Video Evidence? - Is it possible??

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:08 pm

Please refer back to Peters high definition camera films.
Thanks to PP, paul bolton, and cadanianpaddler for the text to this arguement

I put together a short video from flatwater training last night but had to reduce its size and quality by more than half to upload it! It still gives you a flavour of the potential though! Just imagine this on white water during a comp in anger! It could be you!

We need a bit more practice as we have only had the camera for 2 days so bear with us...but first results look very promising!

See Peters convo for links

Internationally videois admissable IF it has been taken for all paddlers to the same standard so is available for all (paddlers and I think gates). Even spidey can't do all paddlers, all gates on his own with one camera!

As far as eeing penalties, there seems to be a paddler blindness where their own penalties are concerned. I would not know as I never hit anything!

I'm sure spidey can manage it, well if anyone can, spider man can.

as for the paddler not seeing the penalty, well thats what the forms are there for, altho i don't really see a point in paying £1 for the judging committee to basically take your money and not listen to your point of view! (i feel another debate coming on here)

Hummm, doing all the paddlers is obviously fine, but on all gates seems a bit excessive. Perhaps at the top events, where there are generally one or two make-or-break moves, the option to be able to review a video might be very welcome by the chief judge - particularly where half-heads may be an issue. Same for all competitors, so why not have fixed angle cameras at one or two places on an international course? Then, if the judges have doubts they can refer it for video review. Seems this rule all but eliminates a useful support tool.

ive noticed a problem with that idea paul. problem with having a single camera to deciver whether a competitor has half headed is that the camera only takes a single perspective of the gate line.

say that the camera is on the bank facing a gate 10yards downstream, and thejudge is in line with the gate line. the view from the camera and the judge will be completely differnt.

the solution to this is to have 2 cameras per certain distance of the course. one facing downstream and one upstream. this means that 2 angles are supplied and and the judge will have there own opinion. again a problem with the is that the futher away the camera is the less detail (even for high def!) so what one camera see's another mightnt. this means that the gate that is exactly half way between the gates is the only 100% accurate picture.

to do the above idea of 2 cameras per section this means proberbly suspending the camera above the course? (possibly by spare gate lines?)

anyone got a spare thousand for the equipment??

im not totally against the idea of video for penaltys. in fact i would totally welcome the idea, as would many paddlers. we have all felt that we have recieved an unjust penalty.

maybe we'll have to trail the idea at a Div3/4.
im sure that my club, West Yorkshire CC at West Tanfield, might be one of the best places for a trail, a straight course with no visual obstructions for suspended cameras. what do you think Peter?

So then? what does everyone else think??
For more information, please visit the other convo

Russ Johnson

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:53 pm

I think the only answer would actually be a camera above each pole (like Russ's idea), you forget that poles can be moving and that the gate line moves with it. The camera therefore has to be placed such that it can be judged whether the head and part of the boat passes correctly through the gate line at the same time.

I don't see how cameras placed up stream or down stream will provide an answer as the angle could be wrong, the gate line won't be seen at the moment of crossing and the view can be blocked by bystanders or the paddler themselves.

We have all had unjust penalties, its part of sport, and happens in nearly every sport, even in rugby with cameras a human has to make the final decision as to whether or not its a try and its not always 100% accurate. Its annoying and we all grumble about it but its hardly the end of the world.

A pretty pointless waste of time and money IMHO and technically pretty much impossible unless you want your entry fees in the £100's.

Its hard enough getting volunteers to run start/finish, timing and communications, how are we going to get someone to setup and run a suite of cameras and then review a load of runs and make a decision. Even if cost wasn't an issue it would mean you would have to have purpose built permanent courses.

Next everyone will be asking that poles must have stopped swinging before they start their run.

Be careful what you wish for.....

PaulBolton · Post by **PaulBolton** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:03 pm

I think too much has been read into my comments. I was suggesting camera(s) only on major events such as the Olympics or World Championships and, importantly, only on "the difficult to judge gates" - any lower class of event clearly raises viability issues. I disagree though that 2 cameras would be required because the cameras are there as an aid, they are not the decision maker. Therefore, it is possible they could categorically prove or disprove a penalty. If doubt still exists or they don't, then the extant rules cover this and the paddler gets the BoD or the judges decision stands - simple. I remember watching the TV pictures from the last Olympics and the cameras showed penalties (in slow motion) that were very difficult to see in real time. This technology is not that expensive and I see opportunity where others clearly only see obstacles - human nature I guess.

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:08 pm

"or you just might get it" .....I an hear you singing it now lol.

