Following the recent EHF Congress, I contacted the EHF Management in the hope of obtaining some substantive comments on a number of issues that seemed to have particular relevance in the context of the Congress agenda. Here are the responses to my questions that have now been provided by Messrs. Lian, Brihault and Wiederer. We thank them for their willingness to respond.

[i]1. One of the issues for the Congress was the format for qualification events for national teams; what are your main objectives when you now consider changing the format again? [/i]
A new qualification system, with home and away matches, has been implemented for the first time for the 2010 championship. When the decision had been made it had been decided to assess this system and propose adaptations. This is what was done at the last congress. The global idea is to preserve home and away matches, to offer every nation the possibility to be involved and to mobilize public and press interest. This will be achieved through the two-phase organization which should make it possible to avoid – or at least greatly reduce – the number of uninteresting games for which TV coverage was difficult to obtain and costly. To summarize, we will see 7 groups of 4 nations with 2 teams qualifying from each group to play together with the organizer and the defending champions at the EHF EURO 2012

[i]2. What are your expectations for the 2009-10 edition of the Champions League? If one compared with the more streamlined situation in football, is there any risk that the large number of different club competitions for both men and women could detract from the focus on the Champions League? [/i]
It seems that the CL is clearly identified as THE top club competition and other cups do not enjoy any comparable prestige. The advance booking for the final four is going extremely well and we shall have to analyze the final result. Clearly the new formula (reduction of the number of participant teams, last sixteen, quarterfinal, final four, global concentration) has made the competition more exciting and easier to understand.

[i]3. You had an interesting proposal for a ‘Strategic Forum’ for all stakeholders, but unfortunately it did not gain the necessary majority; what do you plan to do to obtain stronger support for such an initiative in the near future?[/i]
The outcome of the EO congress will be analyzed at the next executive committee meeting. It is the firm intention of the leadership of the EHF to continue in the same direction concerning what has to be achieved, but a pedagogical approach has to be adopted to make the nations understand that they are not being deprived of any power, quite the opposite.

[i]4. Your focus in recent time has been on a dialog with federations, clubs and their representatives: how do intend to ensure that you get a similar dialog directly with the players and their representatives, and what would you hope to get out of such a dialog?[/i]
Players have over the past few years expressed a wish for this dialogue and we tried to implement the concept of athletes’ commission as understood by the IOC. Clearly this has not been very productive. It may be hoped that the new concept will convince the players that it is indispensable for them to be involved. With them, the EHF will have to design an appropriate form of communication and an adequate structure.

[i]5. In the aftermath of a flurry of revelations about bribery attempts and other forms of corruption, you have acted fast to create a structure with guidelines, expectations, reporting channels etc. What do you now anticipate: will this effort alone help make federations and clubs come to their senses so that the problem cases fizzle out, or will the existence of clear reporting channels make it likely that we will see relatively more revelations? [/i]
It may work both ways: more discipline because of our vigilance, but also more revelations for the same reason. It seems that the first signals have been understood and approved by a majority of national federations. It is still too early to anticipate on the final outcome.

[i]6. Personally I agree with those who feel that the main deterrence comes from very tough action in those cases that are discovered; do you now have a more explicit set of guidelines for penalties in your Regulations and do you intend to take a tougher line in future cases now that everyone has been so firmly forewarned? [/i]
It seems that the new guidelines are quite tough as may be judged from the comments after the first punishments have been imposed. This is quite clearly the type of situation where we have to observe the new developments and adapt. The fact that we have signed on an independent professional expert may help.

[i]7. It appears that handball is more and more becoming affected by betting, unfortunately then with a risk for the emergence of illegal betting activities such as through the notorious Asian gambling mafia; how do you weigh the potentially good and bad impact of betting, and do you really feel equipped to handle the negative side, especially in view of EHF’s vast competition structure?[/i]
We are working on the issue with other team sports that have implemented an alarm system concerning betting.

[i]8. From your vantage points, with two of you holding senior positions in both organizations, how would you characterize the co-existence between the EHF and the IHF at this point in time? Mostly strains due to different objectives or a lot of synergy? [/i]
The two perspectives differ and we are working together in order to articulate them.

[i]9. The IHF has announced an intention to ‘beef up’ its web page, and an increase in transparency would certainly be healthy. From the experience of the EHF in the areas of PR and communications, what advice would you be able to offer the colleagues in the IHF?[/i]
Advice has not been requested, if this becomes the case, it will be forthcoming.

[i]10. The IHF will soon have an extraordinary Congress to deal with possible changes in the By-Laws, and a working group is being formed. I was a bit surprised to see that the EHF is not represented, but I assume this does not mean you are without opinions and preferences on the matter. Could you tell us about some changes that you think would be particularly important? [/i]
Clearly the leadership of the IHF has decided to put legal experts in charge. One of the issues at stake certainly is the definition of a more satisfactory articulation between the IHF and the continents. This, however, is inevitably connected to the various degrees of development of handball on the various continents.

[i]11. Finally, going back to the EHF: with the recent Congress as an opportunity to take stock, what do you see as the main challenges for the EHF moving forward? [/i]
The EHF has to get its members to understand that due to the efforts of each member federation and the work of the EHF, handball has changed greatly from what it was when the EHF was founded; hence a whole series of new questions like qualitative demands for the organization of main events or even participation in such major competitions as the CL, articulation with the stakeholders, workload for players, attempts at corruption, etc. At the end of the day our challenge is to articulate a high level of expertise with a democratic philosophy.

