Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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.

Keywords

performance accuracy of boxing referees visual perception visual attention visual ergonomics decision-making accuracy equipment design

Introduction

For centuries, sports have brought people together, generated excitement, fostered competition, and served as a significant source of entertainment (Eitzen, 2012; Wann et al., 2017). Fairness and balance in this dynamic and competitive environment largely depend on referees’ objective decisions. Therefore, sports referees face a challenging task in competitive matches, they must process a large amount of information in a limited time and make quick and accurate decisions in noisy crowds and complex sporting arenas (Erikstad & Johansen, 2020; Mascarenhas et al., 2005; Spitz et al., 2016). Furthermore, to maintain their impartiality, they must not only enforce the rules but also constantly contend with environmental conditions and internal stressors (Bruno et al., 2023; Stanton et al., 2006). Dawson et al. (2007) emphasized that decision-making is a significant challenge, especially in complex and constantly changing environments. According to Plessner and Haar (2006), cognitive and social dynamics influence these decisions. Raab et al. (2020) used this process to understand sports referees’ decisions within the threshold-based decision-making framework. These tasks require the coordinated operation of attention, rapid perceptual processing, decision-making speed, and short-term memory (Ghasemi et al., 2011; Helsen et al., 2023; Kittel et al., 2019; Larkin et al., 2011; MacMahon et al., 2007; Marras & Hancock, 2014; Neville et al., 2016; Neville & Salmon, 2015; Spitz et al., 2018; Vestberg et al., 2012). Moreover, referees’ expert skills and accurate decision-making processes depend on their focus and perception (Brams et al., 2019). Referee decisions in fast-paced sports are highly dependent on the effectiveness of these perceptual and motor skills (Voigt et al., 2023). Because games are complex and time-sensitive, the cognitive load in combat and team sports is quite high. Furthermore, even small changes in environmental factors, such as lighting, noise levels, or the playing field’s spatial layout, can significantly impact referees’ decision accuracy and consistency. Despite these challenges, referees are obligated to make impartial and accurate decisions while minimizing external and internal influences to maintain competition integrity.

Decision support technologies, such as Video Assistant Referee (VAR) and goal-line technology, have been widely used in professional football, tennis, and other sports (Kolbinger & Lames, 2017; Schweizer et al., 2023). These systems have increased referee decision accuracy, reduced human error, and strengthened confidence in decision-making processes, thereby supporting sports integrity (Royce, 2012). Furthermore, referees’ physical positioning is also a determining factor in decision quality. For example, in football, assistant referees are careful to align themselves with the last defender to correctly assess critical situations such as offside or fouls (Mallo et al., 2012; Oudejans et al., 2000). When supported by technologies such as virtual acoustic radar (VAR), this spatial alignment increases the accuracy of instantaneous decisions and further reduces the margin of error. Similarly, advanced technologies, such as spatial optical tracking systems, make decision processes data-driven by more precisely tracking the positions of moving players and objects (Ding & Jiang, 2025).

However, the situation is different for boxing referees. In the traditional boxing ring, referees remain stationary at ringside, where the surrounding ropes limit their field of vision compared to that of more mobile positions. Therefore, making accurate decisions in fast-paced and dynamic matches is difficult. Empirical studies examining the effects of these visual limitations on referee decisions are limited. Removing or improving such visual obstructions to preserve the traditional boxing structure has not received sufficient attention or study.

The concept of visual ergonomics has gained importance in better understanding the impact of environmental factors on decision-making processes. Visual ergonomics is an interdisciplinary field that aims to ensure that individuals have uninterrupted and effective access to visual stimuli while performing their duties (Long & Richter, 2014). It is closely linked to cognitive-motor processes, such as visual attention, perceptual processing, and decision-making accuracy. The artificial and indoor conditions of today’s sports environments differ from environments to which the human visual system is accustomed, which evolved in natural environments, resulting in additional cognitive load for referees (Fostervold et al., 2014; Lavie, 2005; Oberauer, 2019).

Zetterberg et al. (2019) developed the Visual Environment and Referee Awareness Model (VERAM) based on these theoretical frameworks to assess the risk factors contributing to performance errors caused by visual access restriction. Heiden et al. (2019) used computational analyses to demonstrate the effects of light intensity, glare, reflection, and viewing angle on attentional processes and visual decision-making accuracy. These findings demonstrate the critical importance of environmental conditions in tasks such as refereeing, which require rapid and precise visual judgment.

Expert referees possess superior abilities to direct their attention to task-relevant cues, and these skills improve with experience (del Campo et al., 2018; Kittel et al., 2021; Roca et al., 2011; Ruiz et al., 2024; Russo & Ottoboni, 2019; Schweizer et al., 2011; van Maarseveen et al., 2018; Williams & Ericsson, 2005). However, external environmental factors influence the translation of these competencies into on-field performance. When visual access is restricted, attentional focus can be disrupted, leading to incomplete or inaccurate perception of critical information (Oberauer, 2019). Furthermore, increased physical exertion during play negatively impacts decision accuracy (Larkin et al., 2014). Therefore, optimizing environmental stimuli has become increasingly important to improve the quality of referee decisions. Recent research has demonstrated that simulated environments, such as virtual reality (VR), are effective in improving referee decision-making accuracy (van Biemen et al., 2023). Furthermore, sports-specific cognitive assessment tools can better predict referee performance than traditional tests (Reinhard et al., 2025).

