Jordan Chiles isn’t the only gymnast vying for a bronze medal in the floor exercise final at the 2024 Paris Olympics.

On Monday, Sabrina Maneca-Voinea and the Romanian Gymnastics Federation announced that they have filed an appeal with the Swiss Federal Tribunal. They are contesting the recent decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) which dismissed Voinea’s claim that she was unfairly penalized 0.10 points for allegedly going out of bounds during the floor final.

Voinea’s appeal adds another layer of complexity to a situation that has garnered worldwide attention, especially since Chiles was stripped of her bronze medal on the final day of the Olympics despite any wrongdoing on her part. USA Gymnastics, along with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, is also planning to appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, citing procedural mistakes by the CAS and presenting video evidence that contradicts the basis for CAS’s decision.

Initially, Chiles finished fifth in the floor final on August 5, scoring 13.666, placing her behind Ana Barbosu and Voinea, who both scored 13.7. However, Barbosu earned a higher placement based on a superior execution score. Chiles’ personal coach, Cecile Landi, contested the value of Chiles’ difficulty score, arguing she did not receive proper credit for a tour jete leap.

A review panel supported this claim, and the additional 0.100 points moved Chiles ahead of both Romanian gymnasts into third place. However, Romania objected to the timing of Chiles’ appeal on August 6, leading CAS to rule on August 10 that Chiles’s appeal was submitted four seconds too late and instructed the International Gymnastics Federation to change the rankings.

The very next day, the IOC mandated that Chiles’ bronze medal be reallocated to Barbosu. Despite USA Gymnastics claiming they have video proof that Landi’s appeal was timely, the IOC treated the situation as resolved and awarded Barbosu her medal on August 9.

According to Voinea and the Romanian Federation, this entire debate would have been irrelevant if Voinea had not faced the deduction for allegedly going out of bounds, which video evidence suggests did not happen. Removing the 0.10 penalty would have given Voinea a score of 13.8, putting her ahead of both Chiles’ scores before and after the appeal, as well as Barbosu’s score.

Voinea and Romania appealed her situation to CAS, but the tribunal turned it down, stating it was a “field-of-play” judgment. While Voinea made an inquiry during the competition regarding her difficulty score, it did not address the deduction for going out of bounds. The tribunal indicated reversing such a decision after the event would second guess the judges, as noted in their ruling released on August 14.

“Determining whether a 0.1 deduction was justified is a classic example of a ‘field of play’ ruling, and it does not allow arbitrators to impose their opinions over that of the referee,” CAS stated. “This type of judgment should not be interfered with by CAS as it involves the referee’s expertise in the ‘field of play.

“Regardless of whether the judgment was correct or incorrect, it is not subject to review.”