Video Evidence? - Is it possible??

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Thu May 07, 2009 11:03 pm

Before we get too carried away with this, a bit of background might be useful (I was there coaching the Canadians and the Chilean)

World Championships 2006, Prague. The organisers set up a filming system, separate from Czech TV, for the coaches, so that the smaller teams did not have the burden of doing their own video: they just had to have one technician with a laptop, taking even-numbered boats off one feed and odd-numbered boats off the other. This is what the rule means by 'available to all'. It was this footage that was displayed on the giant screen half-way down the course. There was no intention to use the footage to pick up penalties (not allowed in 2006), and the cameras were not sited with that in mind.

And so we came to the final. I was standing alongside the last camera, looking straight upstream at the last upstream gate. Cipressi did not neck it, or successfully half-head it: from that angle it was clear that his boat was nowhere near the gate when he throws half his head towards it (from that angle you cannot see whether he throws his head over when it is level with the pole: it could be a yard upstream or downstream - so maybe he didn't even get half a head in).

This meant, of course, that many of the spectators saw it on the giant screen; not helped because the 'flowers' ceremony happened in front of the screen, and some wit managed to play a continuous loop of Cipressi missing the gate while he was standing on top of the podium!

That is whatspurred the rule-change - but only as something that could be used if available to assist in the deciding of a protest.

Relevant points:
1) This was a very expensive system to run - it needed a skilled operator on each of 4 cameras, plus someone in a control room controlling theswitches from camera to camera, and from even-numbered feed to odd-numbered feed (necessary because until the Final there were two boats on the course at any one time). And presumably at least two shifts.
2) Even then as indicated above, the relevant camera did not answer all the questions - and the same would apply at quite a few other gates. While a pole/bearer camera might on its own have been sufficient, I am not convinced.
3) World Class was at the World Cups that year using their own hard-wired multi-camera system to get (tho' for GB only) the same result: it would be interesting to know how much that cost

If anyone wants to see that video of Cipressi's run, e-mail me on ECSTCoach@jsturgess.freeserve.co.uk (NOT through the Board) and I will send it to you as an attachment.

Ray · Post by **Ray** » Fri May 15, 2009 6:33 pm

I think the idea of video for appeals is a non-starter, for all but the highest levels, purely on the grounds of cost and practicability. Whilst I have no doubt the technology could be/already has been developed, the simple numbers make it all, in terms of cost and manpower, prohibitively expensive.

I believe you would need upstream and downstream views from both sides and also top down views per pole. This would be 6 cameras (as we would have to allow for 2 poles) per gate (the cameras may be able to cover more than one gate, but the poles need to be in focus and not too small)! Mutiply that up and for a 20 gate course that is 120 cameras.

Then you need spare cameras, batteries, spare batteries, multiple battery chargers, tripods/scaffolding, powerful/multiple computers, over 3 Terabytes of digital storage (over 2 hours of each video stream would need to be stored [uncompressed - i.e. 3.5MB per second and this would be much more if HD was used]), back up tapes (in case of communications problems and there would have to be enough for a full run's filming - assuming you could reuse these for each run) ... I.e. a very large amount of kit to be stored, maintained and transported round the country.

In terms of cost, by the time you ensure you have enough sets of these, the budget starts to soar (maybe the Olympic overspend isn't that big after all). If you then add in the requirement that the cameras themselves need to be higher speed than the standard (UK) 25fps video camera (as I think someone else mentioned earlier) and waterproof or in waterproof housings (ditto).

Of course, the cameras would need to be easily accessible in case of problems. This would need to be safe access to all the cameras - one can envision roped off access points. When it comes to the top down ones - would we have to climb out over the course or, which would cause further delays and problems, move the gate/support structure to get to them.

Finally just think of the manpower required to setup and dismantle the cameras each day (as they might develop legs otherwise) not to mention that required for changing tapes/batteries throughout the day. We struggle for enough gate judges at times - imagine if we needed a load more people!

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:31 am

Well video evidence would have been useful at the HPP event on Sunday when one competitor was awarded a 50 for half a head by the sector judge who was some 60m away from the gate (in appalling weather conditions) when the gate judge who was in line with the gate some 10m awarded a touch as they clearly saw the pole go around the competitors head and body on the right side, you tell me how someone can be awarded half a head when they are sat bolt upright paddling through a gate and they pass through the gate line?

Sorry I thought 'benefit of doubt' went in favour of the competitor? or does it depend on what your name is?

Perhaps video evidence will stop the favoritism issue as well?

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:06 am

I was under the impression you would usually get B.O.T.D. if gate judge and sector judge did not agree and you entered a protest. Sounds a bit odd for a 'half head' from your description if thats what they put down (not displacement, double entry, wrong direction etc.).

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:17 am

Section judge being 60m away? That would have put them on a different section on the course?

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:35 am

As a some time jury member, when section and gate judge disagree, the viewpoints arechecked, and the details of the penalty, e.g. paddler comes into eddy and hits river left pole, gently with their boat. Judge on the right side of the river sees the pole move, but does not see what moved it, it could have been waer, so (rightly) gives BOD to paddler and records clear, (hopefully writing this down if they have time). Judge on river left sees boat hit pole and gives a 2.

BOD is not applicable in this case despite the different scores, as one judge was better positioned. Reverse it and have the river right giving a 2 and the one on the left clear, but watre touch. Again river left has better view so BOD is more likley.

1/2 head is hard to see if you are in line with the gate, easier if you are at right angles to the direction of the paddlers passage, so the closest judge is not always the best positioned.

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:02 pm

djberriman wrote:I was under the impression you would usually get B.O.T.D. if gate judge and sector judge did not agree and you entered a protest. Sounds a bit odd for a 'half head' from your description if thats what they put down (not displacement, double entry, wrong direction etc.).

