Sparked by a judging debacle at the Athens Olympics and helped by some of the best technology in sports, the International Gymnastics Federation is using a new pay-as-you-go replay system at world championships that can break down every routine, frame by frame.

Competition starts Saturday with men's team qualifying. When the first disagreement arises, teams will start paying. It will cost US$300 to file the first protest, $500 for the second and $1,000 for the third. If a team wins the challenge, it gets the money back. If not, it goes to the charitable foundation of the federation (FIG).

``It's just part of the sport, obviously,'' said American coach Mark Williams. ``Obviously, it's being done to avoid ridiculous inquiries.''

The replay technology is called Instant Replay and Communication System and the breadth of detail it provides is amazing, down to the most minute twist of a hand on the high bar.

The federation is taking the bold step to avoid a repeat of Athens.

An error in evaluating the start value of South Korean Yang Tae-young's parallel bars routine during the men's all-around resulted in an ugly quagmire. It forced American Paul Hamm to defend his victory all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and it revealed major flaws in the judging system.

There were also judging questions raised in the men's vault event in Athens surrounding Canadian Kyle Shewfelt finishing out of the medals. The Olympic champion in the floor exercise, Shewfelt was fourth in vault, edged off the podium by Marian Dragulescu even though the Romanian had trouble with his landing.

Canadian officials protested the result in Athens, feeling it was mathematically impossible for Dragulescu to receive the score he got on his second vault and that the marks were improperly tabulated. Later, the Canadians also submitted an appeal to the Court of Arbitration on Shewfelt's behalf but withdrew it because the chances of the outcome being reversed were doubtful.

The scoring problems in Athens led to an overhaul of the code of points, which eliminated the perfect 10 as a benchmark score and introduced a new scoring system that is widely disliked and will be revamped next year.

Although the protocol for asking for reviews seems simple, there are thorny questions about exactly how and when to use the system.

Most notably, there is no definitive rule on whether judges can peek at replays on their own, in an attempt to get a call right. Last year, when the system was being introduced, judges overused the replay system and the competitions dragged on. Due to that, according to a federation news release, ``experts and technicians intervened . . . inviting the panels of judges to refrain from consulting IRCOS except where uncertain or in response to protest.''

But the judges' work also is being judged, and the new system brings with it a more accurate way to review their work, which could make them more careful.

``The system has to be used to protect the sport, protect the gymnasts and protect the judging and the judges,'' said the FIG's Hardy Fink, a former president of the men's technical committee. ``There have been a lot of statements made not to overuse it.''

Only inquiries for difficulty scores _ not execution scores _ are allowed. But there is sometimes a fine line between the two, which makes it notable that nothing definitive is spelled out about what, exactly, the judges are allowed to look at.

Gymnastics is, after all, a very visual and subjective sport. A frame-by-frame breakdown surely will leave a different impression than a human-eye view of the overall package.

``You look at something in a slow-motion replay, and it could make for far more deductions than what you saw live,'' said longtime gymnastics coach and expert Paul Ziert.

Ziert said a worst-case scenario would be that scoring is essentially taken out of the hands of judges on the floor and put under the control of members of the technical committee, who could determine the outcome from their TV monitors.

Replay was brought into the mix, although Fink believes it was probably on its way anyway, and not necessarily a direct result of Athens.

Indeed, if the replay system were in place and being used in 2004 the way many hope it will be now _ judiciously and sparingly _ the judging error in Athens still might have happened.

``If the judges were sure, they wouldn't have even gone to replay,'' Fink said. ``They were sure, but they were wrong.''

That would have left it up to the Koreans to protest. There has been much debate about when, exactly, they filed their protest, and whether they did it quickly enough to adjust Yang's score once the mistake was recognized.

Under the new system, protocol for challenges has been more clearly spelled out.

Inquiries must be made ``verbally, immediately after the publication of the score, or at the very latest before the end of the exercise of the following gymnast or group.'' The inquiry then must be confirmed in writing within four minutes.

Part of the protocol includes agreeing to fork over serious cash to make a challenge.

``I don't agree with that part. I don't think you should have to pay to find out,'' said U.S. men's team co-ordinator Ron Brant.

Still, he agrees that it's better to have the technology available than not.

© The Canadian Press, 2007