During many Olympic Games, the format and scheduling of the TV broadcasts by NBC and their counterparts have caused a sometimes irritated debate about what the Games are all about: are they a pure sports event, should they be seen as news reporting, or are they primarily a show/entertainment. Many viewers want to see the events in detail as they happen, without too many background stories. Others want to see the key moments of the competition, combined with the underlying ‘human interest’ stories. Yet others see it simply as an entertaining alternative to less exciting summer programs on TV. Now, of course, it is possible to view it in any way you want, assuming you can get instant news through the internet and, as was now the case from London, ‘live streaming’ from any event that you want to follow in detail. So you do not need to depend on the main NBC show that comes many hours later and is very much a show.

Then there is the question of ‘for whose sake’ do we have the Olympics. Are they organized in order to enable athletes to have an opportunity to display their abilities and to gain fame and financial benefit; or do not these athletes already have sufficient events in their respective sports? Sometimes one gets the impression that the Games are held to provide the host country/city an opportunity to show off their ability and to draw a larger than usual number of visitors from abroad. More awkwardly, one also senses that the Games serve largely as a chance for sponsors and other advertisers to gain a captive audience, and that the commercial interests overwhelm the sports considerations.

If one follows the media coverage, one could almost get the impression that it is a fight between nations, albeit it in a less friendly format, to show their power and compete for global dominance. More than anything else, the table with the medal count is what stands out. Of course, this is discouraged by the International Olympic Committee, which at one point refused to release information about the official medal count. (The IOC Charter even emphasizes that it is supposed to be a competition between athletes and not between countries). But this does not work, as media simply then would do the work themselves, moreover in several conflicting versions. Personally I am ‘sick and tired’ of this focus. For me it would be more appropriate to have countries compete on the basis of accomplishments in education, health care, technology, governance and other more fundamental aspects of life.

But it seems inevitable that countries, both the largest ones in the world and the small, emerging ones, will want to use the Olympic Games to show off. It even goes quite far in terms of efforts to ‘recruit’ athletes to reinforce the population. Many countries attract immigrants and refugees, in which case a change in nationality is natural and the acquisition of a star athlete is incidental and unquestioned. But there also seem to be some countries, including the 2012 host country where, perhaps due to lingering colonial traditions or simply a financial edge, systematic efforts are made to find reinforcements in time for the Olympics. Immigration laws sometimes seem designed to facilitate such methods. One prime example in London was a female participant in triple jump, who now participated with her third nationality in four Olympic Games. It seems that globalization also tends to create a ‘mercenary corps’ of athletes. Ironically, this is in a sense what fits the notion I mentioned from the IOC charter, but unfortunately it fits even better with the actual nationalistic fervor that countries display.

My own ideas may be ‘old-fashioned’, but as you will have understood, I do not care to see the Olympic Games as a venue just for top athletes to increase their market value, for countries and their National Olympic Committees to show off, or for global conglomerates to do far-reaching advertising. For me the main consideration is to have the Olympic Games serve as a source of INSPIRATION. This could mean many different things. It could obviously involve the inspiration for young, budding athletes to make the effort to become future stars. But it could also involve the notion that it simply encourages a broader participation in sports and physical activity instead of less healthy alternatives. It could provide illustrations of how a determined and sustained effort can lead to remarkable achievements. It can show how handicaps and a difficult living environment can be overcome. (I do not much admire a ‘dream team’; I cheer the ‘underdog’ who is able to defeat the odds). And it can remind us that fair play and a sporting spirit do not need to be sacrificed in the pursuit of medals and results. So for me, the Olympic Games can (and should) be a source of inspiration that goes well beyond the world of sports.

There have been many games, both men and women, of high quality and with plenty of emotion. But it cannot be helped: the format of the handball competition makes you wait for the quarterfinals. In several games, it has been easy to get carried away with the drama and the closeness in the result, until it occurs to you that it is almost impossible to anticipate whether the result in fact has much importance. And this is obviously very clear to the teams, which means that those who have already gained a few points show that they feel it is possible to be a bit relaxed in certain games. And after four days on the women’s side and three games for the men, we already have some clarity. To some extent this is related to the skewed draw of the groups.