I had really intended to refrain from a final comeback on this matter, partly because John’s is our Editor and should be entitled to ‘the last word’. (Who knows, he might now decide to fire me…) I was also hesitant, because John’s long statement yesterday was really nothing more than a rehashing of his weak arguments from earlier; ‘the signs of a desperate man’, as they say… (Now I really begin to suspect he will fire me…!)

However, my reason for coming forward today is that we need to think about the image of our prestigious web site; it is just not possible to let John’s main factual error stand without correction. The point is that he simply does not have his facts right when he says that the current rules do not have any effect. Let me share the real facts with you.

About 5-6 years ago, it was becoming evident that there was a trend towards too many cases of ‘sabotage’ in the final moments of a close game. As the rules were at the time, a ‘bear hug’ that prevented the execution of a throw-off or a free-throw typically would not lead to more than a meaningless 2-minute suspension, and there was certainly no basis for a post-game punishment. In the Men’s World Championship in early 2005, there were two incidents of this type. It was of course regrettable and frustrating that they happened, but at least they provided me with the evidence that I needed to convince my then colleagues in the IHF Council that a change in the 2005 rule book was urgently needed.

Under this rule, a special provision is in effect during the last minute of the game, so that the ‘sabotage’ of the type mentioned is to be punished with a ‘red card’ [u]plus a report intended to lead to a further suspension. [/u] (The IHF does not get involved in determining any rules or guidelines for the length of post-game suspensions; this is seen as the prerogative of the responsible federation in each case, on the basis of traditions, culture, and the circumstances involved).

Not long after the introduction of this rule in August 2005, feedback starting coming in, to the effect that federations were grateful for this effective tool and that a trend towards a reduction of the cases of ‘sabotage’ had already been noticed. Players were not quite as cynical anymore, when they realized that they would be kept out from subsequent games. Of course, the tougher the practices of a federation were, the stronger a deterrent they achieved. Not everyone finds it adequate to hand out a routine [u]one[/u]-game suspension as tends to be the case for instance in the EHF.

And the appreciations for the new rules continued to be expressed during the years I remained in the IHF, and I was even shown statistics over how the number of cases had continued to decline sharply. Of course, even one case is one too many, and those that do happen will always get some headlines. But no rule will ever eliminate a problem completely. In my opinion, and that of many other handball people, the rule has helped us move from a ‘last minute’ problem to a ‘minute’ problem (in a different sense of the word…). With that explanation, I hope the record has been set straight, so that we can end this debate for the time being!

It seems that some of you feel I have kept you waiting for the part that interests you the most. I have received opinions to the effect that the worst thing you see in the IHF is the effect that the current system for voting rights and national/continental influence is having.

However, before getting into that, I want to comment on some other aspects of the IHF Congresses. As in several other areas,[u] the inadequacy of the procedures prescribed by Article 14 in the By-Laws creates problems[/u]. For instance, in several recent Congresses there have been disagreements or uncertainties regarding the validity of motions. This is a fundamental area where a high degree of reliability and transparency is needed. Similarly, there have been changes or disagreements regarding the right of candidates for IHF positions to be nominated for more than one position. This is not an area where one would want to be unnecessarily restrictive. Other problems have resulted from ad hoc decisions regarding the opportunity for candidates to introduce themselves before or during the Congress. There is simply no excuse for ad hoc decisions on such important matters; they should be clearly regulated in the By-Laws. Article 14 is also one of the areas of the By-Laws where [u]texts are misleading or ambiguous[/u]. Clarity must now be achieved.

It should also be noted that the updating of all the procedures related to the Congress must take into account that we are now living in a more modern era in terms of quick and easy communications, compared with the days when the By-Laws were last revised more fully. While certain documents must be distributed in paper form and through regular mail for the sake of proper protocol, many procedures can be simplified just by the reliance of publication on the IHF web site and the dissemination of information through electronic mail. Congress matters, especially elections, depend on a strong emphasis on transparency and timeliness, and there is no excuse for not using all methods available.

Getting then to [u]the issue of decision-making and voting power[/u], it is natural that in an international forum there is great pride attached to what is seen as democracy and fairness. Many member countries have had to be used to other practices, and others remember only to well the colonial days where superpowers had all the rights. In these circumstances,[u] it should not be surprising that, rightly or wrongly, the principle of ‘one member, one vote’ is seen as the real definition of democracy and fairness[/u]. Therefore, to question this principle may seem outrageous to some. And of course, as a practical matter, to move away from such a principle would always be an enormous undertaking.

[u]But it is not, in fact, so obvious that this principle is the right one, or the only one[/u]. Many point to the United Nations and its General Assembly, where clearly each country has one vote. But I could point to another organization within the overall UN family (where I had my career), namely the International Monetary Fund. Here the voting powers are totally different. Countries and regions get their voting power determined on the basis of the size of their economy and their trade. Nobody has disputed this principle, and the only disagreements involved delays in adjusting the voting power quickly enough when the relative strengths of countries change in relation to each other. In the IMF the issues do not involve just having a say in the decision-making on global policy issues, like in the UN. Instead, the focus is much more on who should have more or less of a say on matters involving how the organization’s financial resources are distributed to individual countries in need. And the individual member countries have of course contributed to this overall pool of resources to vastly different degrees, so this is seen as fair.

