There have been too many instances recently, where a red card has led to post-match uncertainty, disputes and improper handling of the matter. Mostly, because these are the situations which are given more publicity, it involves EHF competition, but I have information that similar problems seem to exist in national federations, for instance in Germany. This is very regrettable, because players and clubs should be able to count on predictability and consistency; it is also largely unnecessary, because the basic IHF Playing Rules, which MUST be respected by all continental and national federations, offer both clarity and limits regarding the post-match handling of a disqualification (‘red card’)!

The 2010 playing rules make a very important distinction between the ‘basic’ disqualification due to a foul or unsportsmanlike conduct (rules 8:5 and 8:9 respectively) and the more dangerous fouls and serious conduct (rules 8:6 and 8:10 respectively) where the referees are required to send a report to the organizing federation regarding the disqualification. The important point here is that the referees are the ONLY ones, using their subjective judgment on the basis of existing criteria, who have the prerogative to decide if a foul falls under rule 8:5 or 8:6 and if a misconduct falls under 8:9 or 8:10. Moreover, this decision must be taken immediately by the referees at the time of the incident, and they are obliged to inform the team immediately, if their decision is to classify the action under 8:6 or 8:10.

This means that if the referees have given a red card and have concluded that 8:5 or 8:9 applies, meaning that no report is to be sent to federation, this is the END of the matter. The federation has NO right to override the judgment of the referees and take upon itself to decide about a further suspension. Indeed, one of the fundamental reasons for the distinction between ‘disqualification without report’ and ‘disqualification with report’ is precisely to avoid any uncertainty regarding the player’s status for future games and to prevent the possibility of capricious and inconsistent bureaucratic action. Presumably, it can only be ignorance or arrogance that causes the federations to ignore what the playing rules prescribe, and it is regrettable that the IHF turns a blind eye to these improper practices!

In those cases where there referees do submit a report, because a disqualification falls under rules 8:6 or 8:10, there are sometimes some misunderstandings, both among the responsible federations, and among the general public. The purpose of the report is to enable the federation to determine IF there should be further consequences and if so to what extent. In other words, a suspension is NOT automatic and mandatory just because a report has been filed. It is always up to the respective federation to apply its own principles, guidelines and procedures. Here they have a complete prerogative and are not under the jurisdiction of the IHF. Culture and traditions may impact the decision-making, and this may vary from country to country.

Of course, this does not mean that one does not want to see consistency and a clear logic in the decision-making WITHIN each federation. On the one hand, similar cases need to be treated in a similar way, so standardization is important. On the other hand, there must also be flexibility to make a distinction between cases that are not quite similar, or where the seriousness of the action varies, so one must guard against any tendencies to a ‘robotic’ decision-making. It also needs to be recognized that it is in fact difficult to compare and get consistency between entirely different types of cases. For instance, what is fair and consistent if one compares dangerous and reckless fouls that may lead to injuries, with grossly unsportsmanlike behavior that does not physically hurt anyone but may have a direct impact on the result of a game?

One particular situation, which unfortunately arises far too often, is the special case of illegally preventing the opponents from resuming the game or getting to a scoring chance during the LAST MINUTE of the game. Clearly, the reason why this, by definition, has been placed in the category of ‘disqualification WITH report’ is the desire to go as far as possible in discouraging this kind of cynical action, which is really bad for the spirit and the image of our game, especially if it does have its intended effect during the game. When the rule was introduced, attempts were made to tie the rule and the punishment not just to the ‘last minute’ but also to the notion of having a potential effect on the outcome.

Clearly there is a difference between situations where everyone knows that ‘the next goal will decide’, and situations where it is either impossible to know whether the next goal is so important or where it is clear that is UNimportant (and the action is really a case of sheer stupidity). It is also relevant whether the cynical player commits the action in a way that is at least physically harmless or whether the cynicism includes subjecting the player to physical danger. But despite these differences, the federations tend to be ‘on autopilot’ when giving out suspensions: for the EHF, one game seems to have become the standard. Here it would be appropriate to increase the length in those cases where the awareness of the impact was clear and/or there was reckless physical action involved. As it now is, many players and teams laugh at the ‘price’ of ONE game.

Wherever we are located, many of us are likely to be enjoying these two events, featuring enormously skilled athletes and very intense competition. But we are probably also groaning about many habits and incidents that detract from the overall experience, especially if we have a particular interest in refereeing and fair play. The impression is that we can consider ourselves comparatively lucky when we focus on rules and elite level refereeing in handball. But there are also indications of dangers and lessons to be learned.