In one women’s group, it may seem we have a top trio, who have beaten each other and will end up in the sequence Russia, Croatia and Brazil, if they can win their final group games. But the key match-up here is Russia-Montenegro, where a win for Montenegro would suddenly send the Russians to fourth place, while Brazil would win the group. Even if this were not to happen, it seems one must regard Brazil’s performance as particularly positive after their disappointment in the World Championship half a year ago. And there was clearly special excitement in the game where Croatia managed to beat Russia. It should also be noted that Angola and Great Britain are already out of the running.

In the other group, the tougher one, France has seemed to be the more solid team, also in a physical sense. Some may have been surprised by the Korean, but then they forget that it is Korea’s traditional specialty to come with a cohesive team precisely to the Olympic Games. By contrast, Sweden has been the real disappointment; four straight losses so far, but above all some really uninspired performances. Today’s final game was Denmark’s ‘battle for survival’ against rivals Norway. The game was dramatic, shifting between a narrow lead for Norway and a tied game. Norway scored the winning goal in the final seconds, and this means that Denmark will now join Sweden on the sidelines when we get to the quarter-finals. Frankly, this really fits the Danish performance both earlier in week and in recent time. They are not at their usual level.

The men’s ‘group of death’ has Croatia and Denmark at the top with three straight wins. Tomorrow’s game between the two is likely to determine the group winner. Denmark has not tended to make it easy for themselves, but towards the end of each game they have come through. Spain and Hungary have showed good form but without consistency. The disappointment so far is Serbia; they have looked very solid in a couple of games, but then suddenly they lost their strength and composure. Finally, Korea’s men follow the pattern of being less competitive then their women counterparts.

The other men’s group has come out as expected so far. The key game for advancement to the quarterfinal will be Argentina vs. Tunisia on the final day. Great Britain will try to ‘complicate’ things by getting a point or two against Tunisia tomorrow. Among the three traditional powers, Sweden has been the weaker partner so far. Like the women, they have not shown much fighting spirit. So it will be up to France and Iceland to settle the top two positions tomorrow.

It has really been impressive to see how the British spectators have taken to handball, showing up in large numbers and with great enthusiasm, despite the lack of success for their teams. And then, of course, each one of the other teams has had their contingent of boisterous supporters. So the atmosphere in the Copperbox Arena has really been great!

John Ryan took the risk of offering some forecasts before it all started; I will now try to make it a little bit easier for myself by commenting after all the teams have played one game each. Of course, it is not always so easy to judge a lot from the very first game, because ‘nerves’ or other reasons for an untypical start may make it misleading. But some facts remain: for instance, the IHF’s weird seeding methods clearly have created one exciting and one more boring group for both the men and the women.

John did not seem so optimistic about our PanAmerican representative on the women’s side, viz. Brazil. But they cannot be so bad when they defeat Croatia despite seemingly trying every method to ‘give the game away’. — Russia almost seemed to have the same mindset, but they were able to hold off Angola even though the game was tied 10 minutes before the end. Should we believe that the Angolans are better than expected and could cause trouble for, say, Croatia or Montenegro? — It is unlikely that many of the British spectators understood how surprisingly respectable the British team effort was in the 19-31 loss against Montenegro. At times they looked quite good, but in many situations their relative lack of experience did them in. Lost balls, crazy shots and other mistakes were costly. But they are clearly not going to be an embarrassment.

In the other group, the revelation was that the Koreans seem to follow their tradition of always coming extremely well prepared and focused on the Olympic Games. They had no problems in taking charge of the game against Spain. — Denmark and Sweden played a rather mediocre game, where Sweden squandered a three-goal half-time lead through an absolutely miserable second half. It is difficult to see any of these two teams as a medal candidate, especially after having watched the final game of the day. — Here Norway and France, all in all, played a game at a higher level, with a fast pace and strong individual performances. The final result, 24-23 to France, does not really explain what happened. Norway gave away the game in the early going by falling behind 1-6. This was too big a handicap. At one stage in the second half, however, the Norwegians seemed to explode into an incredible comeback. But all they managed to do was to get the goal difference more respectable. Who knows, perhaps these two teams will meet again sometime next week.

