I'm aware of two agility runs this year where a competitor who queried a judge's decision had a video tape of their run. In one, an ANKC event, the judge agreed to look at the competitor's tape and reversed his decision. In the other, an ADAA trial, after discussion with officials it was agreed that the decision should be made on the basis of what the judge saw, without recourse to video or other witnesses, and the result stood.
Eric Larsen has posted slow motion video and stills from the USDAA Grand Prix Nationals which show that Susan Garrett and Decaff (winners of the 16" class) and Rhonda Carter and Blast (winners of the 22" class) might have been penalised under the rule "See-saw not touching the ground before the dog leaving, but after it begins to tilt, is a fly-off penalty."
That rule is actually a good argument for having a professional editor go over some of the regulations designed by committee: what does it actually say?? Why not "Dog leaving the see-saw after it begins to tilt, but before it touches the ground, is a fly-off penalty." Or even more simply "If the dog does not have at least one foot in contact with the see-saw when it touches the ground, it is a fly-off penalty."
In any case there is some lively discussion on judging decisions and video referees on the Agility Vision site.