The closest victim was the person he ran to help. Your statement holds no water (pun not intended).
It seems that you're being purposefully obtuse. You've taken a portion of a question of a hypothetical situation and mashed it into a place in a real situation where it dos not belong. By your logic (as displayed above) if the closest victim was fifteen minutes away across the bay then it would be proper for the guard to go to that victim. You're not seriously suggesting such a thing, are you?
Not to mention you are forgetting the lifeguard left his post to go save a life, something a life guard is supposed to do.
I'm not forgetting anything. And a lifeguard is not supposed to help anyone, anywhere while on duty. Take, for example, the situation of an indoor pool enclosed within glass walls. The lifeguard sees someone on the outer side drop to the ground for no apparent reason. What do you think the lifeguard should do? What if the guard is the only person staffing the pool? What if there is a backup guard on off-rotation in the office? What if the other person is the pool manager but he's gone off the recreational complex office to finish some photocopies? (This is one of the many hypothetical question I pose to my candidates when we discuss "lifeguarding and the law" and "Lifeguarding ethics").
Yes it does. We have policy and procedure for a reason. We have standards for a reason. We have certification bodies and international conferences on standards, procedures, statistics, and best practices for a reason.
What you suggest isn't logic. It's emotional. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but you're approaching this situation from the latter, while claiming the former.
You see a drowning person, you rescue them even if it means ignoring a silly rule.
A silly rule to you. Do know why the rule is in place? Do you have any experience lifeguarding? Have you ever studied the theory of lifeguarding, or the practice of lifeguarding? Do you have any idea of why a lifeguard may need kick a victim in the chest or face (this one I ask simply because it is also something that seems "logical" and "simple" that a lifeguard would never do)?
Again, this lifeguard acted correctly, the situation had a positive outcome, and his employers need to hang their head in shame.
He may have acted correctly if he waited for cover from his adjacent guard; however, you seem ill-qualified to make such a blanket conclusion.