Machine Age Monkeyshines

Modern electronics made an unfortunate debut in the NCAA swimming championships at Yale last weekend. It all started when meet officials announced that a new "electronic machine" would be used to determine the order of finish. The machine had worked well in Big Ten meets, they explained, and should do away with much of the confusion which has plagued recent championships.

But on closer inspection, the machine proved to be not much of a machine at all. Place finishes have traditionally been determined by the place judges, who sit at the side of the pool and sight down the finish line to see who touches first. In addition, at least three timers are usually assigned to time the swimmer in each lane.

The main faults with this system are 1) that the place judges are often too far away from the winning swimmer to see exactly when he touches the wall, 2) that they must watch the whole length of the finish line rather than just one lane, and 3) that human errors often result in the same man being picked for both first and second place, or in the winning swimmer being credited with a slower time than the men he has beaten.

Eliminate Defects

The new "machine" proposed to eliminate the first two faults. A place judge was stationed at the end of each lane with a button in his hand. Each judge pressed his button when his swimmer hit the wall and the results were recorded electronically--the order of pressing determining the order of finish.

Just to make doubly sure, however, the NCAA decided not to rely on the machine alone, but to use it in conjunction with the old system. The result was chaos.

The trouble started in the 50 yard freestyle--a traditional judge's headache. The machine picked Robin Moore of Stanford for first. Moore's three timers each caught him in 22.1. The place judges, however, said Rex Aubrey of Yale had won. Aubrey's three timers clocked him in 22.1, 22.2, and 22.3 respectively. The meet officials held their first of many hurried conferences and compromised. They declared a tie race, but gave Moore an Intercollegiate record for his 22.1, while crediting Aubrey with a 22.2. Forty-five minutes later, however, they decided that since the swimmers had tied, they must have had identical times, so the officials gave Aubrey a record too.

More troubles developed in the 100 yard backstroke event which pointed out the inadequacies of the conflicting systems. In the third qualifying heat, James Kruthers of Michigan touched out Bill Clinton of Yale for second place, but was credited with a 60.1 to Clinton's 60.0. In the second heat, Dave Pemberton of Northwestern also turned in a 60.1.

Confusion in Places

Since there were four qualifying times faster than 60 seconds, the meet officials had to pick up two of the three above swimmers to complete the final round. Going by the times, Clinton should have been picked as the fifth finalist and the other two should have swum off for the sixth position. But this hardly seemed fair to Kruthers, who had beaten Clinton. So the NCAA decided to let all seven be finalists. The four fastest qualifiers would swim in one heat, and Clinton, Kruthers, and Pemberton would swim in another.

Unfortunately, however, two heats meant that the final placings would have to be determined on times. The officials had gotten themselves into this mess through faulty timing, and now they were opening the way for more confusion. And they had not long to wait. In the last heat, Pedro Galvao of S.M.U. (58.8) beat Lyn Meiring of Oklahoma (58.7) by a stroke. Since the officials had announced that the finals would be determined on times, however, the place judges had to give way to the timers. Meiring had to be given second place over Galvao.

By this time the place judges were quite disgruntled. The climax came in the 100 yard freestyle. The "machine" picked Al Kuhn of Northwestern (49.3) for first. The place judges said Aubrey (49.4) had won. What's more, they threatened to walk out unless the machine was junked.

After the longest special conference of the meet, an NCAA official announced that the machine would be abandoned for the remainder of the meet. "This does not mean that the machine has not worked satisfactorily thus far," he added, in a reassuring tone.

What it did mean, however, was that the NCAA had publicly renounced its "machine." Feeling among the officials seemed to favor a return to the old methods. But such feeling is not only absurd; it is dangerous. The "machine" failed, not because a machine must fail, but because it still relied on the highly fallible human element. Until the NCAA comes up with a fully automatic judging mechanism, confusion will continue to plague its competitions