RJH Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 On the other end I ROed a major match and I believe that had there been an overhead video 30% of competitors would have been DQed. However as it was only 8(I think) were DQed. These were the ones that me and the other RO defiantly saw with no question. I feel those of you thinking video would get you out of a DQ might be mistaken and DQ numbers would probably go up. Be careful what you ask for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makdaddy Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's not ideal nor would the video be intended for review of every run. Just the disputed DQ that might occur. What percentage of DQ's would you say are disputed? 30%?..I'm guessing... I would hope video wouldn't come into play that often.. I may be way off... Not an RO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJH Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If there was a video, every DQ would be disputed. My point is for every DQ that is called 10 don't get called because of angles, etc. If RO's know they have video back-up they might call questionable ones that they wouldn't have called before because they weren't sure of because of angles. I'm pretty sure most calls that experienced ROs think they see but don't call because they are not 100% probably are actually DQable offenses. With video back-up more people would be going home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziebart Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 RJH, I agree I will give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter and will not call it unless I am absolutely sure that it was a 180 break. Also a person can cut down on the number of disputes if it had to go to arbitration with the $100 fee and everything. I am not sure how many calls get arbitrated currently so maybe this is not a workable solution either. I also agree that this should not be a primary focus of effort, but if our goals are to promote safe practical shooting it would be a good idea to allow a person to set up a remote camera to evaluate how many people are breaking the 180 and not being called on it. Video would not have to go anywhere official, but instead used as a learning experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 +1 on the educational value of the video post match (and perhaps after some food and drinks). For folks who shoot Glocks (I'm one of them) and other guns with polymer mags, we sometimes develop a habit of a little wrist flick to get the magazine to eject. When doing that wrist flick right after shooting a target right on the 180 line, it becomes very apparent that the muzzle can wander past the 180. Usually the movement is so fast that most ROs will not catch it, but it will show up on video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I am willing to bet that the number of DQs called would go way up with video, look at the NFL plays that could be reviewed don't get blown dead near as much now because the refs know the video is there to get it right and stopping it may be the wrong call do they don't, same would happen here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Take the example of a 180 DQ. Consider what would be required of a video system for that. You would really need an overhead camera, and you would need some kind of grid lines so you could know where the 180 was precisely. PRECISELY. If you cannot establish that, then a camera becomes useless in this situation because the angle of view and the depth of field an a half dozen other things come into play to make it irrelevant. There are, perhaps, cases where a fixed position video recording might be of some use. But is that really a can of worms that should be opened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frag316 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Frag316 Did you read the entire original post? It specifically said there would be official cameras and competitor video would not be accepted. Personally it seems like a lot of work for little payoff, but nobody knows until it is tried. Did you read jade's original post? He specifically said we don't need "professional" videographers. I was responding to him. I responded to the OP further up thread. RIF, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) You do NOT need grid lines nor precise camera placement to do this. All you need is a photogrammetry cube with one edge on the 180 line in each berm. Heck, now that I think about it, all I would need is two targets at angle of at least 30 degrees different from each other and the 180 defined w.r.t. those two target faces. Anyway, photogrammetry is a big part of accident reconstruction. Used to do it with drafting tools, but now it is done with software. From 100 feet away with a normal HD video camera (fixed) I can get measurements to within about 0.1", which is certainly enough to calculate an angle to the nearest degree with 100% confidence. Heck, I could write a script to calculate it to the nearest 5 degrees rounding down so 185 is the "DQ" threshold. It is really pretty simple to do once you know how. A 3D space including the shooter, gun and angles can be produced on the order of 3-5 minutes on a laptop with video capture and photogrammetry software. I use it in court on multi-million dollar cases, so it is certainly good enough for this purpose. Heck, one camera mounted between two berms on a pole downrange could even cover multiple berms. Anyway arguments against this idea due to technology and precision limitations is a non-starter. Cost is the largest consideration for video. 2D or 3D RFID would likely be the easiest solution for 180 violations. 2D RFID is already a proven technology used in sports scoring and 3D is pretty close. If you made Chrono required at check in, an RFID chip could be placed in or on the competitors gun and calibrated. This would also prevent unauthorized gun switching. There are a lot of additional things that could be done with it, and the cost at a major would not be cost prohibitive. Edited October 28, 2014 by MarkCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frag316 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 All you need is a photogrammetry cube with one edge on the 180 line in each berm Because everyone can pick these up everywhere and can learn how to set them up with a quick YouTube video, right? What's the cost on these? For a major, you're talking about needing at least 20 (10 stages) and then someone with the expertise to set them up properly. Because there are lots of those people around. /Sarcasm Off Anyway, photogrammetry is a big part of accident reconstruction. Used to do it with drafting tools, but now it is done with software. Maybe so, but only with big accidents. Like NTHSA-investigated accidents. Your average fender bender does not get these to reconstruct the scene, because it's very time consuming and expensive (both in equipment and expertise). I use it in court on multi-million dollar cases, so it is certainly good enough for this purpose. Heck, one camera mounted between two berms on a pole downrange could even cover