This study provides experimental evidence that the use of transparent boxing ring ropes increases the accuracy and consistency of scoring decisions by expanding referees’ field of vision. Reorganizing a ring’s physical structure according to visual ergonomics principles is not only a technical innovation but also introduces important environmental factors that affect referee performance. The results suggest that structural interventions can be implemented to increase the reliability and consistency of referee evaluation. In this context, the study offers implications not only for sports like boxing, where visual perception and decision-making are critical, but also for other sports where decision-making is influenced by the physical environment.

Ergonomically Developed New Ring Ropes

The ropes used in boxing rings not only define the ring area boundaries but also ensure the safety of the athletes. They also maintain the ring’s structural integrity and facilitate the orderly conduct of matches. The traditional rings used in professional and amateur competitions consist of four opaque vinyl-coated steel ropes secured to the corner posts, with tension. While this structure provides overall durability, it can also restrict visual access, creating a physical obstruction in the field of vision, especially for referees stationed at ringside (Uca, 2020). Boxing matches are fast-paced and dynamic environments in which complex combination punches are constantly thrown. This intense pace makes it difficult for referees to make decisions, and even the slightest restriction in their field of vision can negatively impact scoring accuracy.

Studies on referee decision-making processes indicate that physical obstructions that restrict the view (e.g., player positions, posts, or on-field equipment) can increase visual fatigue, impair attention allocation, and increase the risk of cognitive judgment errors (Long & Richter, 2014; Zetterberg et al., 2019). Schweizer et al. (2023) emphasized that these visual limitations can lead to systematic inconsistencies and biases in referee decisions. Furthermore, current research reveals that referees’ visual attention and decision-making processes are challenged due to limited attentional capacity, making accurate decisions difficult, especially under time pressure. Decision quality, such as accurate scoring decisions in fast-paced situations, is determined by referees’ visual search strategies (Hüttermann et al., 2018; van Biemen et al., 2022). In this context, traditional ropes used around the ring create a physical obstruction in the referee’s field of vision (Figure 1). Adhering to visual ergonomic principles, a new rope prototype made of transparent materials was designed to reduce these obstructions. This design features a steel core surrounded by a transparent layer and a clear, impact-resistant vinyl exterior. The hybrid structure aims to minimize physical obstructions to the referees’ field of vision and provide uninterrupted peripheral perception while maintaining the traditional rope’s load-bearing capacity and safety features.

Figure 1.

Boxing-ring area and measures, illustrating standard boxing ring dimensions.

The arrangements made in the visual environment can affect not only vision but also the cognitive evaluation processes related to this sense. Mayes et al. (2023) demonstrated that alterations in environmental factors, including thermal stimuli, can impact basic sensory responses. These findings highlight the importance of specific visual cues in the interpretation of environmental conditions by referees. Similarly, Sunstrum et al. (2024) emphasized that simple, symmetrical, and transparent structures promote visual familiarity, facilitating more efficient decision-making.

Material-based ergonomic modifications enhance not only visual comfort but also decision accuracy and reaction time (Fostervold et al., 2014; Heiden et al., 2019). The literature also emphasizes that musculoskeletal strain can adversely affect decision quality, particularly during prolonged visual focus. Appropriate ergonomic interventions can mitigate these negative effects by promoting sensory-motor balance (Madeleine et al., 2024). For instance, hybrid glass systems developed by Zhang et al., (2025) achieve an optimal balance between optical transmittance and mechanical durability and represent a significant design innovation that ensures safety and facilitates decision-making.

A systematic review by Kermavnar et al. (2021) demonstrated that 3D printing and hybrid manufacturing technologies offer significant advantages in enhancing user-centricity and structural adaptability within personalized ergonomic product development processes. In this context, it can be argued that in the environment where referees work, physical obstacles that limit the line of sight not only increase cognitive load but also negatively affect visual processing accuracy. As emphasized by Erickson (2018), the process of optimizing athletes’ visual performance should be addressed not only at the individual level but also in conjunction with environmental design decisions based on visual task analyses specific to each branch of sport.

The screening study conducted by Zerguine et al. (2023) demonstrated that the effectiveness of ergonomic training and intervention programs depends on the holistic evaluation of components such as user experience, cognitive interaction, and system design. From this perspective, the effect of visual ergonomic arrangements on decision-making performance in the areas where referees work is not only practical but also theoretically important.

In the design process of this prototype, ergonomic efficiency, production cost, field applicability, and sustainability were systematically evaluated. The value-stream costing approach—a method focusing on minimizing waste and optimizing costs across the production process—was implemented to enhance supply and assembly efficiency. Consequently, the total production cost of the transparent rope system remained competitive with traditional rope systems (Ayvaz et al., 2022). This innovative design provides a functional solution suitable for amateur and professional competitions, demonstrating high practical applicability. This study is the first experimental investigation to systematically assess the impact of environmental factors on referees’ decision accuracy and evaluation consistency.

Expert referees employ more effective visual search strategies and achieve higher decision-making accuracy under time pressure (Hüttermann et al., 2018; Roca et al., 2011; Spitz et al., 2016). These findings indicate that enhancing specific aspects of visual ergonomics in the field—such as optimizing lighting, reducing visual obstructions, and improving sightlines—can lead to measurable improvements in referees’ performance.