In fact, it would seem much more natural to compare the circumstances of the IHF with those of the IMF, rather than those of the UN. The IHF does not get its income in equal shares from all the individual member countries. Instead, its revenues are highly related to the top-level handball and the high degree of development in a relatively limited number of countries. By contrast, the money, material and assistance in other forms are given out disproportionately to those most in need due to their modest level of development. [u]Is there then really something strange and inappropriate in giving more of a role in the decision-making, incl. the elections, to those who provide, in comparison with those who essentially just receive??[/u] I am not pointing just to my UN vs. IMF comparison. In reality, there is currently a trend, as reported by those consulting firms who work with international sports federations, such as the IHF, on matters such as strategic development, by-law reviews etc., to have [u]federations move away from the old, ‘holy’ principle of ‘one member, one vote.’![/u]

Having ‘stirred up this hornets’ nest’, I will finish with another thorny issue. As many are aware, one of the most disputed issues in recent time has been the relative rights of the IHF and the respective Continental federations regarding the organization of the continental qualification events for World Championships and Olympic Games. The wording of the relevant By-Law articles must be cleaned up to get us away from ambiguities and seeming contradictions. But first it is necessary to spell out very clearly what the work distribution is supposed to be. I believe there is very little disagreement about allowing the continental federations to physically organize the events in questions, which furthermore often have the nature of a continental championship, and to enjoy the financial advantages. [u]But I do hope it is equally possible to agree that the IHF must retain the right to monitor all such even[/u]ts (with an emphasis on the technical aspects), [u]to provide referees as IHF deems necessary, and to have the final say in any matters of dispute regarding the proper execution of such events.[/u] In principle, the qualification results must be ratified by the IHF before they become official. Put differently, the ugly and image-damaging incidents of the qualifying for Beijing 2008 must never be repeated!

To summarize the key issue: it is one thing that all the countries in IHF who need help may know best what their needs are, but it is a totally different matter whether this really should make them entitled, through their current volume of votes, to dictate to those countries who really generate the income how the resources of the IHF should be spent!

With these comments I will bring my input to a conclusion at this time, and I really do encourage all federations and individuals with views on the By-Laws to make sure that they are heard. It would not be satisfactory to have the direction and the precise ideas developed exclusively by a small and not very representative working group!

It was always enjoyable to debate the finer points of the rules with John Ryan; this goes back to the days when he was a player and I was a referee. He always brought up interesting topics and had good intentions, but I could not always agree with his ideas for solutions. The same thing is happening on this occasion!

It is understandable that many of us, like I myself, get upset when we find out about an action like the recent one by the Hypo coach Prokop. We feel extremely frustrated and immediately begin to look for solutions in terms of prevention. But we must keep our sense of proportions. Almost none of us have ever heard about such action before, and, as I said at the time: ‘there is fortunately only one Prokop, and the risk for ‘copycats’ is very small’. We must take care of Prokop, and I hope EHF will remain firm in its decision. But it does not mean that we should immediately conclude that the playing rules are inadequate and seek to turn them upside down, doing more harm than good in the process.

In society at large, there is generally [u]one[/u] set of criminal laws that has to cover all kinds of situations, providing both deterrence and appropriate punishment for all kinds of actions. In sports, there are generally [u]separate[/u] rules for the game/competition and for the post-game disciplinary action. This is a tremendous advantage. For [u]normal[/u] game situations, that happen all the time, you keep clear and simple [u]rules[/u] that are internally consistent and follow a particular structure. For totally [u]abnormal and really drastic [/u]situations, you resort to [u]post-game punishments[/u].

One must also recognize that [u]each[/u] sport has very specific principles and structures for its rules that deal with the game situations. In handball, all in-game punishments are on the scale of warning (yellow card), 2-minute suspension, and disqualification (red card), and the main challenge is to determine what action goes with what punishment. Very specifically, in handball, the 7-meter-throw (the penalty shot) [u]is [b]not[/b] a punishment[/u]. A 7-meter-throw is instead exclusively the method to [u]restore a ‘clear scoring chance’[/u] that was illegally destroyed by an opponent.

Until about 30 years ago, we did have a situation in the rules that turned out to be disastrous and was therefore abolished: the referees could subjectively give a 7-meter also for ‘serious fouls’ on the guilty player’s own half of the court. So we have the experience to draw on, and it would be foolish to consider going in that direction again. Besides, coaches do [u]not[/u] exactly look to give the referees [u]more[/u] subjective power. They are constantly reminding us that we should try to move in the opposite direction.

So, John ignores too may realities and makes it sound too easy when he says: “if it works for basketball, I say try it for handball”. Despite a generally preference among handball people to keep handball’s identity, I have been successful over the years in ‘borrowing’ many ideas from basketball and other sports for rules changes in handball, but these changes invariably have involved technical aspects, e.g., player movements with or without ball, and the interactions between players. Here it is easy and sensible to ‘borrow’ from a sport like basketball, due to some real similarities.

But those similarities do [u]not [/u]exist in the area of punishments and handling of scoring chances. Basketball is totally one-dimensional in its resorting to ‘free-throws’ as the only method to deal with a multitude of aspects. In basketball you cannot punish by having a team play ‘4 on 5’. This means instead that an accumulation of quite innocent fouls in normal defensive action eventually get several players kicked out on a rather questionable basis, and the game suffers. Even worse, which John happily ignores, is that the foul/free-throw rules [u]do not[/u] work towards the end of a game. Very few players are so dumb or clumsy that they commit fouls of the nature that are defined as the ‘intentional’ foul described by John. Instead, they smartly commit fouls that are indeed quite intentional but disguised as normal fouls in normal situations, so they just lead to the normal free-throw. And what is better evidence of the basketball [u]free-throw not working as a deterrent [/u]than those many games that deteriorate into an awful free-throw shooting contest, because totally undeterred players repeatedly foul intentionally, hoping that the opponents will get rattled and have a bad free-throw shooting day.

