rhett45acp Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 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. Ok, True and all "doable". But, let's review here - we just moved into the modern age with tablet based scoring. Some clubs still running eBay old Nooks for lack of funds. Website hacked, +2 gate, questionable front office actions - (Stop don't go there). But one point about the 180 call. I do find it troubling that some stage design pushes the 180 so far to the edge. It does put the RO/Shooter in a grey area just for the fact of how fast things are going. If we could just tone down the extreme edges of target placement on some stages, a 180 DQ becomes much more obvious. Video Analytics are becoming so sophisticated, cost is going down and performance is going up. Maybe in the future, but for our little sport, right now, I don't think so. Also, for right now. if a club did put up a camera to video stages to be reviewed AFTER the match, to learn about stage dynamics and to improve how things run/ran, it would be welcomed IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 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. I finally got a chance to look at this video. There really is no explanation for that call. Not a good call. Denying use of video is like denying horseless carriages, airplanes, television, cell phones, hat cams, ubiquitous video cams. Why is there a rule saying that videos are verboten? An old rule from a different time, when there were less shooters. Nobody is saying they are the be all and end all. They give more evidence to look at. Video should also be used in curriculum for RO's, "the six most common safety violations" as demonstrated by StealthyBlagga. There is no need for "official video cameras". You can just look at all available video as evidence. It doesn't have to be "the evidence". If you are making a decision that requires judgment, wouldn't you like to see all available evidence before you make that decision? There is no good reason to continue to deny video as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Bill, in the age of the internet, and sites like WebMD, why can't I practice medicine? That's just like denying horseless carriages and other bits of progress; now that the information is readily available, shouldnt we all get to play doctor? Oh, right because I didn't receive the education provided by attendance at a medical school, because I lack the required professional experience, and because I'm not licensed to...... By the same token it tales some education and expertise to accurately relate what and observer sees on video to what that impression accurately corresponds to in 3D live view, utilizing the ROs Mk. I eyeball...... The RO seminar is already fairly long -- we then need a lengthy module on video or photo interpretation of evidence, and we need to change the composition of arg committees to only include currently certified holders of an NROI certification, with current evidence of successful audiovisual evidence interpretation competence..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 But lots of us have the education, its called an RO card. I'm just playing devils advocate here, but if can look at the video, see where the shooters feet were and look at the target in question I'm pretty sure I can tell if something was an 180 break. Everyone can make mistakes, RO's included, so why not get a second opinion, particularly on things were angle and lines of sight are a bit dodgy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Well I guess practicing medicine and ROing IPSC matches are kind of the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 They are in that they require both an education, and experience -- right? The level of education is obviously different, as is the time commitment for gaining experience, but the underlying principles are similar.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 But lots of us have the education, its called an RO card. I'm just playing devils advocate here, but if can look at the video, see where the shooters feet were and look at the target in question I'm pretty sure I can tell if something was an 180 break. Everyone can make mistakes, RO's included, so why not get a second opinion, particularly on things were angle and lines of sight are a bit dodgy? Partly because I could shoot video in such a way that it would be appear to show the competitor breaking the 180, when in fact such a break did not occur..... Perspective matters. So does fine detail in a lot of cases...... There are valid reasons to say No, even if you can provide specific anecdotes where it would help. It could be cool though if NROI could find the time to investigate the ramifications of allowing video evidence -- but I suspect that Troy has other things on his plate that need work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Everybody has a lot on their plate. Just let video, pictures be used as evidence. Not a big deal. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Partly because I could shoot video in such a way that it would be appear to show the competitor breaking the 180, when in fact such a break did not occur..... Perspective matters. So does fine detail in a lot of cases...... No doubt, but that doesn't mean you can't consider it. Look, I'm not saying that the someone's headcam determines the outcome, I'm saying grown up men with an RO card can look at the video and consider it in making their decision. What are the possible outcomes here? One outcome may be that the RO looks at the recording and says "Yup, I was wrong here, sorry dude, reshoot". A grown up RO is not going to have a cow about it, and there was no safety rule broken so its all cool. The other outcome is that the RO or RM looks at the recording and say "Sorry man, based on what I see here you are still DQ'ed" and nothing has changed. The shooter may still look at the video and think the RO was wrong, but he can do that today so nothing change. The only realistic downside is that 2 shooters doing the same thing may get different outcomes if one doesn't have video and one does, but realistically that can happen today depending on where the RO happens to stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm300 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Everybody has a lot on their plate. Just let video, pictures be used as evidence. Not a big deal. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk I have seen video that lied a lot. A friend broke 90 bad on a stage. He was pissed at me for calling it and said he had video to show he did not break 90. The first time I saw the video it did look like I made a bad call. I call 90 breaks pretty loose and was 100% that the break was there. Going back and looking at the video again and using the fault lines on the stage to establish where he was and where the gun was pointing I was able to confirm that he indeed did break 90, by quite a bit. It was the day after the event and it took me at least 30 minutes to figure it out. Once I did, I went over what I found with him. After another 30 minutes he agreed that he did break 90 and that the way it looked on the video was because the angle the video was taken. I would love to be able to use video to count shots for a division issue. There are times when I count, and am pretty sure someone was over but did not call it because I was not 100%. If I had video to back it up that would be nice. We would have more open shooters. I can't see it being much more that a large PITA to call anything that has to do with angles. Video is 2D, life is 3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Everybody has a lot on their plate. Just let video, pictures be used as evidence. Not a big deal.