Exactly my point, when protested even the jury admitted it was a difficult decision so in that case it should have been BOD to the paddler.

So what constitutes Benefit of Doubt? Looks like the start of another thread, although I am sure that it has been done before with no satisfactory answer.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:11 pm

The impression that if two judges do not give the same penalty then BOD applies is not confined to this thread, it came up at teh Euros as well. This is not the case as the jury have to take account of teh positioning of teh judges (as I tried to explain above), and also the experience of the judges and their knowledge.
Example: a C2 splits a gate (front man goes through, then the boat leaves the gate) then coms back and only the back man goes through. Judge 1 gives 50 split gate, judge 2 gives clear, they both went through without hitting. Does BOD go to the paddler as one judge does not know the rules?

Example 2: gate judge is reluctant to be there and spends 90% of their time chatting to their mates, giving everyone clear (NB FICTITIOUS, NOT implying this happened in Geebs example as I know this was not the case). Does BOD apply to all paddlers automatically? or do we go with the person actually judging? Answer neither as of right, but the jury have to talk to them both andget an impression of what was happeing.

International Example: Judge from Chad never gives penalties to Chad paddlers (I do hope there are no Chadian IJSLs), but two other international judges saw a Chad paddler miss a gate completely. Does the paddler get a clear, or does the Chief Judge get a headache trying to sort out what happened, and (hopefully) having video to help unravel the situation?

BOD has to be assessed, by the jury, considering all the facts to hand, includng position and sight line of all judges, view of the penalty given, descriptions of what happened, what is written down (which may resolve, or at least flush out, the judges knowledge). at div 1/prem section judges above and below may also be consulted to gt their views/sightlines as above.

Not an easy job being on the jury

oldschool · Post by **oldschool** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:49 pm

I saw a couple of protest forms rejected at the euros. The reason given was "video evidence confirmed the penalty". I was still under the impression that video evidence was not admisable, or maybe i'm way out of date. Can anyone confirm or deny this for me?

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:06 pm

I gather video evidence is available at events where ALL competitors have access to the same video evidence for their runs. At the Euros ALL competitors were filmed from the same positions for each of their runs, therefore the evidence was admitable. Please correct me if I am wrong though...

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:20 pm

It could also be the difference between ICF and BCU rules?
(must have been run under ICF rules as competitors were not all wearing CEN1385 approved helmets!)
Or was it because it was on the TV and access was available?

Or everyone was videoing the event?

Who knows what decisions would be made if we could see things from another view point?

Oh and yes CP I do know what it is like to be on a jury I have chaired one many times and would welcome video footage to help me make a fair and accurate decision as long as it was timed and date stamped ???

Mr Munchkin · Post by **Mr Munchkin** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:24 am

Quick shufty through ECA Slalom rules (http://www.canoe-europe.org/rules/slalom/slalom.shtml) and the ICF Rules (http://www.canoeicf.com/site/canoeint/i ... slalom.pdf) highlights that the sentence, "Video review may not be used to contest items of fact (judging decisions." is omitted under rule 36.4 in both.

So video is allowed under international rules, but not UK rules...and hence, I would summise without wading back in time, the reason for this thread's existence...?

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:56 am

Geebs,
There was no intention on my part of doubting that you had been on a jury, and done your best as a member - just like we all do! Having seen you single handedly providing safety for the entire weekend at the looping pool no one can doubt your commitment to the sport and to ensuring the best for all. I apologise if it came over that way, its the problem of tryping during brief breaks in work!

The Euros were run to ICF rules, which allow video evidence, and do not insist on CE marked helmets - not all European nations are EU members, and some do not enforce the rules as strongly. BUT all boats were weighed, all bouyancy aids checked, and all helmets checked for conformance with ECA/ICF rules. Some boats and bouyncy aids failing the tests!

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:52 pm

Hi CP

No offence taken.

I was not on my own on Saturday as my youngest daughter was helping even though she is recovering from a serious shoulder injury, but no one else volunteered to help! But unfortunately the injury was too painful on Sunday for her to help out so alas a one man band.

As an official at the HPP Div1 event but unable to comment on the penalties, I saw several calls that were questionable in the looping pool area depending on which sector/gate judges were on duty at the time and how they interpreted the penalties, which is what you would expect from different views, I probably had the best view of the gate in question bearing in mind the weather conditions and I saw clears being given when there was a definite 50 not even 1/4 head passed through the gate and complete misses? (This is not a dig at the judges but with the adverse weather conditions it is difficult to hang on to your brolly and clipboard, get blinded by the rain and watch paddlers at the same time, credit where credit is due all the judges did a great job under very difficult conditions) the results of the race would have stayed the same, but difference in points may have been different if video evidence and BOD had been applied? (Sorry you know by view on the points calculations on the class in question)

I do wonder sometimes that the mission statement of the slalom committee has lost something in the translation? Putting Paddlers First and Valuing Volunteers?

Oh well onwards and upwards, lets see what the rest of the season brings.

Ray · Post by **Ray** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:19 pm

I saw several calls that were questionable in the looping pool area depending on which sector/gate judges were on duty at the time and how they interpreted the penalties, which is what you would expect from different views, I probably had the best view of the gate in question bearing in mind the weather conditions and I saw clears being given when there was a definite 50 not even 1/4 head passed through the gate and complete misses?

Remember that the signalliing you see at events does not necessarily reflect what is entered into the system. On the gate in question, the section judge had a much better view of some penalties than the gate judge. Thus where the GJ, possibly having given benefit of the doubt, signalled clear, the section judge could still have entered a penalty despite, correctly, having echoed the GJ's clear signal back to him/her.