This study examines whether transparent ropes—designed with visual ergonomic principles—enhance referee decision-making by improving visual access to in-ring actions, minimizing scoring discrepancies, and supporting consistent evaluations across different bout dynamics.

Methods

Participants

Ten elite amateur boxers holding active licenses from the Turkish Boxing Federation were recruited for this study. All athletes met the official eligibility criteria and competed in weight divisions defined by AIBA, including Flyweight (51 kg), Welterweight (67 kg), Middleweight (75 kg), and Super Heavyweight (91 kg). Inclusion criteria for boxers were (a) at least three years of experience in boxing, (b) participation in at least five national and three international tournaments, and (c) at least three top-three placements in national competitions.

A total of 25 certified international referees participated in the study, including 20 who served as scoring judges and 5 who acted as chief supervisory officials. Among the latter, one highly experienced referee was designated as the supervisory referee responsible for post hoc video-based verification. Although this referee also contributed to live scoring, the verification of actual punch counts across zones was conducted independently and retrospectively to ensure no influence on the scoring processes of other judges.

All participants gave written informed consent after being clearly informed about the study’s objectives and procedures. Ethical approval was granted by the appropriate ethics committee, and all procedures adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). Participant data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality.

Experimental Design and Procedure

The study used a within-subjects experimental design to compare referee performance under two distinct ring configurations: one featuring traditional opaque ropes (control condition) and the other incorporating transparent, ergonomically enhanced ropes (experimental condition).

The Chief Referee used multi-angle video recordings to verify the number and type of punches intended for each scoring zone, thereby establishing a standardized reference for subsequent evaluations. The boxing ring was divided into five predefined scoring zones (labeled A through E; see Figure 2), and each boxer was instructed to execute designated punching techniques—such as hooks, jabs, and uppercuts—within each zone. During each two-minute round, every boxer threw 20 punches—including hooks, jabs, uppercuts, and punch combinations—as specified for each scoring zone.

Figure 2.

Boxing ring scoring area and judge position.

The sample included athletes from four recognized weight categories: Flyweight (51 kg), Welterweight (67 kg), Middleweight (75 kg), and Heavyweight (91 kg); according to the IBA (formerly AIBA) classification. All referees participated in both ring conditions in a counterbalanced within-subjects design, ensuring that each official evaluated an equal number of bouts under traditional and transparent rope settings. Scoring was conducted independently by five referees in each group, according to standardized AIBA positioning. All bouts were recorded using high-definition cameras positioned at referee eye level, providing a standardized visual perspective for subsequent analysis. These recordings were used by the supervisory referee to verify the predetermined number of valid punches per scoring zone and to assess inter-rater reliability in post hoc evaluations, confirming scoring accuracy across the two ring conditions.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27.0). Descriptive results are presented as means and standard deviations (mean ± SD).

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean referee scores between the traditional and transparent rope conditions across all scoring zones. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d to quantify the magnitude of differences between conditions.

A one-way ANOVA was performed to assess score variation across different weight categories and ring zones. Dunnett’s post hoc test was employed to compare the scores of each individual referee against those of the supervisory referee, which served as the reference standard. It was also used to identify discrepancies within specific zones.

These statistical procedures were designed to examine whether the use of transparent ropes significantly improved scoring accuracy and reduced inter-referee variability. The combined application of between-group (rope condition) and within-group (weight and zone) comparisons provided a comprehensive assessment of visual ergonomics in relation to officiating performance under controlled experimental conditions.

Results

Scoring Consistency Across Zones Under Varying Visual Conditions

To examine how different rope designs in boxing rings affect referee scoring consistency, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the scores of five predefined scoring zones (A–E) in both the traditional rope ring and the transparent rope ring. Levene’s test confirmed homogeneity of variances across all zones (p = .162 to .794), supporting the use of ANOVA.

Zone D in the traditional rope ring showed a statistically significant difference in referee scores (F(5, 90) = 2.442, p = .040), as the first judge’s scores diverged from the punch counts obtained through video analysis (see Table 1). The effect size (η² = 0.12) corresponds to a moderate practical impact based on standard thresholds. Zone C approached but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.079).

Table 1.

One-Way ANOVA Results by Zone and Rope Type

Zone	Rope type	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	p
A	Traditional Rope	64.625	5	12.925	1.728	0.136
A	Transparent Rope	10.094	5	2.019	0.480	0.790
B	Traditional Rope	60.802	5	12.160	1.830	0.115
B	Transparent Rope	10.469	5	2.094	0.515	0.764
C	Traditional Rope	60.802	5	12.160	2.049	0.079
C	Transparent Rope	8.083	5	1.617	0.360	0.874
D	Traditional Rope	66.583	5	13.317	2.442*	0.040
D	Transparent Rope	6.969	5	1.394	0.376	0.864
E	Traditional Rope	25.458	5	5.092	0.862	0.510
E	Transparent Rope	3.500	5	0.700	0.142	0.982

Note. p < .05 is considered statistically significant. An asterisk (*) denotes comparisons where the difference is statistically significant.

In the transparent rope ring, none of the five zones showed significant differences in referee scores (F < 0.52, p > .75), indicating consistent scoring patterns across judges when visual obstructions were minimized.

