KISS
Keep it stupid simple
some schools dont even turn the internet on when a comp is hosted, not to mention the hassle and more trouble a ref would have to go through.
Plus depending on where this call was in a match the only option might be to DQ instead of warn
refs are specifically instructed to err on the side of helping the teams and not punishing them
Sorry I am late to the game here, but I have a proposal.
The EP or Head Referee can initiate a review of official video (recorded by the venue or a designated individual) to resolve match affecting issues raised by teams before they sign off on scores and leave the field.
[] Video Reviews can be done at any point after the match (whenever it is convenient).
[] The referee and EP must agree that they see âincontrovertible visual evidenceâ that the original call was incorrect for a call to be overturned.
[] Overturning a call can result in changing the scoring or issuing/canceling Disqualifications.
[] The outcome of a ruling must first be described to representatives of all of the teams involved in the match. Then it can be announced to everyone.
[] Teams are not allowed to review the official footage.
I intend for teams to be able to discuss interpretation or verbage of rules with the referee, but not necessarily review and argue over what is on the screen. If the Head Referee and EP agree that the evidence is indisputable, I believe that alone is enough to increase the experience.
Referees want to make the best calls possible, and if given the chance to stop and rewind time to make the best possible call when it is needed would greatly increase the chance of correct rulings.
I am not stating that every competition needs video review. However, those that want should be able to, when it is convenient.
Just from a flow and schedule standpoint⌠it is never convenient.
On top of everything else already statedâŚ.
Why even involve the EP in video review? Their job is to run the event, not make match calls. The Head Ref is solely responsible for match calls, and should be Head Ref Certified. There is no requirement for an EP to know game rules (though obviously many do).
Video Review seems like it solves a âproblemâ but it really causes more than it solves. Best put those potential resources to use elsewhere
convenient time, after quals are done and before alliance selection. The one time where your ranking is most important
happended to me in middle school state
At lunch or just whenever the person who has the video pulls up the exact moment (and maybe rule wording) relevant to the ruling. Then they just watch it and decide. It should actually be quite fast.
Also @Mentor_355U for shared accountability. The EPâs decision is above the referee on these matters so it might be nice to have the EP watch the video and confirm it, and then just have them show the Head Referee briefly to confirm the presence of indisputable evidence.
The minute or two of watching a video and rereading a rule could actually be some of the most valuable moments spent making sure the outcome of a match is determined to be as correct as possible, but that is my philosophy as an EP and Certified Referee. I donât run Signature events or state tournaments, just some regular competitions. It is important to me that all reasonable effort is taken to ensure that the game is played as designed.
The EP actually has no authority on anything to do with game rulings. The head referee makes the decisions, and <T2> explicitly says the EP cannot overrule those decisions. The only exceptions is whether or not to replay a match, which a joint decision, and escalations of things like safety and sportsmanship rules if it rises to the level of DQing from the event.
EPs are great. I have been an EP, Iâve helped a lot of great EPs. But I would never ever trust the EP to actually know the rules of the game.
As a ref, I will go back to streams after an event and review unusual situations so that I can be better prepared at future events. Perhaps we have different definitions of fast, but Iâve spent more than 30 minutes reviewing a single match with unusual circumstances.
Everyone wants to get as many calls right as possible. I donât believe that in a cost-benefit analysis that video review produces benefits over its costs.
HEY - I resemble that remark! - but I would amplify EP only need to have taken the EP certification, and it is generally good practice for EPs to be certified in Judging and Head Referee as you never can have too many volunteers.
This thread bothers me in the assumption that EPs can swoop down at any time during event to review videos at a teams request⌠What if the EP is dealing with other venue related matters? Do we hold the matches until the EP is available?
