Well actually, let’s not. Despite Warner Wolf’s signature tagline (ask someone from NYC), there is no specific provision in the Rules of Rowing that requires video recording equipment at the finish line. Rule 2-104 (4) & (5) refers to the responsibility of the Chief Judge and other referees to inspect “photographic records” in making their determinations of the order of finish. The rule does not elaborate on the types of equipment to be used in making these “photographic records.” However, since the introduction of portable videocassette cameras in the early 1980’s, the increasing miniaturization and expanding capabilities of video recording equipment have made their presence de rigeur at most well-organized regattas. To any referee, it would be very surprising if this equipment were not available

There is no doubt that the recording and playback capability afforded by this equipment has saved many a Chief Judge from what otherwise would be the “wrong call.” (This has happened to the author on occasions too numerous to count.) However, the opposite is not also true: the playback by itself cannot be considered definitive. Rule 2-104 cited above, and especially Rule 2-502(e), endow the Chief Judge with the final authority for determining the order of finish, by arbitrating among the decisions of the individual judges, and making final findings of fact.

Thus, it is the judgment of the Chief Judge (hence the name) as to which crew crossed the finish line and in what order. The Chief Judge makes this determination by direct observation, as he or she calls out the order of finish (“One!”, “Two!”, etc.) as prescribed in Rule 2-502(d). After review of the available evidence, the Chief Judge may decide that the photographic evidence supports and reinforces, or refutes, his or her original finding obtained by direct observation. If warranted, the Chief Judge may then amend his or her original finding before making the results official and releasing them. But by itself, photographic evidence, especially but not limited to that provided by routine consumer-variety video recording equipment, cannot be an independent substitute, under any circumstances, for the final official judgment rendered by the Chief Judge.

On occasion, and after being permitted to view the photographic evidence, coaches or competitors persist in arguing that the tape shows something that contravenes the official result, e.g., the order of finish should be changed, or that it’s “too close to call”, and hence a dead heat should be declared. Most Referees acting as Chief Judge will extend the courtesy of viewing of relevant tapes and videos by interested parties, partly as an exercise in continuing education among all participants, and in deference to and respect for the competitive effort of the coaches and competitors and the high stakes that are sometimes involved. It should be remembered by all concerned that what is not on the table in these discussions is the opportunity to overturn the findings of the Chief Judge -- persistence in seeking this result is a good way not to be extended the courtesy of viewing the playback.

Non-referees should not be concerned that a Chief Judge will persist in a finding that is clearly contradicted by the photographic evidence. I have never seen this happen, and with the increasing ubiquity of computer-based optical timing systems (e.g., FinishLynx), it may not ever happen. Referees take great care in determining the order of finish, and we can use all the help we can get. But in the end, it still comes down to a judgment made by a human being, not a camera. Who would you like to be responsible?