Given the discrepancy observed in Zone D, further analysis was performed using Dunnett’s post-hoc test to identify which individuals’ punch counts differed from the actual counts.

Dunnett’s Post-Hoc Test – Traditional Rope, Zone D

A Dunnett’s post-hoc test was conducted based on the significant ANOVA result in Zone D of the traditional rope ring to compare each judge’s scores against the actual punch counts obtained from video analysis. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Dunnett’s Post-Hoc Test Results – Zone D

Judge	Mean difference	p
1st Judge	−2.68	0.007**
2nd Judge	−2.06	0.058
3rd Judge	−1.81	0.117
4th Judge	−2.00	0.070
5th Judge	−1.43	0.287

Note. **p < 0.01 indicates statistically significant difference.

Among the five referees, only the first judge’s scores significantly differed from the actual punch counts (p = .007). The results for the second and fourth judges did not show statistically significant differences (p = .058 and p = .070, respectively), but their results were close to the conventional threshold of p < .05. The third judge’s scores were not significantly different either (p = .117). Meanwhile, the 5th judge’s scores showed the smallest difference from the actual punch counts, i.e., p = .287, although this was not statistically significant.

Independent Samples t-Test – Traditional vs Transparent Rope Conditions

Table 3 summarizes the results of the independent samples t-tests, including sample sizes (N), means, standard deviations (SD), t-values, p-values, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d).

Table 3.

t-Test Results by Zone

Zone	Rope type	N	Mean	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d	Mean difference
A	Traditional Rope	96	16.93	2.78	−3.46	0.001	0.502	+1.22
A	Transparent Rope	96	18.15	2.02	−3.46	0.001	0.502	+1.22
B	Traditional Rope	96	17.01	2.63	−3.21	0.002	0.446	+1.08
B	Transparent Rope	96	18.09	1.98	−3.21	0.002	0.446	+1.08
C	Traditional Rope	96	16.98	2.50	−3.48	0.001	0.504	+1.16
C	Transparent Rope	96	18.14	2.08	−3.48	0.001	0.504	+1.16
D	Traditional Rope	96	17.08	2.42	−3.41	0.001	0.493	+1.07
D	Transparent Rope	96	18.15	1.89	−3.41	0.001	0.493	+1.07
E	Traditional Rope	96	17.60	2.42	−2.51	0.013	0.361	+0.83
E	Transparent Rope	96	18.43	2.17	−2.51	0.013	0.361	+0.83

Note. Mean Difference = Transparent – Traditional. All p-values below .05 are considered statistically significant.

In all five scoring zones (A–E), independent sample t-tests revealed statistically significant differences in mean referee scores between the traditional rope ring and the transparent-rope ring (p < .05 for all comparisons). The t-values ranged from −2.51 in Zone E to −3.48 in Zone C, with the corresponding p-values ranging from .001 to .013. Mean scores were higher in the transparent-rope ring than in the traditional-rope ring across all zones.

When using transparent ropes, average referee scores increased by 1.22 points in Zone A (from 16.93 to 18.15), 1.08 points in Zone B, 1.16 points in Zone C, 1.07 points in Zone D, and 0.83 points in Zone E.

Effect size estimates (Cohen’s d) ranged from 0.361 in Zone E to 0.504 in Zone C, representing small to moderate effects. Within-group standard deviations remained relatively stable across the traditional-rope ring and the transparent-rope ring, indicating that variability in referee scoring was consistent across both ring configurations.

ANOVA – Weight Class Comparison Across Rope Conditions

To assess whether referee scoring differed across athlete weight classes, a series of one-way ANOVA tests were conducted for each scoring zone (A–E) using data from both the traditional rope ring and the transparent rope ring. The weight categories analyzed (51 kg, 67 kg, 75 kg, and 91 kg) represent a range from lightweight to super heavyweight, encompassing variation in athlete body size and movement patterns.

The descriptive statistics presented in Table 4 reveal an interesting trend: the mean referee scores generally increased as the weight categories increased, particularly in conditions involving a transparent rope. For example, in what is referred to as the ‘transparent rope ring’, the scores climbed from 17.94 in the 51 kg category to 18.58 in the 91 kg category. In contrast, the traditional rope ring showed scores ranging from 16.20 to 17.75 across the same weight classes. The standard deviations indicated a relatively consistent level of variability across all weight categories and rope types.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics of Referee Scores by Weight Class and Rope Type

		Transparent rope		Traditional rope
Weight class	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Mean	Std. deviation
51 kg	24	17,94	1,968	16,63	2,571
67 kg	24	18,01	1,941	16,20	2,643
75 kg	24	18,25	2,038	16,91	2,206
91 kg	24	18,58	2,116	17,75	2,100
Total	96	18,19	2,001	17,12	2,435

The corresponding F-values and p-values for each scoring zone under both ring types are presented in Table 5. In the traditional rope ring, Zones A (F = 2.320, p = .080), B (F = 2.142, p = .100), and C (F = 2.516, p = .063) had higher F-values compared to other zones. Although none of these results reached the conventional significance threshold of α = .05, the result in Zone C was near that level. In contrast, Zones D and E showed lower F-values, indicating limited score variation by weight class in those areas.

Table 5.