I have video surveillance on my home which has 4 cameras being recorded all the time, 24/7, and this over records every 7 days. Not too expensive either. I see people with helmet cams (I have one actually) and some are very small in diameter. With one pole gates appearing in droves (!) we might only need 18 to 20 cameras pointing down the pole giving a perfect view of marginal gate techniques (ooh I like that expression!). Yes, it would be additional work and cost of course but for important events I think possibly worth it. Probably never come about at national level but I can see technology allowing this to happen at internationals one day. The ICF needs to nick a few of those high tech cricket stumps maybe lol

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:57 pm

Trouble is you have poles hanging on wires with water and the rain, you'd probably need them wireless and then what happens when one fails, breaks, runs down or drops off etc. What happens to the competitor who loses cause the pictures aren't available for whatever reason and gets beaten by another whose 50 is rescinded because a picture is available. Its a whole over complicated nightmare/can of worms. I believe there would be just as many disputes and upset paddlers, if not more.

Whilst you say 'important' gates how is that fair to the paddler who gets a half head awarded on a non 'important' gate. It would have to be all or none.

Personally think (and hope) its a none starter but just my opinion. I won't be losing any sleep over it!

Why not just lower the poles .....?

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:54 pm

I have video surveillance on my home which has 4 cameras being recorded all the time, 24/7, and this over records every 7 days. Not too expensive either. I see people with helmet cams (I have one actually) and some are very small in diameter. With one pole gates appearing in droves (!) we might only need 18 to 20 cameras pointing down the pole giving a perfect view of marginal gate techniques (ooh I like that expression!). Yes, it would be additional work and cost of course but for important events I think possibly worth it. Probably never come about at national level but I can see technology allowing this to happen at internationals one day. The ICF needs to nick a few of those high tech cricket stumps maybe lol

I total agree with this view, the technology is there and its relatively inexpensive. its possible to fit a camera to a gate spacer and this can take a view of both poles. as with peters view with single pole gates starting to make and apperance, especially at tully, this would help must more with a camera just needing to be attached to the spacer above the pole.

back to a dual pole gate, only the bottom half of the poles is mainly going to be seen, the view angle of a basic camera would take in these poles and the surrounding area, so there is no risk of losing parts of the poles due to camera placement.

going of what paul said, i agree that only top end races like olympic and ICF world races, but in the UK i would suggest Prem races where judging posistions can offer poor gate views (e.g. washburn, tully, tryweryn) and all selection races, these are the most important races we have.

i was only suggesting the Div3/4 to test out the viability of the methods, it dosnt mean we have to use it on div 3/4 races.

as for lack of judges to run the system, if the camera is broadcasting directly to a PC/Mac and constently been recorded. this can be left to do what it wants. say if a competitor protests a penalty for a 50 due to a suspected half head, the video file can be opened, this means that it is still recording what is happening at that time and can be viewed at the specific time that the competitor went down the course, this time is easily obtained from the start clocks.

so in theory its not a hard system to come up with.

Russ Johnson

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:57 pm

The ICf rule was aimed at Worlds and Olympics and had nothing to do with video evidence appearing to show that teh world cha,pion should have had a 50. . .

Cameras down poles might work for half a head, but have you ever tried to judge from above a gate and decide on water touch or brushing the bottom of a gate? I have and it is the WORST position for judging.

I have not checked the UK rules, but think that thee is no provision for video in domestic events. Although I think that senior selection is to being run to international ruules so that may it be available. But as mentioned above it is only one of the tools. It can prove a penalty but not disprove it as the angle may be worse for the camera than for the judge (e.g. looking down as noted above).

Meanwhile lower division events are already running at a loss/marginal the cosst of the technology may be low, but I would ather spend the money on a new boats than cameras/recording equipment.

And I have seen proposals that gates should be stationary before anyone starts, and that there must be a completely clear course between classes. Any takers?

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:25 pm

Canadian PAddler wrote:The ICf rule was aimed at Worlds and Olympics and had nothing to do with video evidence appearing to show that teh world cha,pion should have had a 50. . .

Cameras down poles might work for half a head, but have you ever tried to judge from above a gate and decide on water touch or brushing the bottom of a gate? I have and it is the WORST position for judging.

Meanwhile lower division events are already running at a loss/marginal the cosst of the technology may be low, but I would ather spend the money on a new boats than cameras/recording equipment.

ok then. i would only ever suggest this technology as a tool to help the judges, it would obviously be at the descretion of the jury whether the video is an accurate showing of the penalty.

the cameras on the cross bar would give the best view of both poles. sadly for water touch and such it wouldnt be the best angle, but for BA/Body/Paddle/half head it would give a greatly improved view.

as for the lower division competitions losing money. i would like to see which slalom that is? our slalom at West Tanfield has ran on a profit for several years. there maybe a few around the country but surely if it was such a bad problem clubs would stop running them. BUT THIS IS OFF TOPIC!

i suggested the Div3/4 as a TEST SITE!! i suggested it as its a easy place to judge with good views, the cameras could be tested for accuracy and such and backed up by the judge. i could be done anywhere, and seen as we would use it for selection and senior surely HPP or Tryweryn would be more suited.