In Men’s group A, the ‘easy’ one, Iceland and Argentina had the morning game, which evolved into a ‘run and gun’ battle. The goalkeepers had a tough task, but a key performance was provided by Icelandic back-up Gudmundsson. Olafur Stefansson was perfect from the 7-meter line. In the end, their greater accuracy and experience allowed Iceland to pull away, to the delight of their fans which included the country’s President. — Tunisia showed some glimpses and cannot be taken lightly, but it is clear that Tej, Hmam and Meganneh are getting on in age. The new revelation was tall, 21-year old Jallouz, an ‘Abalo type’. In the end, Sweden’s very diversified offense was enough, especially combined with a strong effort from Mattias Andersson in goal and an alert Doder. — The British team could have had a gentler draw; France as opponents in the opening game must feel a bit overwhelming. But the Brits kept it to 5-8 during the first 15 minutes, before the French team, without playing their best line-up, turned up the pace and got 21-7 at half-time. The second half continued much in the same way and led to a final result of 44-15.

The Koreans did not have the stature or strength to match up well against the forceful Croatians. It is probably premature to judge after just this game, but one wonders if perhaps this is the moment of a Croatian comeback, where the younger generation teams up successfully with Balic/Vori/Lackovic. — Spain-Serbia turned out to be as thrilling as one had expected, at least for about 55 minutes. After Hombrados unexpectedly had had to enter to replace an injured Sterbik, the Serbs had pulled away to a four-goal half-time lead. But then it was back and forth between a tied game and a narrow lead for Serbia in the second half, until two alert interceptions and fast-break goals seemed to demoralize the Serbs. From 18-20 it went to 24-20 in favor of Spain in six minutes. The game was not exactly elegant; instead it was characterized by wrestling, clumsy offensive fouls and technical mistakes. — In the third match in the ‘group of death’ we had Denmark against Hungary. This also tends to highlight a duel between Mikkel Hansen and Laszlo Nagy, but that duel today became anticlimactic. Hansen was overshadowed by several teammates, especially Mogensen and Eggert. Nagy was mostly noticed for being benched after two 2-minute suspensions, and then at the very end two costly turnovers. After 15-20 minutes the Danish ‘machine’ had gotten warmed up and a deficit was turned into a half-time lead 13-10. But in the second half the Hungarians soon caught up. The result was 25-25 shortly before the end, but then the Danes scored the final two goals of the game.

When I now, for the first time in 20 years, plan to follow the Olympic Games through television and the internet, instead of as an IHF official, it really occurs to me: there are so many other interesting sports, and handball has a tough competition. That was not an issue during my IHF years, when the Olympic Games for me mostly meant total immersion in handball, almost seeing it as two parallel world championships for men and women. And apart from the Opening Ceremony, there was not much time and opportunity for anything else.

So now it clearly occurs to me what an imbalance we have between the Summer Games and the Winter Games. Of course, it is a matter of personal taste, but in the Winter Games there are not so many sports that catch my attention. Of course, if you are a fan of ‘movement’ on snow and ice you will disagree, but the variety just is not there. I enjoy the icehockey, especially as these days all the best players tend to be there. But being a spectator of, for instance, curling, ski-jumping and cross-country skiing almost puts me to sleep. Some of the other sports have their exciting moments and performers. By contrast, now that the TV/internet coverage is so good, in the Summer Games I have a hard time figuring out my choices, even with the help of taping set up on two TV sets. My handball watching will have to suffer….