John, surely that kind of nonsense cannot be what you want for handball. I wish you had grown up in Canada (or even Sweden…), because then you might have found it [u]more natural to turn to icehockey as the relevant comparison[/u]. Icehockey is very similar to handball in its way of dealing with fouls and destroyed scoring chances. All fouls and unsportsmanlike actions result in penalties for 2 or 5 minutes (or for 10 minutes or the rest of the game, although this does not affect the team strength on the ice). The rules for penalty shots and ‘clear scoring chance’ are, if anything, even tighter than in handball. I guess one could imagine, although I hope that I will never see it, that a coach reaches out onto the ice (perhaps with the help of a stick) and restrains an opponent when they have a ‘2 on 1’ breakaway, so that it turns into a ‘1 on 1’. (This would, in fact, be a situation very similar to that involving Prokop!) I trust that the good folks in NHL would know how to punish the offender very harshly afterwards, but they would get a good laugh if you suggested a penalty-shot as an additional or alternative deterrent!

John, your reaction is understandable and your intentions are good, because deterrence is important. But you look to the wrong source and therefore find inappropriate ideas for ‘solutions’. I hope our readers enjoyed the debate as much as I did!

Handball’s last minute problem (Part 1): Time to add the Technical Penalty Shot: http://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.873

Before I get into the substance of today’s segment, I want to thank those readers who have sent in feedback on the first installment, http://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.857 also when in some cases they were taking opposing views. Clearly, there is not one right answer to each problem, and even if there were, I would never be the one to claim to have a monopoly on such ‘right answers’, not even after more than 30 years of experience within the IHF. This is also why I tend to focus more on identifying areas where problems have existed and where a change is needed, rather than on speculating in great detail about the precise solutions.

Also, some of the feedback focused on a general problem with the current By-Laws: they are poorly written (from both a legal and a linguistic standpoint), so they are hard to understand in some places, they create contradictions or ambiguities in other places, and they generally create a poor impression. I hope the necessary expertise is brought in to remedy this problem, also in those parts of the By-Laws where no substantive changes might be made.

So to the issues related to the Commissions. The main flaw of Article 17 is that it does not offer much more than lists of the areas of responsibility for each Commission. There are no provisions that clearly delineate the role of the Commissions in relation to the Council, and it is not even clear what rights and duties each Commission has as regards the planning and execution of the tasks it is being given. There is a notion that ‘within the four-year plan previously approved they have freedom of action’. This, however, was never possible to take literally. In some respects, the Commissions have received too little guidance, and there has been too little accountability for actual actions and results. In some respects, however, the suggested autonomy does not exist. Also within programs and projects that are well-established, there is often an insistence on specific re-approval for very minor efforts. Progress is blocked because specific expenditures have not been agreed, which in turn is caused by a lack of a joint budget development between the Treasurer and the respective Commission Presidents.

The main problem with the Commission structure as it exists today, however, is the excessive standardization. Each Commission, regardless of workload and the nature of its work, has a representative from each continent and the same total number of members (President + 7). For some Commissions, the emphasis is indeed on coordination between the IHF and the continents, but for others the focus is on carrying out a large amount of high-level technical work. Moreover, the extent of actual operational work varies a lot, and there is only one Commission (Rules & Referees) that also has a large personnel responsibility for a group of people (the referees) both during the course of the year and especially during IHF events. It is clear that the staffing of each Commission should be based on its needs, and not on a standard allocation.

However, there are clear indications that a change in the basic structure is needed. A large part of the IHF’s efforts is undertaken in support of the grassroots development in the developing handball countries. By contrast, except in the areas of organizing the big IHF competitions and in developing and nurturing the top level referees, the IHF does not have much of role at the elite level; for instance, it would be an illusion to think that the IHF could have the internal capacity to do much for the development of the game or the education of the coaches at the elite level. This has also been reflected in the excessive scope of work for some of the Commissions and the simultaneous lack of a serious role for others.

This leads me to a relatively drastic proposal: ‘Organization and Competition’ should remain relatively unchanged. ‘Medical’ could continue to exist, focusing on injury prevention, but in a much reduced format, as the critical work is really done in the Anti-Doping Unit. The ‘Promotion and Public Relations’ should take on the full tasks of selecting and deploying instructors and of ensuring access to the necessary educational material for the developing countries. This should be done with an increased staffing provided from the current ‘Coaching and Methods’. On the other hand, beach handball should be moved out to a separate, full-fledged Commission, with no further role for ‘Promotion and Public Relations’. This would lead to an undivided and homogenous set of tasks and responsibilities for technical grassroots development.

Similarly, the support role, from a coaching perspective, that selected individuals from ‘Coaching and Methods’ have played together with ‘Rules & Refereeing’ (the ‘Kitchen Group’ as IHF insiders know it) should be more formally integrated into an expanded ‘Rules & Refereeing’. This means that, after passing on its only two areas of any importance, ‘Coaching and Methods’ would cease to exist, and I am confident that, sadly, it would not be missed. There would be 5 Commissions also in the future, with a slight increase in aggregate staffing, but with a more reasonable staffing in each area.

In other articles I have commented on the underutilized and ineffective Athletes Commission. (This is not a ‘commission’ in a normal sense and it does not really exist within the formal structure). The issue is here that the athletes must be given an increased, genuine voice. This may well be supported by some kind of informal entity, perhaps called ‘working group’, so that communications between player representatives are facilitated. But I refuse to believe that a separate commission or working group is the way to achieve change. As I see it, insight, participation and influence will only come if the athletes can nominate, officially under the By-Laws, one member of each ‘normal’ Commission and one or two full members of the Council.

Part 3, with a focus on the Congress and the decision-making there, will follow within the next week or so.

