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!