So how about the idea of trying to ‘even out’ the size of the two games and the assortment of sports. If you think of it, very few of the sports in the Summer Games really have to take place in the summer; in fact, most of them are sports that normally have their season in fall/winter/spring. This of course tends to apply to the indoor sports, not just handball/basketball/volleyball, but also for instance, badminton, fencing, wrestling, boxing, and swimming. On the other side, one would have to agree that track & field, sailing/rowing/canoeing, cycling and equestrian work better in the absence of snow and ice. But, mischievously, would it not be exciting to imagine, for instance, triathlon in the winter.

More seriously, it would seem feasible to switch at least half a dozen sports, like the team sports handball, basketball and volleyball, together with some individual ‘power sports’, such as boxing, wrestling and judo!? Apart from the viewpoint of TV/internet audiences worldwide, it would also seem to provide better balance in terms of the work of organizers and media, and the convenience for spectators. It seems that the problems that come with having 11.000 athletes at one huge event (compared with about one fourth of this number in the winter) are really a bit much. And very few countries and cities can realistically handle something of this magnitude.

Also, the current size of the Summer Games creates almost a ‘zero-sum’ situation regarding the desire of including new sports, adding events to existing sports or adding the number of athletes per event. This can only be done through the elimination or reduction of some sports. And handball is suffering the consequences. In the typical discriminatory fashion, not so long ago we had to accept a limit of 8 women’s teams compared with 12 men’s teams. Now we have grown gradually to 12+12, but the price has partly been that we must accept that only 14 players are allowed per squad. This is of course a handicap when teams are used to 16 players in a World Championship. So most teams had difficult choices to make and now some of them additionally have a dilemma due to injuries and illness, because they have no margins.

Of course, as the IHF President has been heard suggesting, for handball there might be a further incentive for moving our (indoor) handball to the Winter Games. We see with some envy that volleyball has two variations in the Summer Games, both the traditional indoor format and the beach volleyball. As beach handball is growing in popularity, it might soon be realistic to think of it as an Olympic sport. But in the current circumstances, with the ‘zero-sum’ situation I mentioned for the Summer Games, it seems rather impossible to imagine that beach handball would get the opportunity, as a second variation of an existing sport, ahead of the many new sports that are pushing hard to be considered. But if the pressure was relieved by switching sports, including indoor handball, to the Winter Games, then the odds might become more favorable.

In the past, the idea of expanding the winter games to include sports requiring large indoor arenas would have been rather unrealistic. In the days when St. Moritz, Cortina, Lake Placid, and Albertville were the typical kind of host cities, it would have been impossible to allow for many more athletes and the construction of major arenas. But this is no longer an issue, because recent organizers have included Vancouver and Turin, and Munich was a strong candidate for 2018. So it should always be possible to find organizers that have both the facilities required for the traditional (outdoor) winter events and the resources and infrastructure to handle some indoor sports in addition.

It would be interesting to get your reactions!

A few days ago, I wrote about the unusually young group of referees who will be handling the Olympic handball. I noted that they, of course, have been in several IHF events before, so they should have a clear a sense for what the IHF, and especially the teams, want to see from them. And they have been selected on the basis of showing a certain ability to live up to the expectations placed on them.

The IHF Referee Commission always takes great care in connection with the Olympic Games to provide the referees with all the necessary instructions regarding important rules issues and interpretations. But it should be noted that the focus is on reminding the referees about points of particular importance and on giving feedback about the aspects which have led to less satisfaction in recent World and Continental Championships. What must not happen is that the referees are given ‘new’ instructions or any advice that would suggest major changes in interpretations or procedures. On the contrary, the teams must be able to trust that they are not encountering any surprises when the event starts.

Even beyond that, the real objective should be to get all the referee couples on the same wavelength, so that there are no differences in interpretations and styles between couples or from one game to another. We do not want ‘robots’ out there, and their personalities are not supposed to be ‘erased’, but consistency is the key word.