One-Way ANOVA Results by Weight Class and Rope Type

Zone	Rope type	F	p
A	Traditional Rope	2.320	0.080
A	Transparent Rope	0.633	0.595
B	Traditional Rope	2.142	0.100
B	Transparent Rope	0.712	0.547
C	Traditional Rope	2.516	0.063
C	Transparent Rope	0.695	0.558
D	Traditional Rope	0.921	0.434
D	Transparent Rope	0.230	0.876
E	Traditional Rope	2.296	0.083
E	Transparent Rope	0.268	0.848

Note. p < .05 is considered statistically significant.

In the transparent-rope ring, all scoring zones exhibited low F-values (all < 0.75), with corresponding p-values ranging from 0.230 to 0.876. None of the results approached the conventional significance threshold (α = .05), indicating no substantial variation in referee scoring across athlete weight categories.

Zone-level results revealed some variation in scoring patterns across athlete weight categories. However, scoring remained relatively stable in the transparent-rope ring across all zones, indicating no substantial interaction between weight class and scoring in this context.

Discussion

This study evaluated the effects of traditional opaque rope systems used in boxing rings on referee decision processes. The study experimentally tested whether transparent rope prototypes developed to increase visual access can contribute to scoring accuracy and consistency. The main purpose of the study was to examine the risk of systematic errors due to perceptual inadequacy in the traditional ring environment, where the referees have a limited line of sight, and to determine whether this risk can be reduced by using transparent ropes. Since refereeing depends on rapid decision-making processes based on visual information (MacMahon et al., 2015; Schweizer et al., 2023), this study evaluated how redesigning the ring ropes according to principles of visual ergonomics could affect these processes.

The findings show that in the traditional rope ring condition, especially in Zone D, the differences in scoring reached a significant level (F(5, 90) = 2.442, p = 0.040; η² = 0.12), which corresponds to a medium effect size. The Dunnett post-hoc test revealed that the first referee scored significantly lower than the scores from the reference video analyses (p = .007). The other two referees indicated borderline significance (p = .058 and p = .070). This indicates that traditional opaque ropes may limit the referee’s line of sight at certain angles, making it difficult to detect critical contacts. A difference approaching the significance level (p = .079) was detected in Zone C, which also points to potential visual limitations, especially due to the diagonal perspectives of the ring. In the transparent rope-ring condition, no significant difference was found in any region (all p > .75), suggesting that the consistency of evaluations by referees may have increased.

In addition, the results of independent sample t-tests showed that, in all zones, mean scores increased significantly under transparent rope conditions (t-values ranging from −2.51 to −3.48, all p < .05). The effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.504) reveals a moderate difference, particularly in Zone C. This increase suggests that not only may the consistency of scoring among referees have improved, but also the decision accuracy rate may have improved. The elimination of visual obstacles may have enhanced the referees’ ability to observe blows, thereby increasing evaluation confidence and scoring frequency (Fostervold et al., 2014; Helsen & Bultynck, 2004; Wu et al., 2024). This intervention is not only an aesthetic change but also an ergonomic innovation that directly affects cognitive decision processes.

Although the overall result was not significant in the analyses of variance conducted according to weight classes, a marginally significant result with a p-value of .063 was found in the traditional rope ring of Zone C. This suggests that the referees’ line of sight may have been obstructed due to interference from the faster and more dynamic movements of the athletes, especially in lighter weights (e.g., 51 kg and 67 kg). The results under transparent rope-ring conditions indicate consistent scoring across all weight classes, with no significant differences observed (p > .54) in any scoring zone. This suggests that standardizing the visual environment may offer a systematic advantage in referee evaluations.

The descriptive statistics presented in Table 4 further support this interpretation, revealing a clear increase in referee scores across weight classes in the transparent rope ring condition. For example, the mean score increased from 17.94 in the 51 kg category to 18.58 in the 91 kg category. In contrast, scores in the traditional rope ring condition remained between 16.20 and 17.75. These results indicate that the high-tempo movements in the lightweight categories and visual obstructions caused by the traditional rope structure may negatively impact the ability of referees to accurately evaluate boxers’ techniques. Furthermore, the relatively consistent standard deviation values across groups support the statistical significance and systematic nature of these mean score differences.

These findings align with theoretical models suggesting that expert referees rely on advanced cognitive processes—such as rapid pattern recognition, focused attentional control, and effective use of short-term memory—when making decisions based on environmental cues (Avugos et al., 2021; Boyer et al., 2020; Hüttermann et al., 2018; Spitz et al., 2016; Williams & Ericsson, 2005; Ziv et al., 2020). However, these competencies cannot be used optimally without support to reduce visual obstacles. Increased visual transparency allows these mechanisms to function effectively (Wu et al., 2024). Indeed, van Biemen et al. (2023) demonstrated that virtual reality simulations can improve referees’ attention calibration, suggesting that interventions aimed at optimizing visual conditions — such as the transparent rope design tested in this study — may offer comparable benefits.

Although the referees participating in this study have been recruited from Turkey, all are professionals with international certifications and have worked in high-level organizations such as the continental championships and Olympic qualifiers. Therefore, although the sample size is limited, it represents a homogeneous and qualified group in terms of referee experience and education standards. This strengthens internal validity. However, the external validity of the findings can be strengthened with future multicenter studies by including participants from different countries, taking into account cultural and cognitive differences.

