Ergonomic Solutions for Referee Mistakes: A Visual Assessment of the Environment in Boxing Competitions

Background: This study examines whether transparent boxing ring ropes increase referees' visual access and improve scoring accuracy and consistency. Purpose: In total, 25 certified international referees, (20 scoring judges and 5 supervisory officials) who were judging matches between the same athletes in both traditional and transparent roped rings, participated in the study. Research Design: Scoring was conducted according to five predefined zones (A-E) of the boxing ring using a counterbalanced experimental design. Study Sample: A one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant scoring discrepancy in Zone D under the traditional-rope condition (F(5, 90) = 2.442, p = .040). Dunnett's post-hoc test showed that one referee's scores significantly diverged from the video-based reference scores established via multi-angle review (p = 0.007), while no such discrepancies were observed in the transparent rope setting. Data Collection and/or Analysis: Independent samples t-tests indicated that there were significantly higher, more consistent scores across all zones when transparent ropes were used (all p < .05; Cohen's d = 0.36-0.50). Results: On average, referees awarded between 1.2 and 1.5 more points per scoring zone when using transparent ropes compared to traditional ropes, indicating a meaningful practical improvement. Conclusions: These results suggest that by increasing visual access, transparent boxing ring ropes reduce scoring inconsistency and increase decision accuracy. Transparent boxing ring ropes may represent a cost-effective and easily implemented design innovation to improve the quality of boxing refereeing. Future studies should evaluate the long-term effects of transparent boxing ring ropes and include referees with varying levels of experience in real-time competition environments.