Russ Johnson

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:04 am

OK I am going to play devils advocate here!

1. If you record one gate you HAVE to record all, as some one else stated you can half a head or have an iffy decision on any gate.

2. If you cover one event you woud have to cover all in that division.

3. Cost! OK you are saying they ar reatively inexpensive however the slalom committees buget is getting smaller annually and we at some time have to consider TUTTI!

4. Managememt - if pole mounted would have to go up as course erected, what team could give up every Friday before a race (as organising clubs tend to) to be there as the course is going up?

5. Even if bank mounted where are we going to get the personel to put out and operate all weekend? We struggle enough with judging and timing! these people would have to be extremely proficient (as are TV cameramen at Internationals) to ensure useable footage.

Yes in the real world this would be great but that is a long long way off!!!!!!!!!
Anne

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:41 am

And I have seen proposals that gates should be stationary before anyone starts, and that there must be a completely clear course between classes. Any takers?

Please don't! We stuggled to finish in daylight hours at Shepperton on the Saturday as it was and for sections of the competition we had four on the course at a time. Early season events would not only be restricted to a single division event on the same day - we would not even be able to run all the classes on the same day. Of course summer events have longer daylight hours but some of us like to get home Sunday night.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:56 am

There is of course one big issue...... the single (NOT) pole.....

one pole in the middle of the river the other 25m away on the bank (as at Tully)

So cameras on poles wouldn't work in the this case, nor on the spreader bar and even a couple of cameras on the bank may not work. Fortunately the human head/eye moves through 3 dimensions and can easily track a paddler.

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:07 am

I am sure that when cameras in cricket stumps were suggested it met with the same mixed view from those with a vision and those who poo-pooed the idea of any technological improvements. And I think both parties are essential to properly arrive at an overall consensus. However, I doubt any of us have enough information or knowledge regarding the technological side/provision of what is being discussed so that is quite an important ommission. But it is this sort of suggestion and discussion that starts the ball rolling so it is important regardless of the actual outcome. The important thing is that we do not drag our heels in these fast moving times and allow the discipline to lag behind. Topics like these need to be debated.

Personally, I think the sport is amazingly dynamic and exciting to watch by comparrison to the days of poles dragging in the water and all of paddler and equipment passing through the gateline. So changes had to be proposed to get where we are now.

Heres another proposal derived from the camera proposal. Coincidentally, taken again from cricket too

But before I make it, please bear in mind that it is suggested (like the cameras I think) as a confirmation tool and not a replacement tool to dispense with judges and the human eye. The "snickometer"

Ok, so it will maybe not pick up a paddlers cag brushing the pole and rotating it through 180 degrees but it would pick up when the pole is struck. Cant pick up half a head tho

Maybe not a perfect idea but, who knows what idea it might spur from someone else

So dont be too harsh on the creativity ok

PP

PaulBolton · Post by **PaulBolton** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:39 pm

Firstly, there are many sports that allow video review (cricket, rugby etc) but it is only used when it is available. Therefore, it shouldn't have to be mandatory because it's used at one event.

Here's an idea for a trial. I understand the BBC is filming the European Championships at HPP. Why not ask them for the video files from every camera and then, some time after the dust has settled, review all the penalty decisions? I for one would be very interested to know how many decisions would stand after review, particularly on 50s and especially on half-head 50s. I'd expect some to give competitors BoD decisions. I'd also hope to review favourable half-head decisions to see if these too are 100% right as well as any other controversial decisions.

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:05 pm

pauls idea of asking the bbc is a good one as they would be covering a large veriety of views, it might be a good change to see the likely hood of it ever working.

peters completely correct in his comments, nothing would ever happen without topics like this, we need to discuss the ideas well before any proposals are made. i never said we HAD to do anything, we are just here to discuss it.

like i keep saying. THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL TOOL FOR JUDGE TO USE IN THE CASE OF A PROTEST, IT IS NOT (i repeat, is not!) A REPLACEMENT FOR JUDGES AT ALL!

Russ Johnson

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:16 am

And I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just putting forward all the problems I can forsee and the issues with the various suggestions made, being a techie myself (though not in cameras) I hope I have good insight into what the issues might be, where the idea might fail, the problems you might find in implementing it and using it. As thats what I have to do in my job, solve a problem and think of all the ways the solution may fail and then make sure it caters for those situations.

I believe the snickometer idea has already been tried but they have failed to 'invent' anything that is sufficiently strong and accurate without actually endangering the paddler. I seem to remember reading something where they had tried to make a gate which did not swing in the wind, settled quicker and could detect impacts but I don't think it was successful. The main issue would be wind gusts how do you tell a hit from a major gust of wind, the weight of the resulting gate, its accuracy and reliability. Not saying its not a good idea - get inventing.