In conclusion, this study shows that transparent rope systems not only increase visual comfort but also improve the accuracy, consistency, and reliability of referee decision processes. This intervention is an example of an ergonomic application that holistically addresses the interaction between visual environment design and cognitive performance, emphasizing the integration of physical and cognitive dimensions in task execution (Bar-Eli et al., 2011; Marras & Hancock, 2014; Mehta, 2016; Spitz et al., 2016). In sports in which errors in decision-making affect athlete safety, outcome fairness, and public trust, implementing such structural arrangements is of strategic importance for creating fairer and more objective competition environments.

Limitations of the Study

Although this study provides important findings regarding the effects of visual environment arrangement on decision consistency in boxing refereeing, some limitations should be considered.

The study was conducted using video recordings, and referee decisions were evaluated in a simulated environment. Although this approach enabled the comparison of two different rope designs, it did not include environmental factors that are present in live competition conditions (e.g., spectator noise, momentary emotional stress, light reflections). Therefore, evaluating the effects of visual ergonomic interventions on referee performance in real-time competitions is important for testing external validity.

Second, the study was conducted only with referees at a specific national level. While all participants were internationally certified and experienced, a larger and more diverse sample of participants in terms of application practices, cultural references, and referee training contexts is needed from different countries to enhance the study. Such sample expansions are necessary to evaluate the universal validity of the findings.

Third, this study focused only on the momentary effect of visual ergonomics on decision-making and excluded other cognitive or affective variables that may affect the decision-making process. In particular, failure to measure factors such as decision fatigue, distraction, time pressure, and implicit biases may lead to overlooking more complex mechanisms that affect referee performance. Future studies should use methods such as eye-tracking technologies and cognitive load assessment tools to examine these variables holistically.

Finally, only the initial exposure effects of the transparent rope design were evaluated in the study. However, the manner in which referees adapted to this new visual structure over time and the impact of this adaptation on their decision-making processes were not examined. Longitudinal studies are needed to reveal the possible effects of repeated exposure on decision accuracy, reaction time, and confidence.

Conclusion

This study provides empirical evidence that visual ergonomics — specifically the use of transparent ropes in boxing rings — can enhance referee decision-making by reducing scoring variability and improving inter-judge consistency. In rings with transparent ropes, scoring across all five zones was more consistent with fewer discrepancies compared to rings with traditional ropes. Notably, scoring divergence was observed only in the traditional rope ring, particularly in Zone D, suggesting that localized visual obstructions may negatively affect judgment accuracy.

Although differences across weight classes were not statistically significant, some marginal scoring patterns were observed in rings with traditional ropes. These preliminary trends should be interpreted with caution and examined more comprehensively in future research.

Overall, the findings align with the literature on perceptual-cognitive expertise and decision neuroscience, emphasizing the role of visual clarity in supporting accurate officiating under time pressure. Transparent-rope rings represent a practical and cost-effective ergonomic improvement that may promote fairness, reduce visual strain, and support decision reliability in amateur boxing.

Future studies should assess the generalizability of these findings under live competition conditions and explore whether integrating visual ergonomic designs with referee training or AI-assisted decision support systems can further enhance accuracy and athlete safety.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ednan Ayvaz

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Merve Uca is an Associate Professor at the School of Physical Education and Sports, Nişantaşı University. Her research focuses on exercise physiology, training program development, and athlete performance enhancement.

Ednan Ayvaz is a Professor at the Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management, Kocaeli University. His research focuses on cost management, accounting, auditing, artificial intelligence, machine learning, digital transformation in accounting, and business performance.

Zafer Yıldız is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Sivas Cumhuriyet University. His research focuses on statistical modeling, data analysis, and research methodology.

References

Avugos

MacMahon

Bar-Eli

Raab

(2021). Inter-individual differences in sport refereeing: A review of theory and practice. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 55, 101926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101926

Ayvaz

Kaplan

Kuncan

Ayvaz

Türkoğlu

(2022). Reducing Operation Costs of Thyroid Nodules Using Machine Learning Algorithms with Thyroid Nodules Scoring Systems. Applied Sciences, 12(22), 11559. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211559

Bar-Eli

Plessner

Raab

(2011). Judgement, decision making and success in sport (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Boyer

MacMahon

Récopé

Rix-Lièvre

(2020). The assistant referees’ activity in refereeing elite football: Preoccupations when not judging offside. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 48, Article 101662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101662

Brams

Ziv

Levin

Spitz

Wagemans

Williams

A. M.

Helsen

W. F.

(2019). The relationship between gaze behavior, expertise, and performance: A systematic review. Psychological Bulletin, 145(10), 980–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000207

Bruno

Vicovaro

Nucci

Cropanise

Fabbian

Mondin

Prastaro

Borellini

Spoto

(2023). A new Bayesian procedure for the estimation of the referees' decision thresholds and agreement: The case of professional handball refereeing. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 65, Article 102347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102347

Dawson

Dobson

Goddard

Wilson

(2007). Are football referees really biased and inconsistent? Evidence on the incidence of disciplinary sanction in the English premier league. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 170(1), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00451.x

del Campo

V.L.