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk It is a big deal because it can become a huge distraction, and because it is wide open to abuse. With video evidence becoming admissible, the number of cameras in use at the range would skyrocket. If there is a disputed call, how do the officials ensure they sequester ALL the evidence before it gets tampered with. Does the competitor's buddy get to decide which video he presents for review? How can the video be reviewed accurately while squinting into a camera viewfinder on a sunny range (or will someone provide a 60" HDTV in a dark room for such review)? And what is the threshold of proof for changing a call? I have had the misfortune of seeing more than a few righteous RO calls get overturned by RM/MDs who were just not willing to get into a confrontation with a competitor, and so bowed to the "shooter gets the benefit of the doubt" argument. This discussion seems to be focused primarily on 180 violations. Instead of video,which presents formidable interpretation and equity issues, how about USPSA investigate the use of the newest inertial and magnetic compass sensor chips that are now ubiquitous in consumer products like smartphones. A small device that mounted to the gun parallel to the bore and communicated with a sensor on each bay could, if correctly calibrated, quickly and unambiguously alarm the moment the 180 was broken. Such a device could be applied easily at registration and as part of a routine equipment check. Surely nobody could object to such an impartial device being installed on their gun - after all, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide Edited December 1, 2014 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) FFS, there are already a billion cameras on the range. I don't buy the argument that shooters are going to plan for being DQ'ed any more then they do now and somehow they are going to festoon themselves with 12lb of electronic gear to make that less likely. There are drones filming super squads today. There is REAL money on the table in some of the events, how would like to DQ someone or award the big novelty check to someone only to later have the video show something different actually happened? Every other serious sport now uses camera's. Heck, lets not forget that camera's are what recently brought out to the light a rather unscrupulous RO. At some point we are going to have to face the reality that cameras are a thing that exists and that they do provide an actual replay ability for events that would otherwise be subjectively interpreted. Yes, we'll need to figure out what the limits are, and when to consider such evidence and what standards we want to apply, but maybe competitive shooting needs to move forward eventually. Edited December 1, 2014 by Vlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Pretty much what Vlad said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted December 1, 2014 Author Share Posted December 1, 2014 I think if you allow an RO to wear a hat-cam then the rule could state that ONLY video from the RO's perspective (ie. the hat-cam) can be used as evidence, that would negate the need to check every video camera on the stage. It would also ensure fair treatment of every competitor on that stage as video would exist of every run. There may be issues where the infraction is called by the score-keeper though. The infraction would only be overturned if the video had conclusive evidence that the original call was incorrect, if in doubt the RO's original call would stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makdaddy Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 i dont think more over the shoulder views help too much as i stated in previous posts, it should be NFL style, just not as complicated as a spyder type system. I don't think the R.O. needs something else to think about , his job is to focus on shooter , not to worry if he switched his camera on. when i think of video evidence , i think of something like this: http://www.gizmag.com/linecam-suspended-camera-system/26882/ very expensive .. and then there is this http://kevinjantzer.com/diy-cable-cam/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 very expensive .. and then there is this http://kevinjantzer.com/diy-cable-cam/ I think the guy in the blue plaid hung on too long-I think that's a safety violation.No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I think if you allow an RO to wear a hat-cam then the rule could state that ONLY video from the RO's perspective (ie. the hat-cam) can be used as evidence, that would negate the need to check every video camera on the stage. It would also ensure fair treatment of every competitor on that stage as video would exist of every run. There may be issues where the infraction is called by the score-keeper though. The infraction would only be overturned if the video had conclusive evidence that the original call was incorrect, if in doubt the RO's original call would stand. I could get on board with this, but would propose instead that the camera be incorporated into the SHOT TIMER on the same face as the sensor. Recording starts on the beep, stops (say) 5 minutes later or at the next beep. Store the last run (or X-number of runs) only on removable media. In the event of a dispute, RM pulls the media, and ONLY that footage is considered admissible. Would require a timer company to step up to the plate, but seems entirely feasible from a technology and cost perspective. Other than ensuring the sensor/lens are pointed towards the shooter, the RO does not need to do anything new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimo-Hombre Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 So can I use the grainy iphone video that starts out with guys pinching my head to prove that I actually engaged that target that someone prematurely taped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Everybody has a lot on their plate. Just let video, pictures be used as evidence. Not a big deal. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk It is a big deal because it can become a huge distraction, and because it is wide open to abuse. With video evidence becoming admissible, the number of cameras in use at the range would skyrocket. If there is a disputed call, how do the officials ensure they sequester ALL the evidence before it gets tampered with. Does the competitor's buddy get to decide which video he presents for review? How can the video be reviewed accurately while squinting into a camera viewfinder on a sunny range (or will someone provide a 60" HDTV in a dark room for such review)? And what is the threshold of proof for changing a call? I have had the misfortune of seeing more than a few righteous RO calls get overturned by RM/MDs who were just not willing to get into a confrontation with a competitor, and so bowed to the "shooter gets the benefit of the doubt" argument. This discussion seems to be focused primarily on 180 violations. Instead of video,which presents formidable interpretation and equity issues, how about USPSA investigate the use of the newest inertial and magnetic compass sensor chips that are now ubiquitous in consumer products like smartphones. A small device that mounted to the gun parallel to the bore and communicated with a sensor on each bay could, if correctly calibrated, quickly and unambiguously alarm the moment the 180 was broken. Such a device could be applied easily at registration and as part of a routine equipment check. Surely nobody could object to such an impartial device being installed on their gun - after all, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide Please tell us you're kidding. Putting microchips - TRACKING microchips - on our guns? Why don't we just invite Dianne Feinstein to the match? 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