Experts Discuss The Future Of AI Gymnastics Judging

PARIS, FRANCE: JULY 28: Judges watch Jordan Chiles of the United States perform her floor routine during Artistic Gymnastics, Women’s Qualification at the Bercy Arena during the Paris 2024 Summer Olympic Games on July 28th, 2024, in Paris, France. (Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images)

Corbis via Getty Images

Controversy and professional athletics go hand in hand. From soccer legend Diego Maradona’s ’86 no-call hand goal to the pass interference calls tormenting football fans every Sunday, manual officiating and the potential for human error have long impacted the world of sports.

In artistic gymnastics, an inherently subjective sport, debates over judging and scoring systems can generate more online buzz than the routines themselves.

At the 2024 Paris Olympics, the magic of a historic floor exercise podium was quickly overshadowed by scoring turmoil. For some, medals were lost. For all, the triumph of an Olympic final disintegrated into a muddled mess of controversy.

While the Paris debacle brought the occasional shortcomings of human-centered gymnastics judging into the national spotlight, the now-infamous floor final is far from the only result to cause a stir.

At the 1992 Olympics, the finish between U.S.S.R. gymnast Tatiana Gutsu and American Shannon Miller sparked outrage from international audiences. Nearly 40 years later, the debate rattles on. In 2012, American breakout star Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Douglas shockingly edged Russian prodigy Viktoria Komova at the London Olympics. The debate continues to this day.

This October, another high-profile result joined the controversial ranks: Angelina Melnikova’s narrow win over American Leanne Wong at the 2025 World Championships.

The primary source of disagreement stemmed from a contested ‘no call.’

In her final routine of the day, Melnikova needed to hit her floor routine cleanly to clinch gold. However, on her opening tumbling pass, the Russian appeared to hop out of the floor’s perimeter on her landing.

While the judges ruled that only one of Melnikova’s feet brushed the exterior floor area, some spectators felt both feet went ‘out of bounds.’ Had Melnikova been penalized for two feet going out of bounds, Wong would have won by one tenth. Ultimately, the judges’ determination made the difference.

While fans continue to argue for and against results, a common denominator underlies all discussion: the need for increased accuracy and transparency. In the eyes of many organizers, the solution lies with artificial intelligence.

ForbesUSA Gymnastics Taps MLS Executive Kyle Albrecht To Lead OrganizationBy Caroline Price

The Beginnings of ‘AI Judging’

As artificial intelligence continues to impact all facets of society, gymnastics has seen a push to integrate AI functionality into gymnastics judging.

Ahead of October’s world championships in Jakarta, the President of the International Gymnastics Federation, Morinari Watanabe, attested to the federation’s push for AI integration.

“In the arena, you will see gymnastics integrated with AI. With this technology, everything becomes easier to understand and more transparent,” Watanabe said.

Despite the advancements unveiled last month in Jakarta, controversy still overshadowed discourse surrounding the women’s competition. The question remains: how does gymnastics continue its quest to become more accurate?

I sat down with a leading expert in the field to discuss the potentials—and limitations—of advancements in gymnastics judging. Meet Alain Zobrist, CEO of Swiss Timing and an expert on the FIG’s technological initiatives.

Alain Zobrist: ‘The Man Who Times The Olympics’

Founded in 1988 after the merger of OMEGA, the longstanding timekeeper of the Olympics, and Longines, Swiss Timing has long facilitated the evolution of objectivity and accuracy in Olympic sports.

From providing manual stopwatches in the 1930s to biomechanical tracking technologies in the 2020s, OMEGA and Swiss Timing have defined the standard for sports timekeeping.

Known as the “man who times the Olympics,” Swiss Timing’s CEO Alain Zobrist has led the organization’s modern charge into today’s AI-dominated landscape.

Zobrist understands the task at hand in Artistic Gymnastics, and Swiss Timing provides a gauntlet of camera technologies that assist judges’ evaluations.

“Gymnastics is one of these judging sports right where the objectivity of judges is fundamental for the fairness of the sport, similar to figure skating, diving, and so many other sports where judges are judging a performance with their naked eye.”

While Zobrist admits that “every sport is a little bit different and has its own set of rules,” Swiss Timing continues to “develop technology according to these rules and contribute accordingly to protect the integrity of these results.”

These technologies are evolving fast.

Computer Vision In Olympic Sports

At last year’s Paris Olympic Games, Swiss Timing introduced a groundbreaking advancement: computer vision technology. First implemented in the Olympic diving competitions, the technologies enabled judges to evaluate the precise “bio-mechanical movement of an athlete.”

Organizers plan to implement the same computer vision at the upcoming 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano-Cortina, Italy. The technology will be incorporated in the evaluation of men’s and women’s singles and pairs skating.

In figure skating, Zobrist says it will enable judges to determine the exact number of rotations an athlete completes in an attempted jump.