On this web site, we have in the past occasionally criticized EHF decision-makers for ‘soft’ verdicts in some cases involving corruption. Therefore, I am this time pleased to be able to congratulate EHF for taking a generally appropriate set of decisions! So essentially what remains is for me to express the fervent hope that the decision will not be appealed and that EHF would remain absolutely strong in the event that an appeal were to come…

I know that some serious and important handball persons have suggested a life-time ban for Prokop. However, I find that the combination of a permanent ban from EHF positions and a 3-year ban from involvement in international competitions seems reasonable. At the personal level, I would add the hope that, in practice, a 3-year ban means that there will be no return!

If there is any part of the overall decision where I would have wanted a bit more, then that concerns the punishment for Hypo. I know from other situations that the EHF is not fond of excluding teams and prefers monetary punishments that to my mind tend to be rather ‘toothless’. I believe, as a matter of principle, that a club, its members, players and supporters must be made to feel the consequences of the severe wrongdoing of its coach. So at least a one-year ban would have been desirable. This would have been particularly strongly felt in the case of Hypo, considering that there exists no serious competition at the national level in Austria. In practice, Hypo exists only for the Champions League.

Finally, I believe we are lucky in handball in the sense that the risk for ‘copycats’ would be very small. Virtually all other coaches have a different mentality. Nevertheless, the punishments are likely to have a very healthy deterring effect.

The EHF announced today http://www.eurohandball.com/article/12701 that Prokop has been suspended from his positions in the EHF, as Chief of the Committee for Women Clubs and as Member of the Competition Commission. The suspension was described as temporary while the decision on formal punishments for his actions is being considered. I applaud the EHF decision, and I appreciate that this initial decision at the moment is seen as temporary, but, as I have said before and as I comment below, it would be appalling if it was not made permanent.

Prokop has also announced today that he is stepping down as a coach for Hypo. http://www.hypo-noe.at/de/ In the context of this statement, he tries to suggest that his interference on the court was not a conscious decision but the result of a mental ‘short-circuit’. As I noted earlier, this could have been believable if it had not involved someone with Prokop’s record and reputation. Prokop also implies that he will work through the matter with a psychologist. ‘Better late than never’, is the best I could say about that stated intention.

And Prokop is indeed true to his record and reputation when he now tries to explain how it could have come to such a ‘short-circuit’: “The referees were so biased against my team throughout the match, so this is why I ended up in this mental state; and then they triggered my action by allowing the Metz counterattack instead of giving a free-throw for Hypo.” This ridiculous and insulting statement is supposed to be the explanation from a truly remorseful person, who wants us to believe that he now afterwards realizes how unforgivable his actions were and wants to imply that they were not typical or conscious but a ‘short-circuit’?????

At face value, the quick decision to resign as a coach is of course welcome. However, it also smacks of an attempt to pre-empt or influence the EHF body that is about to make a decision about formal punishments. The impression could be: what more do they need to do if he has already stepped down!? Well, first of all, nothing would prevent him from changing his mind whenever he wants. So the answer is that he must be removed from [u]all[/u] match-related activities and functions for [u]a very, very, very long time![/u] And, again, there is no excuse for having this kind of person in important positions in the EHF.

As I hear from other sources, and (for you German-speakers) as indicated in recent 'Handball-World' postings http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=22660&GID=1 http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=22670 controversy is erupting as the planned return of the referee couple Lemme/Ullrich is drawing closer. The German federation (DHB) has strongly supported the referees after they were given a 5-year suspension by the European federation (EHF). http://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.802 For instance, DHB has lent them money to pay the fee that goes with an appeal to the EHF, and they have promised them a return to the Bundesliga in mid-December. (The EHF suspension does not necessarily apply at the national level). Now it appears that several Bundesliga representatives are not so enthusiastic about their return.

While the controversy to some extent may be related to more general strains between the DHB and the Bundesliga, it also appears that there is a bit of prestige and personal emotion involved. Irritation and ‘high volume’ is coming through. The Bundesliga and some club representatives seem to be concerned about image, and comments have also been made to the effect that unwanted speculation could arise if the referees returned and, just by chance, as can always happen, were to become involved in a controversial decision or a disputed game. By contrast, the DHB seems determined to prove the point that they continue to fully trust Lemme/Ullrich, while at the same time perhaps ‘thumbing their noses’ at the EHF. At the same time, however, the DHB seems to imply that they would not take an absolutely final decision until the appeal has been heard by the EHF.

It would not be prudent to speculate about the outcome of the appeal. However, it is relevant to remember that part of the EHF’s frustrations emanated from the refusal of the referees to name the person(s) responsible for putting pressure on them before a game in Russia. At least it is interesting to speculate about what would, hypothetically, happen if the referees suddenly did provide names and what position EHF would be in as a result; see my earlier article: http://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.803

At this time, however, I would prefer just to comment briefly on the determination on the part of the referees and the DHB to get them back in action in the Bundesliga. They know that their very distinguished international career is over. So people have wondered, what makes them so adamant about continuing in the Bundesliga? I am sure they might simply be eager to continue an activity that they have always enjoyed very much, and the Bundesliga is now the most interesting arena available to them. They might also feel that a period of good performances in the Bundesliga would in a sense prove that they are still the strong and trusted referees that they used to be. They care about their reputation.

Of course it would be improper for me, in this very delicate situation, to try to interfere and offer them some good advice, least of all in public. But for their sake, having known them as top-level referees and good friends over many years, I only hope that they take a decision that will lead to a worthy end of their career. Presumably they would want to be remembered the way they were at their peak (which may have been a couple of years ago), and not for the controversy that is surrounding them now. While they might see advantages and opportunities in a return, I am sure they will also understand that there are risks. As experienced referees, they should know how to make a decision based on sound judgment and not one that is based on emotions, prestige, or the views of others.