The most conspicuous problem in the late stages in the regular season in the NHL and now in the play-offs is the total deterioration in the respect among players for the well-being of the opponent. Hard hitting and desperate methods can be both understood and tolerated, but an epidemic of actions which are either intentional or totally careless is putting many star players on the side-line with major injuries. Hits against the head, often causing long-lasting concussions, seem to be the ‘favorite’ method for the moment. The NHL tries to use suspensions as a deterrent, but there is no indication that this is really discouraging these actions.

Fortunately, we have yet not seen the quite same the cynicism in our recent, major events in handball. In our case it is more a matter of isolated incidents. But ‘flying elbows’ or fists to the face are dangerous actions that can far too easily occur in handball, especially if the referees are not alert and courageous, and if the federations to do not take such matters seriously enough.

In the case of NHL, I see a connection to another problem that I ‘desperately’ want us to avoid in handball. It is a tendency, or mentality, that may be relatively more common here in the U.S. What I am talking about is the attitude that in the play-offs, or in the final minutes of any game, “you should put the whistle away and let the players decide the outcome”. This has been more conspicuous than even in this year’s Stanley Cup, but to my mind it is totally misguided! First of all, it does not lead to fairness and a proper outcome if you ignore fouls and other violations. What simply happens is that the most cynical teams and players take advantage by being ruthless. Is this really what we want? And even worse, it creates an escalation on the ice/court so that finally there is a sense that ‘anything goes’ , with more and more dangerous action (including elbows to the head) and revenge fouls.

In the case of UEFA and Champions League, I want to focus on two issues. The first one involves ‘theater’, especially in terms of exaggerating the impact of a minor body contact or completing faking the existence of a foul from an opponent. In my opinion, football is getting worse and worse in this respect, mainly because there is too much tolerance for it. It creates major irritation between players, it leads to fouls and other forms of misbehavior, it creates a loss of respect for the referee. We really need to be careful in the handball and must be more prepared to take tougher action against such tendencies before these unpleasant habits become as common in handball as in football.

And then there is an issue related to an inherent advantage that we have in the handball rules, an aspect that we must take great care to protect and preserve. I am talking about the distinction between punishments for fouls and the restoring of a goal chance that has been illegally removed. It is terrible to see that football is not more rapidly dealing with the issue of ‘double punishment’ (penalty kick AND red card) for removing a clear scoring chance in the goal area. This is really unconscionable. But it also tells us that we in handball must take great care to make our referees understand the right situations for: 7-meter only; personal punishment but no 7-meter; both 7-meter and personal punishment. Another rules aspect that will not realistically change: in football the penalty kick depends simply on the position and not on scoring chance. This means that shirt pulling in the penalty area causes the referees to decide either to see what happens or to close their eyes. Perhaps this unsatisfactory effect should be remembered by those who think that we allow too much subjective judgment for the decision about a 7-meter in handball. I am sure that many football referees would love to have that prerogative!

Unlike my story about IHF uniform policies, dated April 1, this is a story that you can believe: London Transport has come up with the great idea of honoring as many as 361 prominent Olympic athletes by temporarily naming all of their Underground (‘Tube’) and Overground stations after them, in connection with the Olympic Games this summer. Clearly it is a matter of prestige to have been included in the group of the 361 to be selected in this manner.

Handball is not a sport with great traditions in Britain, but we managed to get at least four of our best known former (and, in the case of Balic, probably continuing) Olympians selected. Naturally, this could cause a debate about other noteworthy handball players having been left out, even if the choice was limited to athletes who have had an impact in the Olympics. Perhaps there could have been room for a representative of the French and Norwegian gold medalists in 2008 or a Gatu, Horvat or Turtjina from the 1970s.

It is not surprising that the list is dominated by the ‘big’ Olympic sports, such as swimming, boxing, gymnastics, basketball, and especially track & field. Football is less represented, as the names in football, like a few other sports, reflect the non-Olympic status of athletes from certain sports during long periods. It seems that those who decided about the list at least tried to avoid discrimination by gender or nationality. In fact, there is no information available about who was involved in the selection process, so we do not know if federations had any role at all.

Efforts have been made to group athletes together by sports. The entire ‘District’ and ‘Circle’ lines are dedicated to runners, e.g., Carl Lewis, Wilma Rudolph, Usain Bolt, Marlene Ottey, Michael Johnson, Herb Elliott, Maria Mutola, Emil Zatopek and, of course, Sebastian Coe, the boss for the entire event in London 2012. The jumpers got placed on the ‘Metropolitan’ line, among them Beamon, Boston and Fosbury. Edwin Moses has been used as the diplomatic choice for the Wimbledon station; it might have been too controversial to pick a particular tennis player for that. But Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Graf, Becker, the Williams sisters and several others appear in other locations.

