The Man in the Judge’s Box

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 230, 17 December 1927, Page 6

The Man in the Judge’s Box

Disagreement with the judge’s decision on a racecourse is not uncommon, but so far in New Zealand we have not reached that stage of suggesting, as has been done in England, that there should be two judges, and a referee to decide the result of races. This is the outcome of difference of opinion as tfo what won the recent Cambridgeshire. The rider of Insight 11. thought he won, but the judge placed that horse third. Some photographs also tended to the idea Insight 11. won, but they really proved nothing. Newmarket is a very broad course, Insight 11. was wide out from the two the judge said dead-heated for first, and the photographers were not in line with the judge’s box and winning post. It is not unusual for photographs taken from different angles to give a totally different impression of a finish. A SOUND SUGGESTION

The London papers interviewed many people on the matter, and one was Mr. James Sutters, a director of the Victoria Club, of which all England’s leading bookmakers are members: ‘‘The suggestion that there should be a second judge, so that two people, one on either slide of the course, can give a decision, is the soundest scheme I have heard of for a long time,” said Mr. Sutters to a ‘‘Daily Express” representative. “Every member of the Victoria Club would back it up. We want to cut out any possibility of doubt concerning the result. An official referee to watch the result, so that he could adjudicate, should the two judges disagree, would also be a good idea.” Other bookmakers agreed with Mr. Sutters that since a great deal of money depends on the result of a race every effort should be made to avoid a repetition of the doubts which arose after the Cambridgeshire. “Such things,” said one man, “cause unnecessary uneasiness in the mind of the betting public. If such a simple matter as appointing an extra judge and a referee could prevent this, surely the Jockey Club could see its way to do so.” TWO JUDGES AND A REFEREE! One can easily see trouble arising if the suggestion were adopted, for it is no exaggeration to state that instances would occur where the two judges and the referee might, in a close finish, choose different horses for first, position. This reminds me of the story supposed to be true of the judge at a country meeting who decided to take an assistant into the box with him to p the ‘l'Hu horse - After the horses t ? e post ln the fi rst race the judge took up the numbers of the pl s ace ?, flrtd and second, and put them in the frame. Then he ‘° t „ hIS ,L ISS i Stant and inquired: Whats the third horse?” “Therp’«s "wha£?. hor r ” replled the assistant +vS y^L at : exclaimed the judge. .“No third horse. Nonsense, man you’ra dreaming. Of course there is’ a third

horse.” “No, there’s not,” contended the assistant. “You’ve taken it for first.” ONE MAN BEST No! Far better to rely upon the judgment of one Individual even if he does occasionally make a mistake. At least there can be no argument and with a reliable man the mistakes are too few to wori*y about. The only practicable method of eliminating the human error in a close finish is by photographs from both sides of the cours eby triple sets of cameras operated by a thread broken by the horses themselves near the post. This method is in operation in Belgium and gives every satisfaction. When a judge feels that he cannot conscientiously give a decision the word “photograph” is displayed prominently and the crowd awaits the development of the prints which take less than a minute, and the numbers are then hoisted by the judge on what he has himself seen, and wliat the camera shows. As this method has been worked out with mathematical precision a mistake is impossible, the nose of the winning horse is alwavs touching the winning line, and the Belgian racing authorities and public have every confidence in it. nave