The Head Referee is the final interpreter of rules based on what was seen. Life is not perfect. Referees will make mistakes, but guess what, teams make far more match critical mistakes than the referee. True in pretty much every sport too 
+1
At the events that I tend to referee at, there is usually a pretty robust livestreaming setup which I could pretty easily review match footage with if I pull out my phone and rewind the stream on youtube. Since the streaming equipment is already in place, there would be no additional cost at these events for video review. This year in my experience, not being able to review the livestream to determine what happened has actually ended up delaying match play, as all of the referees have a lengthy discussion over whether to DQ one team or allow the opposite alliance to lose the match. There have been multiple times where if allowed to I would have easily been able to pull up the video on my phone and make a decision much faster than ended up happening.
I understand that many regular events donât have video equipment, and I donât think that it makes sense right now to require them to get that equipment. However, there are many events that do already have this equipment setup in a way that it would be easy to use for video review, so especially in a game like this where the refereeâs attention is stretched quite thin I donât see a reason not to allow video review at the Head Refereeâs discretion.
Iâve seen this sentiment expressed a few times over the last few years, and I must say it confuses me somewhat. Many video streaming platforms, such as youtube, have the ability to rewind a livestream. If match play is already being livestreamed, then there should hardly be any additional cost or complexity added to simply pull up that stream and watch it. My phone watches youtube livestreams just fine, and I would very much like to have the opportunity to use it to review footage. Alternatively, a low cost laptop such as a chromebook would also be sufficient to review footage on a screen larger than a phone. I donât see any reason that â$45kâ of extra equipment would be needed or that playing back a livestream would be a âvery different beastâ.
Youâre dependent on camera angles, and needing multiple of them. Not all camera angles from a single fixed camera livestream are going to be sufficient for a replay.
When youâre opening up the possibly of replay, you need to be 100% absolutely rock solid and know that your call is right. Pro and college sports invest thousands if not millions into the technology to get multiple clear cut, views, and also have staff trained to handle that.
Itâs like in the NFL, the burden of overturning a call has to be irrefutable. With just one camera, maybe two, itâs really hard to say something is irrefutable. Something made for public consumption is different than what the view will be to review a call.
Also this is a burden on your EP, Head Referee and staff. This is tough to scale, and is impractical for a good number of EPs and Event regions, many of whom are resource-poor.
By allowing it to be EP discretion, you also create the case where teams are going to only go where there is replay, which creates another set of issues.
Also as a head ref, Iâm not gonna review match footage for tournaments unless Iâm being paid. Full stop. Iâve done video and imagery analysis for a career, and itâs more time consuming to prove without a shadow of a doubt that a call is correct - even in robotics which Iâve done for close to two decades now.
The main problem behind the revision rule is the angle of the video; if a team angles their camera, so the ref is led to believe there is a dq in question, itâs not fair. Therefore, the only true fix to the rule can be cameras placed by the events hosts, for which they can review the angles of the play in question. However, it may still be hard to decipher if a team has violated rules even with a camera therefore a different solution should be proposed like maybe at a states/signature event or higher; nationals, regionals, or worlds, teams will have cameras provided by the event hosts for the tournament that will be used like a CCTV. This could almost fix the issue. But the main issues posed by the camera rules is that it may lead to false dqs. Therefore, another solution must be proposed. I donât know the answer yet tho.
But it is still much better than no replay,
For things like pinning/trapping, hoarding, or crossing the auton line, to name a few, having a single camera on one side of the field should be plenty in my opinion.
The big one that I was thinking about when making this was SG3. Being able to see when a robot hit the platform could be huge.
But is it, though? Maybe a couple (but not all!) bad calls are overturned. There will still be differences in opinion on âclearly the video shows Xâ. And there will be more delays.
Iâm sympathetic- this yearâs game is hard to ref, but even with that, Iâm not inclined to want even the option to look at video. Opens a huge can of worms.
With worlds spots on the line, I feel like every bad call overturned is a good thing.
As a former competitor now mentor and EP, that hyper focus on Worlds spots and it being the end all be all is a shortsighted thing.
Bad calls causing one alliance to go to Worldâs over another is a known risk, one not completely eliminated by video review. If a team is so dead-set on going to Worldâs (to which @OscarMNOVA12 's point of it not being the be-all-end-all cannot be overstated), that team should really better assess paths to Worldâs that takes this element out of the equation.