Photo-finish print was best possible

Press, 14 June 1983, Page 22

Photo-finish print was best possible

By

G. K. YULE

Doubts whether a better photo-finish print than that produced at Ashburton for the judge, Mr Ray McCoubrey, could have been obtained by any camera were expressed by Mr Gerry Matthews, a principal of Precision Photo Finishes, Ltd.

Mr McCoubrey made a mistake in the placing of the horses in the Acton Handicap on the second day of the Ashburton Trotting Club’s winter meeting on Monday, June 6. Mr Matthews spent 20 years as a photo-finish camera operator in Canterbury, resuming his activities earlier this year when his newly-formed company took over the equipment operated by the on-course division of the T.A.B. following on its take-over of the operations of ATL, Ltd. “The camera has been completely overhauled and a new zoom lens incorporated,” said Mr Matthews. The positioning of the camera on many courses in Canterbury was not really satisfactory, he said. “On too many courses the camera is not high enough and its distance from the track means that the angle is much lower than desirable. Also, as at Ashburton, the mirror image is taken on the shadow side of the horses,” he said. The use of head numbers or rosettes would ease the situation for the judge when it came to a tight finish, he

added. The introduction of photofinish apparatus just after the end of the Second World War has resulted in club officials unrealistically down-grading the position of the judge. The general attitude seems to be that with the availability of the photofinish camera, the tasks of the judges are minimal. However, judges still have to place horses visually in case of a breakdown in the camera. These occur infrequently, but instances of no photo-finish print happen more often than is realised.

Clubs generally take little interest in complaints by judges regarding difficulties they encounter when their boxes are positioned too close to the track or when they are not considered to be in a sufficiently high situation.

Mr Max Mace resigned from his position at Addington Raceway after his unsuccessful attempts to have his judge’s box placed in a much higher situation. The position of the box at Addington makes the task of the judge in a tight finish, by no means uncommon on the course, extremely testing.

On other courses the judges’ boxes are in old structures adversely affected in stormy weather, and doubts have been expressed whether their accuracy is ever checked by surveyors.

The question of judges is one certain to exercise considerable time at the next meeting of the executive of the Trotting Conference. In recent months there have been numerous comSts from owners and ers about the placings of their horses when they have finished behind those officially called in by judges. The accuracy of placings is essential these days with clubs allocating places in fields at totalisator meetings according to form in races.

This requirement for accuracy is also essential at trials where finishing positions often decide whether horses obtain starts at totalisator meetings, or whether they qualify. Too often amateur judges are used for non-totalisator meetings. These persons give freely of their time and play an important part in trotting. But when penaltybearing races are run it is seldom that they have the back-up of a photo-finish camera, and when tight finishes occur it is unfair to expect them to place the remainder of the field in correct finishing order. The whole system is sadly in need of overhaul. The executive has neglected to take any interest in the judging of races or the replacement of judges, but happenings in the last few years suggest that this situation could change in the next few months.