multiple berms. Anyway arguments against this idea due to technology and precision limitations is a non-starter. /Blows whistle Personal foul, bullshit in the forum. Half the distance to the goalposts you moved, loss of down. You use it in "multi-million dollar cases." Are you seriously advocating for USPSA to buy this equipment just to satisfy your desire to not have to rely on an RO's call about whether you broke the 180? an RFID chip could be placed in or on the competitors gun and calibrated Yeah, because every competitor wants to have someone put stuff on or in their gun. Really? and the cost at a major would not be cost prohibitive What's your benchmark for "not cost prohibitive?" Because until you explain it, I'm not buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Umm, lets take a step back. Photogrammetry cubes are like $30, and I even said they might not be needed, and you only need one per view. So 10 cameras and 10 cubes for 20 stages is possible. The price of a laptop and software would be about $1000, maybe $5K total set-up Certainly less than manned video cameras. As for only major accidents, not even close. I have used it on work comp claims with less than $100K on the line, but that is irrelevant. Not time consuming nor expensive anymore either. It really is 3-5 minutes to get the needed measurements on a captured image. May take all of 2 minutes to find the image you want to use and then spot check adjacent images. I just found a YouTube of a 180 break, guessed at the calibration and got 6 frames completed illustrating a max angle. Took about 20 minutes. Read my posts, I did not advocate using this type of system, in fact I said I was against it. Read the words, don't get emotional. People said not possible, I was merely trying to illustrate that it IS possible, and not that complicated if you know what you are doing. An argument against something is supposed to be based on facts, not inaccurate assumptions. As for RFID, I was showing, again, an alternative from a technology perspective, not advocating it's use. Man must not always use all the technology offered to be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuelie777 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Absolutely NOT. I detest the video replay calling in the professional sports so even mention of it for USPSA is really not good. The video replay does not improve the quality of the game, and it sucks up time, allows more commercials etc. No benefit. I look at it if you lose due to a referee or official call, you did not win by enough margin to overcome that, so your team is not good enough. If you run close to the 180 you run the risk of getting being dq'ed. RO's, both good, bad, and great ones are part of the game and part of the sport we enjoy. Still to many what if's. Video evendence in USPSA shooting is not a good thing or what I consider reliabily consistant without a significant cost both dollars and manpower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makdaddy Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 i think the general thought of video ONLY AS A REFERENCE IN A DISPUTE is not intended to take out the human element of the game and i don't think it should either. However it sucks up NO TIME and may even SAVE TIME (which i think we'd all be in favor) in the event of a disputed DQ. Why is there no benefit to a concrete answer of a 180 break? .. Also time .. camera would start with corresponding sound of the beep, so there would also be confirmation of correct time IF NEEDED. I hate to even mention it , but this game had an issue with padded times recently and i think we all HATE the idea of someone doing that for friend or foe. it's all just ideas getting thrown around for discussion and that's a good thing .. once the conversations for improvement/change or whatever cease.. time to short USPSA . But as a rule, consistently bad RO'ing is not part of the games intention and should be corrected if possible , or in a camera's eye .. keep them honest, as well as competitors.... AGAIN, not a solution, just an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxshooter Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Without multiple angles and high definition equipment it would be very difficult to have the correct view to make the right decision. Then you have a problem with the time it will consume with review and reshoots if the DQ is overturned. In my opinion it we don't have the financial ability to do it correctly. Then there is the problem of where do you keep the red flag on your belt. Just kidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziebart Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Frag316 Did you read the entire original post? It specifically said there would be official cameras and competitor video would not be accepted. Personally it seems like a lot of work for little payoff, but nobody knows until it is tried. Did you read jade's original post? He specifically said we don't need "professional" videographers. I was responding to him. I responded to the OP further up thread. RIF, dude. Sorry, thats what I get for responding on a phone. Either way he said that we do not need professional photographers like we do not need professional ROs. To me that would seem to indicate to me that we do not have professional ROs which I would agree with. Professionals are generally paid for their work and not thanked as volunteers. While I was generously compensated for volunteering as an RO at Nationals I could not quit my day job to be a USPSA RO full time. Our ROs do an excellent job, and they only have a 2 day class. I do not think it would take a rocket scientist to set up a Go Pro with a reference point, As MarkCo said it is technically feasible, but does not think it should be done at this time. I agree with him, but it still can be talked about and potentially looked at to see how many calls are missed. We may not know how broken something is until it is investigated. Jadeslade did not say that we should use random video from competitors in the post you quoted, so I do not know where you got that from. Thank you for your input on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EkuJustice Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't think it would help in every situation but it should be an option as some video shows the call was in correct regardless of the angle. There is a world shoot dq video out there for sweeping where you can clearly see the gun and the other arm which wasn't even close to sweeping. The RO wouldn't have had a good view from where he was standing and obviously called what he though happened based on what he could see. The video would have been 100 percent proof to anyone it was not sweeping and there was no angle issues etc. In an ideal world the ro would call what they saw but that isn't always the case. Do some people slide and get to shoot even though they should have been DQ yes they do and that's just part of it. That said a shooter should NEVER get a dq they did not earn. I know when I have the timer I do not DQ at 181 degrees because that 1 degree is gonna to close to be totally 100 