Fans will also see its implementation in the big air, half pipe, and ski jump competitions. The technology will automatically determine a jump’s height and its relationship to the angle of takeoff, environmental factors, and more. “There are a lot of metrics that will come together,” Zobrist says excitedly.

Zobrist also believes that computer vision has a “lot of potential” to assist judging accuracy in Artistic Gymnastics.

Currently, judges have access to an advanced video replay system, “where you can zoom in on an action frame by frame” to evaluate a performance or skill. Swiss Timing will provide supplemental cameras upon a federation’s request, including line-judging cameras.

While he admits the technology is at the “beginning of its journey,” it will only improve with time and application, enabling judges to zoom in even further – and in higher resolution. “We believe that computer vision technology is going to help judges even more.”

Much like its figure skating application, computer vision could one day assist judges in determining the proper completion of a gymnast’s twist(s) or flip(s). It could also assist judges in determining whether an athlete breached the floor area, warranting a crucial ‘out-of-bounds’ deduction.

An Out-of-Bounds Solution

And so, we return to the controversial women’s all-around finish at the recent world championships. As discussion ensued surrounding Angelina Melnikova’s purported out-of-bounds, many questioned: could ‘floor sensors’ end the debate?

Spectators drew a comparison to swimming and diving. Swimming first used touchpads – automatic sensors detecting an athlete’s finish at the end of the lane – at the 1967 Pan American Games. Touchpads made their Olympic debut the following year at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.

The push for touchpad adoption began after a dispute at the 1960 Olympics, when judges and manual timers disagreed on the winner of the men’s 100-meter freestyle.

There have been countless controversies in response to gymnastics results – why has the sport’s governing body not pushed to emulate its aquatic cousin?

Zobrist tells me it’s not feasible—yet. “It’s important to differentiate the technologies and their application in the various sports.”

Touchpad sensor technologies work for swimming because they serve one purpose: allowing athletes to record time. In gymnastics, these sensors would need to precisely determine the location of a reading, navigating “tiny little margins.”

“Swimming is actually is the only sport – or was the first sport – where athletes can stop their times themselves,” Zobrist says. “There’s a second one now, which is speed climbing. They also have to touch a pen – so it is not used to measure a position.”

The Logistical Hurdles & Financial Reality

While Zobrist doubts the sensor’s feasibility due to its limited positional accuracy, another expert flags an additional hurdle. Brett Wendler, Vice President of Design and Development at Daktronics, an industry leader in sports timing equipment, points to the significant logistical hurdles that prevent its widespread adoption.

“Implementing a floor-sensor solution in gymnastics would involve several logistical challenges,” Wendler explains. “First, it must be safe for the athletes, and then it needs to be a reliable solution. It would take several design iterations and then rigorous testing to confirm that it does not interfere with athlete performance or introduce hazards.”

Beyond the physical danger, the cost could be prohibitive for many organizations. “Developing and deploying such technology requires significant investment,” Wendler notes.

“Widespread adoption will depend on demonstrating clear value and securing buy-in from coaches, athletes, and governing bodies. A clear path towards an attractive return on investment would be required before development would be funded or prioritized.”

While Zobrist does not believe that sensor technologies are the present solution, the rapid advancement of timing and AI technologies points to potential. He sees potential in men’s still rings, where the sensors could be used to determine if an athlete properly maintains a position or skill.

“I think there we will see a lot of evolution, progress on the way forward when it comes to computer vision sensor technologies. We’re still on a learning curve.”

Transparency Above All Else

Ultimately, judging integrity remains the highest priority for all parties. The delivery of results, and the determinations leading up to them, can make all the difference.

We’ve already seen the impact of lapses in integrity. At the 2024 Olympic floor final, timing miscommunications sparked outrage—and ensuing appeals.

The differentiation of what is shown to whom and when “needs to be orchestrated,” Zobrist says. “Total transparency is absolutely key in any sport when it comes to protecting the integrity of the results.”

Currently, with the use of computer vision and bio-mechanical review, the timeline of an evaluation process is—and must remain—”rigorous.” In Olympic diving, organizers implemented an extra failsafe: technology available only to head judges for review.

Thus, if a panel of judges is in disagreement, the designated head judge can issue a transparent ruling based on exclusive bio-mechanical footage.

Preserving transparency must also include properly informing fans and protecting judges from external influences. “As computer vision continues to evolve, there is going to be an opportunity to provide additional information to audiences watching, whether it’s in the stadium or on TV.”

With increased transparency and accessibility comes increased trust.

“These technologies can make things visible that wouldn’t be visible with the naked eye.” With the rapid advancement and implementation of computer vision, gymnastics judges are more informed and technologically equipped than ever before.

The next step will be ensuring this enhanced transparency and accuracy are made available to athletes, coaches, and spectators, allowing everyone to appreciate the sport’s newfound precision.