As noted by my colleague John Ryan in his earlier posting, and as many of you are likely to have found in the media, the reactions of disgust after Prokop’s actions are so strong and so widespread, that I probably would not need to add my own opinion. Moreover, to retain credibility as a columnist it is sometimes necessary to show some restraint and not give in completely to one’s feelings. In this particular case, however, I see no need and no possibility to hold back. [u]Prokop’s actions are simply the most despicable ones I have experienced or heard of in my more than 50 years in handball.[/u]

Therefore, it is no surprise that reactions from handball people around the world are so strong. They can feel what the impact is for our sport when something like this happens, they can put themselves in the position of the opponents in the match, and they clearly recognize the complete lack of ethics and propriety. So I fully understand, for instance, the reactions of Ulrik Wilbek, the Danish national team coach, a person well-known for his decency both during matches and in between, when he argues that Prokop should be banned for life. I also particularly appreciate the reactions of Austrian federation president Gerhard Hofbauer, another person whom I know as very correct and proper in his views and behavior. He publicly deplores the actions and does not rule out independent disciplinary measures by his federation.

However, it is also very telling that nobody seems to be entirely surprised by Prokop’s actions. Indeed, if these actions were described to a large group of handball insiders, and they were asked who they thought were the person responsible, I suspect almost everyone would get it right! In every large group of whatever kind, there is always someone who is so frequently behaving in an outrageous manner that, instead of being shunned or severely criticized, they are instead ignored or laughed at, because it is assumed that they are what they are and will never change. Through this misguided tolerance, we tend to create ‘Frankenstein’s monsters’ and in some sense we share the blame.

I think this is also why so many are so extremely upset. Finally they sense that ‘enough is enough.’ If the same actions had been taken at the spur of the moment by someone with a long and impeccable record, one would be more ready to except it as a temporary mental lapse. But when the guilty party is so notorious, is seen receiving his ‘red card’ with a big grin of satisfaction, and then cynically expresses a pride in ‘having done his duty’ as a tactical and experienced coach, then it has gone too far. No subsequent retractions or apologies would change that.

One aspect of ‘misguided tolerance’ that perhaps not so many know about, and that certainly would have caused the reactions of outrage to be even greater, is that Prokop, presumably on account of his many years in women’s handball, holds senior and important positions in the EHF hierarchy: he is the Chair of the Committee for Women’s Clubs and he is a Member of the EHF Competitions Commission. Clearly, one would hope that such positions of honor would be filled on the basis of factors other than pure longevity…

Turning then to the important issue of punishment that now needs to be meted out, I can have some understanding for those who focus on rules and refereeing. They ask if the referees did the right thing when they did not award a 7-meter throw, as such a decision might have negated Prokop’s actions and intentions, and they wonder if one might need to change the rules in some way. Here I first want to support the referees: they could possibly have been justified in ‘stretching’ the definition of ‘clear scoring chance’ and thus in giving a 7-meter, but clearly their decision was not a mistake. And my basic point is that this whole situation goes beyond rules and refereeing. Rules cannot, and should not endeavor to, become so geared towards ‘once in a lifetime’ situations and such deviant behavior. They must focus on being clear and simple for normal persons and normal situations. [u]Instead the real deterrent must come in the form of individual punishments that are so severe that they serve to keep such persons out of our sport![/u]

From this web site we have occasionally been critical of EHF disciplinary actions as being too soft, typically in cases of attempted referee bribery and similar forms of corruption. Clearly, an organization needs to apply consistent guidelines and procedures, and existing regulations may set limits for actions. In this regard, I was encouraged by comments from the EHF Secretary General, who stressed the ‘unique’ nature of this case, thus seemingly suggesting that it would also be ‘off the charts’ as regards the scope for punishment. Here the discussion cannot be about the number of games but the [u]number of years[/u]! Similarly, Prokop’s club (and, as insiders know, it is really literally ‘Prokop’s club’) must be made to know that their participation in EHF competitions is not accepted as long as it relies on such ‘leadership’.

Finally, I commented earlier on Prokop’s positions of honor in the EHF hierarchy. I do not know what the rules are for filling these positions and for firing incumbents, but in the current circumstances that should be irrelevant. Let me put it is this way: every day from now on that he is allowed to remain in his positions amounts to a day of flagrantly insulting the international handball community!

Some time ago I commented on the importance of having IHF establish clear goals and strategies, before it rushes ahead and focuses on detailed changes in its By-Laws. Nevertheless, as the IHF has now set a date for an ‘extraordinary’ Congress and has established a working group for considering changes in the By-Laws (a group that many observers find to have a ‘strange’ composition), several handball friends, both inside the IHF and elsewhere, have asked me to go ahead and present my views on desirable changes. I will divide up my comments and suggestions into 3 installments, with today’s efforts involving primarily the Executive Committee and the Council, soon to be followed by articles dealing with the Congress, the Commissions and some other specific issues.

First one needs to remember that the effectiveness of any rules and regulations depend on the good intentions of the people who are set to implement them, so even the most perfect By-Laws do not guarantee good governance. However, it also holds true that By-Laws, on the basis of actual experience, may need to be made more comprehensive and specific, precisely because one cannot just rely on adherence to sound principles in the absence of binding rules and regulations.