percent sure on. The same would be true for a finger in the trigger guard on a full speed reload especially at the speed some people do it. Other ROs try and be soo strict that often it means they are less than 100 percent sure on the decision yet call it anyway. I don't think having the video option would really be used that much or verb for a lot of DQs where it may not show conclusive proof that the act occurred or didn't occure but if the video shows proof that the call is wrong then it should be used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) What is interesting about the video is the comments, the RO has tried to indicate that the infraction occurred as the competitor moved toward the beer-pump but the video shows that he demonstrates the sweeping as occurring when the competitor grabbed the pump and that is clearly not the case. I think this was a bad call by the RO. If the RO was wearing a hat-cam then there would be no doubt as to what he saw, based just on this video I would not have DQ'ed this competitor. Here is the video link via Facebook Edited November 3, 2014 by BritinUSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 What is interesting about the video is the comments, the RO has tried to indicate that the infraction occurred as the competitor moved toward the beer-pump but the video shows that he demonstrates the sweeping as occurring when the competitor grabbed the pump and that is clearly not the case. I think this was a bad call by the RO. If the RO was wearing a hat-cam then there would be no doubt as to what he saw, based just on this video I would not have DQ'ed this competitor. Here is the video link via Facebook That video is interesting - I was wondering how Andy got DQ'd. This footage illustrates in part what is so problematic about using video. The camera is very well positioned, but still there is a moment right before the RO stops the shooter, when the gun is not visible. From the shooters body orientation, we might infer that the gun is pointing downwards, but we don't KNOW for sure. Could this be the moment when the RO felt the sweeping occurred? I don't know that either, and I am not sure I would read too much into the RO's demonstration in terms of the exact timing of the "offense" (I DQ'd two folks on my stage for sweeping, and did that same hand motion afterwards only to overcome the language barrier). My point is that there are always gaps in coverage, leaving continuing room for doubt. Perhaps your recommendation of hat cams makes more sense than static cameras - it would leave less room for doubt about what the RO saw. Regardless, as in the NFL, the ruling on the field should always stand unless overwhelming and clear evidence to the contrary exists. In this particular case, with this particular video, I do not see enough to overturn the call even if video were admissible. What I do find distasteful and unfortunate is the number of folks on Facebook inferring that the officials made the call for nefarious or improper reasons. These guys gave up over two weeks of their time to work hard in brutal heat and humidity for no reward (well, a free belt buckle - woohoo). These are some of the most experienced ROs in the World, and, having worked closely with them, I am convinced they make every call with the highest of integrity. Does this mean they can't make a mistake? No, of course not, but I am confident that calls are made in good faith. I hope everyone here will continue to discuss the facts of what we see without stooping to character assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makdaddy Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 .. just finished the Level 1 RO seminar with George Jones this past weekend so this stuff is fresh in my mind . my question is the barrel in front of the lever. Can that be considered an RO trap? .. also why would the video camera be placed in that particular spot? . potential issues foreseen and not corrected ? .. hard to tell , but not sure the RO could even see the gun from his angle and the gun below the barrel.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 I think the camera was placed there by one of the competitors as it was in a place where it could be attached to a wall and see most of the action on the stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 .. just finished the Level 1 RO seminar with George Jones this past weekend so this stuff is fresh in my mind . my question is the barrel in front of the lever. Can that be considered an RO trap? .. also why would the video camera be placed in that particular spot? . potential issues foreseen and not corrected ? .. hard to tell , but not sure the RO could even see the gun from his angle and the gun below the barrel.... It was not much of an RO trap, so long as the RO had the good sense to stay back out of the competitor's way if they retreated (there was a way to shoot it without retreating, and probably just as fast, but group-think was very evident on that stage). Each CRO reviewed their stage before the match started, and RO traps were for the most part engineered out before the first shot was fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimo-Hombre Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 WTF I hate "red light cameras" mailing me tickets. I trust the guy with the timer. Period. If he is a knucklehead, then punch him in the baby maker and get someone else. I don't want to be part of a " eye in the sky " oversight sport! I want the RO to be a man about sh!t and harden up and get it right. We are a bunch of bad-asses running with guns, act like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm300 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 From the video I can't see him sweep himself. Looking at where the RO is, he has a much different angle than we do. Video is 2D, life is 3D. Angles matter so............. I worked with that RO on that stage, one day during the pre-match and my impression of him was that he was a good RO and an honest guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWprotected Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 I think it should be left as it is, I think as a whole our ROs are people of integrity, and make every effort to be fair and correct in the calls they make. Do mistakes happen? Yes both for and against the shooter. I think we are forgetting that this is a game we play for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhett45acp Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Take the example of a 180 DQ. Consider what would be required of a video system for that. You would really need an overhead camera, and you would need some kind of grid lines so you could know where the 180 was precisely. PRECISELY. If you cannot establish that, then a camera becomes useless in this situation because the angle of view and the depth of field an a half dozen other things come into play to make it irrelevant. There are, perhaps, cases where a fixed position video recording might be of some use. But is that really a can of worms that should be opened? Exactly - Precisely what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now