The case revolves around a dispute between the Deutscher Behindertensportverband e.V. (German National Paralympic Committee) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) concerning the disqualification and subsequent reinstatement of Mexican swimmer Pedro Rangel during the men’s 100-meter breaststroke final at the 2008 Beijing Paralympic Games. Rangel was initially disqualified for violating IPC swimming Rule SM 7.7, which mandates that swimmers must break the water surface with their head during each stroke cycle. This led to German swimmers Thomas Grimm and Nils Grünenberg receiving gold and bronze medals. However, the Mexican delegation protested the disqualification, arguing that the referee lacked proper visibility and that the results had already been publicly displayed. The chief referee overturned the disqualification, citing an "error by an official," and reinstated Rangel as the gold medalist, downgrading Grimm and Grünenberg to silver and no medal, respectively. The German team contested this decision, claiming the protest was improperly prioritized over the technical rule violation and that the medal ceremony had already taken place under the initial results. The IPC defended its decision, stating the protest was timely and rule-compliant, though it acknowledged a procedural error in not halting the medal ceremony. The German delegation appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking the annulment of Rangel’s result and a redistribution of medals. However, the CAS ruled it lacked jurisdiction to intervene, as disputes over sports technical rules fall under the IPC's final authority, a condition the German athletes had agreed to by signing IPC Eligibility Code Forms. The CAS Panel concluded that the IPC’s decision on such matters was final and not subject to appeal. The Panel also noted that the IPC’s subsequent letter did not constitute a formal decision eligible for CAS review. As a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, and all other relief requests were denied. The ruling affirmed the IPC’s exclusive authority over technical disputes and highlighted the jurisdictional limits of the CAS in such cases. The German team’s appeal was ultimately dismissed, upholding the IPC’s decision as final and concluding the matter without further consideration. The case underscores the challenges of adjudicating field-of-play decisions and the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in sports arbitration.