It is clear to many observers that, for some time now, the IHF Executive Committee has become inappropriately autonomous and powerful, with far too little respect for the role of the Council and far too little accountability. This may partly be the result of excessive complacency on the part of Council members and others, but it is also a direct result of a lop-sided work distribution in the By-Laws. The fundamental flaw is that the Executive Committee is viewed as a much too independent body, instead of having the six Council members who are supposed to constitute the Executive Committee serve as [u]the Council’s [/u]executive body, with a full accountability to the Council as a whole. This must change!

Moreover, Article 16 in the By-Laws generally has a wording that is clearly too open-ended or all-encompassing in describing the tasks assigned to the Executive Committee. The powers to interfere in the work of other IHF entities are much too broad, and a large part of the suggested monitoring role would be far more appropriate for the Council to assume. In addition, some of the provisions in Article 16 are in direct conflict with roles and tasks already given to the Council in Article 15. This applies, for instance, with potentially disastrous effects, in the area of decision-making in financial matters.

However, this is not to suggest that the Council has a perfectly clear and appropriate mandate. One [u]could[/u] interpret the role of the Council to be very strong if some parts of Article 15 are taken literally. On the other hand, the By-Laws are totally, and quite inappropriately, silent on the key role that the Council undoubtedly must have in not just the ongoing policy-making but also in the underlying establishment of goals and strategies. But when one argues for a strengthened role for the Council, it is necessary to keep in mind that such a change is very much related to the composition of the Council and the basic responsibility that its members tend to feel, which in turn depends a lot on how they are elected.

Clearly it makes sense to try to achieve synergy by having two different dimensions represented, namely the technical and operational activities through the Commission Presidents and the broad knowledge of people being familiar with the grassroots work and the special circumstances in the different member countries. However, it has become very obvious that there is a problem involved in having about half of the Council consist of members who are specifically nominated by their respective continents and primarily tend to see themselves as persons expected to look after the interests of the continent that nominated them. This means that a large chunk of the Council may not really see itself as managers and policy-makers of the [u]IHF[/u] but as political representatives of one geographic segment of the IHF. (I cannot resist the temptation of making the comparison with the U.S. Congress and the unattractive ‘ear-marking’ traditions…).

While an effort needs to be made, there is no simple solution to this dilemma. Perhaps only [u]one[/u] member should be nominated by each continent for ‘rubberstamping’ in the Congress. Then the remaining slots could be filled on the basis of open elections in the Congress from among candidates from continents. Alternatively, perhaps the remainder of the Council should select the second person from each continent, on the basis of their previous collaboration with these individuals. Moreover, it could be mandated that the second person from each continent must be someone who does not have a role in the Continental federation and therefore can be have a more independent position. I am confident that other ideas could be identified on this important issue.

It must not be forgotten that one of the well-known weaknesses in the role of the Council comes from a lack of sufficiently firm and detailed By-Law requirements regarding the meeting procedures in the Council. Again, the ability to run meetings may depend largely on the individuals, but it is clear that the Council meetings have become too informal, inconsistent and ineffective in terms of the procedures followed. As has been noted on some controversial issues, this can become very dangerous. So, regrettably, it seems necessary to use the formality of the By-Laws to bring about change, including the need for more structured and formal meetings, with legal expertise available.

Finally, an issue that comes to mind when recent worries about decision-making based on sound legal principles is recalled: it is not an acceptable situation to have positions on the Arbitration Commission and the Arbitration Tribunal filled by persons who do not have the necessary education and experience as a jurist. The current By-Law requirements are not strict enough on this point.

IHF Bylaws: http://www.ihf.info/upload/Manual/IHF_STATUTS_CHAP_01_GB.pdf

Part 2, focusing on the Commissions, will follow in the next couple of weeks.

My recent article on the inadequate opportunities for the players to be heard http://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.839 caused a lot of feedback, including suggestions for further aspects that needed to be covered. So here we go!

One point that was made quite strongly by some readers was that it is important to understand that the clubs can [u]not[/u] be relied upon to serve as the communications channels for the concerns and the ideas of the players. While the clubs depend on players for their success, the main issues and priorities of the clubs are still different from those of the players. It is more like the traditional interplay between employer and employees. In addition, club managers and coaches sometimes incorrectly tend to believe that they know and understand the issues of the players, perhaps even better than the players themselves. This is a dilemma that is important for national and international federations to recognize.

But the players themselves cannot then just sit back and rely on the benevolence of others. The players need to think of different ways to organize themselves so that their views are heard and so that the necessary pressure can be put on clubs and federations. This may argue for full-fledged ‘unionization’, or at least some other type of formal associations. Also, players need to think about the longer term, instead of being happy with their seemingly problem-free existence here and now. Many issues can arise over an extended career. Similarly, there needs to exist a strong sense of solidarity among all the players; not everyone has the stature and the ‘bargaining power’ of a recognized star player.

Federations need to be prepared to deal [u]directly[/u] with the players and their representatives, not just through the clubs and other intermediaries. Therefore, for instance, when the EHF now talks about the implementation of a ‘European Handball Strategic Forum’ for all stakeholders, including ‘Clubs and Players’, then it is important that clubs and players are seen as two [u]separate[/u] groups! Similarly, the IHF has an Athletes Commission, but only on paper. The athletes have had no real influence through this group. This must change, and perhaps a new format is needed, with a direct integration into the normal decision-making bodies of the IHF. I will come back to this separately, when discussing appropriate By-Law changes.

The necessity of listening to the views and concerns of the players should really be self-evident. Their collective role constitutes the ‘product’ handball; what clubs and federations provide is ‘just’ the structure or vehicle needed for the players to display their skills. But taking into account the views of the players is not just an obligation for the sake of the players. They have, individually and collectively, the kind of experience and insights that enables them to contribute with ideas and proposals in many areas of the operations and the decision-making of a federation. It would be crazy, and a matter of negligence, to ignore this resource!

