The case of Yang Tae Young and the Korean Olympic Committee (KOC) versus the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) centered on a scoring error during the Men’s Individual Gymnastics Artistic All-round Event Final at the 2004 Olympics. Yang Tae Young was incorrectly awarded a start value of 9.9 for his parallel bars routine instead of the correct 10.0 due to a misidentification of a move. This error had significant implications, as Yang would have won the gold medal instead of bronze, while the American gymnast Paul Hamm would have received silver instead of gold. The KOC protested the error, but the FIG maintained that its rules prohibited altering judges' marks after the fact. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined the timing and validity of the protests. The CAS found that while the KOC had raised concerns, the protests were not submitted in time to affect the medal ceremony. The FIG acknowledged the error but argued that its rules did not permit post-competition adjustments. The CAS upheld the principle that field-of-play decisions, including judging errors, are final unless there is evidence of arbitrariness, fraud, or corruption. It emphasized that while modern sports may have mechanisms for real-time review, errors identified afterward do not justify judicial interference. The CAS concluded that the FIG’s decision to uphold the original scores was consistent with its rules and that there was no basis to overturn the results. The case highlighted the challenges of ensuring fairness in high-stakes competitions and the limited scope for external review of subjective judging decisions. The FIG’s handling of the situation was criticized, particularly for publicly acknowledging the error and speculating about the hypothetical outcome, which undermined confidence in the judging process. The CAS also noted that both Yang and Hamm were victims of the situation, with Yang missing a potential gold medal and Hamm’s achievement being overshadowed by controversy. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the original results and underscoring the importance of finality in sports competitions. The ruling reinforced the need for clear and timely protest mechanisms while respecting the authority of sports governing bodies to manage their own disputes. The case remains a notable example of the complexities and limitations inherent in addressing judging errors in competitive sports.