Canelo Fariñas

Domínguez Márquez

F. J.

Morenas Martín

(2018). The influence of refereeing experiences judging offside actions in football. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 37, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.03.004

Ding

Jiang

(2025). RETRACTED: Application of infrared thermal imaging and spatial optical measurement based on visual sensors in sports data capture. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, 59, Article 103262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2025.103262

10.

Eitzen

D. S.

(2012). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport (6th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

11.

Erickson

G. B.

(2018). Optimizing visual performance for sport. Advances in Ophthalmology and Optometry, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yaoo.2018.05.001

12.

Erikstad

M. K.

Johansen

B. T.

(2020). Referee bias in professional football: Favoritism toward successful teams in potential penalty situations. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2, 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.00019

13.

Fostervold

K. I.

Watten

R. G.

Volden

(2014). Evolutionary adaptations: Theoretical and practical implications for visual ergonomics. Work, 47(3), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-131771

14.

Ghasemi

Momeni

Jafarzadehpur

Rezaee

Taheri

(2011). Visual skills involved in decision making by expert referees. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 112(1), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.2466/05.22.24.27.PMS.112.1.161-171

15.

Heiden

Zetterberg

Lindberg

Nylén

Hemphälä

(2019). Validity of a computer-based risk assessment method for visual ergonomics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 72, 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.05.006

16.

Helsen

Bultynck

J. B.

(2004). Physical and perceptual-cognitive demands of top-class refereeing in association football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410310001641502

17.

Helsen

W. F.

Spitz

Ziv

(2023). The acquisition of perceptual-cognitive expertise in officiating in association football – State of the art. Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsep.2022.09.007

18.

Hüttermann

Helsen

W. F.

Put

Memmert

(2018). Does visual attention impact decision making in complex dynamic events? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 40(3), 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2017-0169

19.

Kermavnar

Shannon

O'Sullivan

L. W.

(2021). The application of additive manufacturing / 3D printing in ergonomic aspects of product design: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 97, Article 103528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103528

20.

Kittel

Cunningham

Larkin

Hawkey

Rix-Lièvre

(2021). Decision-making training in sporting officials: Past, present and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 56, Article 102003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102003

21.

Kittel

Larkin

Elsworthy

Spittle

(2019). Identification of key performance characteristics of elite Australian football umpires. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14(4), 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954119845071

22.

Kolbinger

Lames

(2017). Scientific approaches to technological officiating aids in game sports. Current Issues in Sport Science, 2, Article 001. https://doi.org/10.15203/ciss_2017.001

23.

Larkin

Berry

Dawson

Lay

(2011). Perceptual and decision-making skills of Australian football umpires. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 11(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2011.11868562

24.

Larkin

O’Brien

Mesagno

Berry

Harvey

Spittle

(2014). Assessment of decision-making performance and in-game physical exertion of Australian football umpires. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1446–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.896998

25.

Lavie

(2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004

26.

Long

Richter

(2014). Visual ergonomics at work and leisure. Work, 47(3), 419–420. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-141820

27.

MacMahon

Helsen

W. F.

Starkes

J. L.

Weston

(2007). Decision-making skills and deliberate practice in elite association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410600718640

28.

MacMahon

Mascarenhas

Plessner

Pizzera

Oudejans

Raab

(2015). Sports officials and officiating: Science and practice (1st ed.). Routledge.

29.

Madeleine

Szeto

G. P. Y.

Heredia-Rizo

A. M.

(2024). Effects of biofeedback and strength training interventions on neck-shoulder sensory-motor responses among visual display unit users: A narrative review. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 79, Article 102936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2024.102936

30.

Mallo

Frutos

P. G.

Juárez

Navarro

(2012). Effect of positioning on the accuracy of decision-making of association football top-class referees and assistant referees during competitive matches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(13), 1437–1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.711485

31.

Marras

W. S.

Hancock

P. A.

(2014). Putting mind and body back together: A human-systems approach to the integration of the physical and cognitive dimensions of task design and operations. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.025

32.

Mascarenhas

Collins

Mortimer

(2005). Elite refereeing performance: Developing a model for sport science support. The Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.19.4.364

33.

Mayes

H. S.

Navarro

Satchell

L. P.

Tipton

M. J.

Ando

Costello

J. T.

(2023). The effects of manipulating the visual environment on thermal perception: A structured narrative review. Journal of Thermal Biology, 112, Article 103488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2023.103488

34.

Mehta

R. K.

(2016). Integrating physical and cognitive ergonomics. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 4(2–3), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/21577323.2016.1207475

35.

Neville

T. J.

Salmon

P. M.

(2015). Never blame the umpire – A review of situation awareness models and methods for examining the performance of officials in sport. Ergonomics, 59(7), 962–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1100758

36.

Neville

T. J.

Salmon

P. M.

Read

G. J. M.

Kalloniatis

A. C.

(2016). Play on or call a foul: Testing and extending distributed situation awareness theory through sports officiating. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 17(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922x.2015.1106617

37.

Oberauer

(2019). Working memory and attention – A conceptual analysis and review. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.58

38.

Oudejans

R. R.

Verheijen

Bakker

F. C.

Gerrits

J. C.

Steinbrückner

Beek

P. J.

(2000). Errors in judging ‘‘offside’’ in football. Nature, 404(6773), 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/35003639

39.

Plessner

Haar

(2006). Sports performance judgments from a social cognitive perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(6), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.03.007

40.

