
Competitors think, âOh look, Iâve GoPro-ed my match and it clearly shows I was robbed in this match!â and that will work all the time. Reality is very different.
The point isnât to call based off of the video, the point is to let the video be a tool that can be used to help make the decision if needed. The quality of the video doesnât matter much, as long as it isnât like 180p
Those⌠arenât that different of statements. Ultimately, youâre using additional video to base a call on.
Yes, but you donât base your decision on it, if the video is low quality or doesnât show what is being challenged, then they donât use the video.
oops, I deleted the video showing the violation I committedâŚ
Well that is why it is not the teams recording, but the competition holders
Some competitors were suggesting their own (or audience) footage:
Which was put forward to address (legitimate) cost concerns brought by a real-life EP
Much as it seems like a âsimple solutionâ, itâs not.
I helped set up a competition where they wanted to stream it, and they asked someone to bring a camera, and streamed it on twitch, it was streamed/recorded at no extra cost to the competition holder. Iâm sure in all regions you can find someone to bring a camera, and provide a computer, could be different in other regions, but at least in the region Iâm in, it can work, and has worked.
Not all facilities (e.g. schools) allow out-bound internet connections (or block common streaming platforms), etc.
This topic isnât about streaming, they could just record it for review (I just talked about streaming because that is the example I had).
And now there are dedicated volunteer(s) necessary to care-and-feed for the recording infrastructure (when volunteers for field resetting, scoring refs, judges, etc. are already hard to come by). And if the cameras/computer system recording the matches have issues, the competition comes to a halt while the stuff gets fixed, causing delays.
Or it doesnât halt competition, doesnât work for some matches - and of course those happen to be the match âyouâ lose because of a blown call, etc.