Michael Phelps has received a special location of honor, at the Stratford station, which is the stop for the Olympic stadium and area. Muhammed Ali (a.k.a. Cassius Clay) got the international station near Stratford. Swimmers also include Dawn Fraser, Johnny Weissmuller, Kornelia Ender, Ian Thorpe and Matt Biondi. Boxers include Teofilo Stevenson, Laszlo Papp, Sugar Ray Leonard, Michael Spinks, Joe Frazier and several others. The gymnasts feature Olga Korbut, Nadia Comaneci and Mary Lou Retton.

‘Dream teams’ in basketball have left a mark, and the names at the apex of the ‘Northern’ line look impressive: Bird, Barkley, Ewing, Jordan, Bryant, James but also old-timer Oscar Robertson. The women’s group includes Cheryl (Miller) and Sheryl (Swoops). But American women also come through in football: Hamm, Wambach, Scurry and Chastain each got a station, as did Brazilian Marta. On the men’s side we go from Hungarian legends Puskas and Kocsis to current stars such as Messi and Tevez.

I do not think we should take the choices and the omissions too seriously, but surely you agree that this is a pretty smart way to be reminded about great Olympic moments and performers from the past!

I hope the IHF will not be upset that I reveal some new information before they have had a chance to announce it. But I think it is relatively harmless, so I will go ahead and use my inside information. The issue involves a new policy regarding uniforms that will need to be reflected in both the Playing Rules and in the Competition Regulations. In order to give teams a chance to adjust in preparation for the 2012-13 season, when the new policy will become effective, the IHF is planning to announce it very soon.

As most of you know, for many, many years we have had frustrating situations both in championship events and at the grassroots level, when the two teams have come to a game with uniform colors that are too similar, or when there have been some problems with the colors of a goalkeeper. And it has often been frustrating for the referees to try to anticipate what colors to use for a specific game. I can also recall all the technical meetings in championships where a lot of time was spent on discussing and agreeing on the colors for each game. So, quite wisely, the IHF has decided that something needed to be done to make everything simpler and clearer.

Amazingly, as the U.S. influence on world handball has not been very great over the years, it seems that the ideas for the solutions have come from the sports scene in U.S.A. Of course, here like in all other parts of the world, the teams and their fans have really strong feelings about the traditional colors of their teams. But they have come to accept that, in a very systematic way, they must be used to the reality that their teams essentially use different colors for the home and away games. This principle is what is now being adopted by the IHF for handball globally. The result should be that, for each game, both teams will know which uniform to wear, without any discussions or confusion.

Quite interestingly, it seems to have been easy to reach agreement on the basic principle, but the specific method apparently required some discussion. In a nutshell, the question was: should the IHF follow the NBA, the NHL or perhaps the NFL? Let me explain to those who do not follow these events so closely: in the NBA, the home team plays in light-colored uniforms and the visitors in dark uniforms. In the NHL it is the opposite. And in the NFL the home team always uses its favorite colors (light or dark) and the away team must adapt.

In the end it seems that the IHF opted to follow the NHL approach, requiring the home team to wear dark colors (primarily red or blue or a combination of the two, such as stripes or purple). The visitors then wear white or possibly light yellow or grey. The reason was that the home team fans like to wear their team colors in some way, and it makes for a more colorful and spectacular scene if they can wear strong colors. I did not mention green. That is because this color has been reserved for the goalkeepers. It may cause some irritation with some teams that green has eliminated as a choice, but it was seen as more important to achieve complete standardization for all goalkeepers.

And the referees? Well, here it is apparently back to all black! This may not be appreciated by some flamboyant referees who have become used to looking a little bit like ‘peacocks’ in recent years. However, I guess the IHF saw it as almost the only practical solution. If they had asked me, I might have suggested that ‘zebra’ stripes would be better. Not because I think it is such a great design, but simply because it would have created a better contrast to dark blue.

Personally I support the overall change. I do not know if it comes primarily from the rules side under Manfred Prause or from the competitions side under Leon Kalin, but I congratulate those who came up with the idea. It is likely that some teams will complain initially, perhaps especially the teams who have long traditions with green uniforms. But surely they can find ways to use green in a logo or in the trimming of a uniform in another basic color. Clubs like THW Kiel may also not be happy, as neither white nor black can be used at home, and any thoughts about returning to stripes must be forgotten. But I am confident that Kiel’s star qualities extend beyond their uniform colors. Perhaps a strong pink or dark orange color would suit them!?

Both I myself and the IHF would certainly welcome YOUR views on this new approach!