Raab

Avugos

Bar-Eli

MacMahon

(2020). The referee’s challenge: A threshold process model for decision making in sport games. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(1), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2020.1783696

41.

Reinhard

M. L.

Mann

D. L.

Höner

(2025). The role of generic cognitive skills: An empirical investigation into the association between generic and sport-specific cognitive skills and playing level in youth football. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 28(7), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2025.01.010

42.

Roca

Ford

P. R.

McRobert

A. P.

Mark Williams

(2011). Identifying the processes underpinning anticipation and decision-making in a dynamic time-constrained task. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0392-1

43.

Royce

(2012). Refereeing and technology – Reflections on collins’ proposals. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 39(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2012.675066

44.

Ruiz

A. J.

Albaladejo-García

Reina

Moreno

F. J.

(2024). Perceptual-Cognitive Skills of Basketball Referees: On-The-Court Visual Search Behavior. Perceptual and motor skills, 131(5), 1873–1893. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241278532

45.

Russo

Ottoboni

(2019). The perceptual–cognitive skills of combat sports athletes: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 44, 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.05.004

46.

Schweizer

Plessner

Kahlert

Brand

(2011). A video-based training method for improving soccer referees’ intuitive decision-making skills. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2011.555346

47.

Schweizer

Plessner

MacMahon

(2023). Judgment and decision-making. In Schüler

Wegner

Plessner

Eklund

R. C.

(Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology (pp. 93–115). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03921-8_5

48.

Spitz

Put

Wagemans

Williams

A. M.

Helsen

W. F.

(2016). Visual search behaviors of association football referees during assessment of foul play situations. Cognitive research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0013-8

49.

Spitz

Put

Wagemans

Williams

A. M.

Helsen

W. F.

(2018). The role of domain-generic and domain-specific perceptual-cognitive skills in association football referees. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 34, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.09.010

50.

Stanton

N. A.

Stewart

Harris

Houghton

R. J.

Baber

McMaster

Salmon

Hoyle

Walker

Young

M. S.

Linsell

Dymott

Green

(2006). Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: Theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1288–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612762

51.

Sunstrum

F. N.

Demirbilek

Gardner

Viengkham

Spehar

(2024). Revealing the synergy between formal aesthetics and product semantics: Exploring the impact of visual form on product perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 101, Article 103593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103593

52.

Uca

(2020). An ergonomic examination of boxing ring ropes. Akademisyen Publishing.

53.

van Biemen

Müller

Mann

D. L.

(2023). Virtual reality as a representative training environment for football referees. Human Movement Science, 89, Article 103091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2023.103091

54.

van Biemen

Oudejans

R. R. D.

Savelsbergh

G. J. P.

Zwenk

Mann

D. L.

(2022). Into the eyes of the referee: A comparison of elite and sub-elite football referees' on-field visual search behaviour when making foul judgements. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 18(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211069469

55.

van Maarseveen

M. J. J.

Oudejans

R. R. D.

Mann

D. L.

Savelsbergh

G. J. P.

(2018). Perceptual-cognitive skill and the in situ performance of soccer players. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(2), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1255236

56.

Vestberg

Gustafson

Maurex

Ingvar

Petrovic

(2012). Executive functions predict the success of top-soccer players. PLoS One, 7(4), Article e34731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034731

57.

Voigt

Friedrich

Grove

Heinrich

Ittlinger

Iskra

Koop

Michirev

Sparascio

Raab

(2023). Advancing judgment and decision-making research in sport psychology by using the body as an informant in embodied choices. Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsep.2022.09.006

58.

Wann

D. L.

Melnick

M. J.

Russell

G. W.

Pease

D. G.

(2017). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators (1st ed.). Routledge.

59.

Williams

A. M.

Ericsson

K. A.

(2005). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport: Some considerations when applying the expert performance approach. Human Movement Science, 24(3), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2005.06.002

60.

Yang

Cui

Gao

Luo

Wang

(2024). Relationship between visual ability assessment and punch performance in competition in male amateur boxers. Frontiers in Physiology, 15, 1429554. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1429554

61.

Zerguine

Healy

G. N.

Goode

A. D.

Zischke

Abbott

Gunning

Johnston

(2023). Online office ergonomics training programs: A scoping review examining design and user-related outcomes. Safety Science, 158, Article 106000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106000

62.

Zetterberg

Heiden

Lindberg

Nylén

Hemphälä

(2019). Reliability of a new risk assessment method for visual ergonomics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 72, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.04.002

63.

Zhang

Wang

(2025). Bioinspired hybrid design of transparent architectured glass for improved comprehensive impact performance. Composites Part B: Engineering, 297, Article 112245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2025.112245

64.

Ziv

Lidor

Zach

Brams

Helsen

W. F.

(2020). Gaze behavior of referees in sport—A review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2, Article 572891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.572891

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

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Ergonomically Developed New Ring Ropes

Methods

Participants

Experimental Design and Procedure

Statistical Analysis

Results

Scoring Consistency Across Zones Under Varying Visual Conditions

Dunnett’s Post-Hoc Test – Traditional Rope, Zone D

Independent Samples t-Test – Traditional vs Transparent Rope Conditions

ANOVA – Weight Class Comparison Across Rope Conditions

Discussion

Limitations of the Study

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Author Biographies

References