If you are a coach, regardless of what level, do you feel a sense of responsibility for the development of the [u]rules[/u] of the game?? My point is that you clearly should do so, but that the overwhelming majority of coaches seem to ignore this part of [u]their[/u] job. It may be much more natural to contribute to the development of the game in the sense of teaching individual player techniques and team tactics, but obviously the rules must also develop in a way that supports and matches the development of the game; and who knows better than experienced coaches if certain rules have become outdated or constitute an obstacle to interesting new techniques and tactics!

It is possible that federations, at both the international and the national level, may have contributed to the tradition that coaches do not play a major role in rules development. At one stage it was typical, and seen as normal, that rules issues were handled by small groups of people mostly from the refereeing side, often ‘behind closed doors’. I tended to find this a bit strange, because the game is not played by, or for, the referees. Over the last 10-20 years, however, it has certainly become a firm principle, at least in the IHF, to try to get the coaching side very much involved. Top coaches have been members of rules working groups, interpretations and teaching material in connection with major events have been developed and shared with the coaches well ahead of time, and the rules development as an integral part of the game development has been stressed.

Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the amount of interest and input has been terribly limited. Spontaneous ideas and suggestions have been very rare, and repeated official requests for input have largely been met with silence. Most of the reactions from the coaching side have taken the form of ‘second-guessing’ [u]after[/u] proposals had to be developed without the requested input! It is possible that not enough has been done by the respective federations to get their coaches to come forward, but I certainly hope that the many active and competent national federations will want to do more to encourage continuous debate and input.

However, with the risk of inviting rebuttals and criticism, I am also prepared to venture the opinion that many coaches generally are not very excited about encouraging changes in the rules. I can understand the notion that the fundamentals of the rules remain good and that frequent changes can be disruptive, but surely this can’t be an argument against [u]all[/u] possible ideas? So I begin to wonder, partly on the basis of conversations with coaches over the years: perhaps coaches are resisting change out of a narrow self-interest!!??

Perhaps it is a more comfortable situation to avoid the burden of first understanding the implications of a specific change and then teaching the players how to adjust to new circumstances? Perhaps a coach feels he/she loses some hard-earned advantages if rules changes create the need for new methods and techniques? Having expressed these ‘suspicions’, I challenge coaches at all levels to prove me wrong by getting into the habit of offering new ideas for possible improvements of the rules! Don’t wait for someone to ask for your opinions; take the initiative!

Some may have the impression that the only important issue on the agenda of the IOC Congress was the decision regarding the 2016 summer Olympics. However, the IOC has in fact been holding a congress with speeches and debates covering a broad range of fundamental aspects: the Athlete, the Olympic Games, the Structure of the Olympic Movement, Olympism and Youth, and the Digital Revolution. I will not attempt to comment on all of these aspects; instead I will point you to the document summarizing the recommendations of the IOC Congress. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Conferences_Forums_and_Events/2009_Olympic_Congress/Olympic_Congress_Recommendations.pdf

Some of the conclusions that came up under the heading ‘the Athlete’ will be useful for those athletes who need support and arguments in their struggle be heard by the authorities in their respective sports, as discussed in my posting from yesterday. http://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.839 I hope to come back to this topic in a near future.

My focus here will instead by on good governance and anti-corruption. The reputable organization ‘Play the Game’ had made a major effort to force the attention of the IOC on the need for strong action against corruption, through an open letter to the IOC at the Congress. This open letter, for which a vast number of signatures were obtained, http://www.playthegame.org/news/detailed/call-for-action-against-all-forms-of-corruption-in-sport-4543.html was not necessarily welcomed by all IOC members. Several of them were interviewed about the idea of an independent anti-corruption agency (somewhat similar to WADA, the anti-doping agency) and while a few diplomatically referred to the existence of an IOC Ethics Committee and a Court of Arbitration for Sport, other interviewees (such as the IHF President) suggested more firmly that issues involving corruption could best be handled internally by the organization affected. (The FIFA President indicated that he would retire, if such an agency were to be established; it prompted some observers to suggest that this sounded like the best possible argument for moving ahead…).

However, a glimmer of hope could be seen in the keynote speech by the IOC VP Thomas Bach, under the heading of ‘the Structure of the Olympic Movement’. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/2009_Olympic_Congress/Speech_Thomas_Bach.pdf While (as I would put it) he ‘put the cart before the horse’ by first talking forcefully, albeit eloquently, about the need for the sports movement to enjoy a high degree of autonomy from governmental interference, he later came to the important point that, in order to deserve such autonomy, sports organizations need to demonstrate ‘responsibility’ in terms of compliance with rules of ethics and good governance. As key principles he mentioned, for example: define the vision and mission so that clear goals and strategies can be developed; clear, democratic and efficient structures, with checks and balances, and clear and transparent rules for democratic decision-making; transparent financial processes with clear rules for the distribution of revenues; and involvement of active athletes and protection of their rights. It seems that my earlier suggestions for the steps needed prior to IHF By-Law changes were receiving full endorsement… http://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.812

Finally, it is also worth noting the conclusion that the IOC should immediately establish its own entity for monitoring the betting activities going on in connection with the Olympic Games. (Previously, the IOC has been ‘piggy-backing’ on an external agency, viz. the company used by FIFA, for the purpose of detecting suspicious activity). This should be seen as a strong indication that the IOC, like many other organizations, have come to realize the tremendous threat that illegal gambling constitutes to the desire for fair play and an untarnished image in sports.