Consistency also means applying the rules in the same way from the first moment of a game to the last. For many years now, it has been emphasized that serious fouls early in the game must be identified and handled firmly. If a foul deserves a direct 2-minute penalty or even a disqualification, then it is not an excuse that it is (‘too’) early in the game and that all the yellow cards have not been ‘used up’. Similarly, the rules do not change in the final, critical moments of a game. The referees must show courage and avoid the temptation of becoming ‘diplomatic’ in those situations, meaning that they overlook infractions or penalize too softly. We do not want to see that the team which is more cynical or ruthless than their opponents gets an advantage.

In some recent events, including EURO 2012, there was a general sense that the handling of offensive fouls had been a week point. The most common problem was that such fouls were ‘invented’, meaning that offensive fouls were called even if the confronting defender was moving, or if there was a sufficient path between two defenders. But the opposite mistake also happened: clear offensive fouls were not detected, especially away from the ball. More generally, action away from the ball requires strong attention. Players are very ‘smart’ in realizing when they can more easily get away with something without being caught. Especially the struggle between attacker and defender on the 6-meter line is critical. It is necessary to take action to put a stop to the ‘wrestling’ and to detect who was the instigator.

There is always an inclination to give too many hints, so that the overall message becomes diluted. Therefore I will not comment on other aspects of a technical nature. But I really do want to finish by emphasizing the role of our referees in maintaining a positive atmosphere and creating a good image for our sport. This involves maintaining sufficient discipline, with a clear line (for both coaches and players) between spontaneous reactions and systematic protesting and provocations. Similarly, the faking of injuries and the general attempts to mislead the referees (and provoke the opponents) by falling or screaming in a dramatic way must be brought under control.

I emphasized in my earlier article that we need referees who have the physical capacity to match the speed and the physicality of the game. But I also noted that, ideally, this should be combined with experience. And while experience can be important for the ability to judge body contact etc., it is perhaps even more important in the context of handling the relations with the players and coaches and even for the self-control of the referees. Yes, we want quick reactions and good instincts, but we also need the ability to stay cool and to avoid impulsive actions and decisions. Let us hope it works out!

I am sure we would be amazed if one of the top teams in the Olympic tournaments announced that they would bring a very young team, with only one player having previous Olympic experience. And nobody tends to suggest that experience is not relevant in the refereeing, so perhaps you will find it shocking when I point out that only ONE of the 17 nominated couples has experience from a previous Olympic tournament. This is the couple Krstic/Ljubic from Slovenia. But before you start getting nervous, I will try to provide some explanations and reassurances.

Olesen/Pedersen (Denmark) and Lazaar/Reveret (France) handled the medal games already in the 2009 Men’s World Championship, so they are no newcomers. The Spanish couple Raluy/Sabroso handled the men’s final in 2011, and the Norwegians Abrahamsen/Kristiansen handled the final in EURO 2012, apart from having been at the top level for quite some time. Geipel/Helbig from Germany have three World Championships under their belt, and they are remarkably the only German handball presence on the court in London, as the German teams did not qualify.

The ‘Balkan’ referees, apart from Kristic/Ljubic, tend to be among the younger members: Gubica/Milosevic (CRO), Nachevski /Nikolov (MKD), and Nikolic/Stojkovic (SRB). The same goes for the Czechs Horacek/Novotny. But all these couples have been in men’s and/or women’s World Championships at least once. France is the only nation with a second couple, as the Bonaventura sisters are one of the two women referee couples. The other one is Florescu/Duta from Romania. It may seem as if two women’s couples is not a lot, but it is in fact an important milestone on the way towards, one hopes, a more balanced composition at the top.

As always at the Olympic Games, the host country is entitled to have both teams and referees participating. This is not the first time that the Olympics have been held in a country with modest handball standards, and it requires a careful balancing act to fit these rather inexperienced referees, Bartlett/Stokes, into the match schedule. From Panamerica, the nominees are Marina/Minore (ARG) and from Africa Coulibaly/Diabate (CIV). The Asian continent sends two couples: Al-Suwaidi /Bamatraf (QAT) and Al-Marzouci/Al-Nuaimi (UAE). These non-European couples have the disadvantage of not being able to gain the same match experience as the European, but they are the best ones in their respective continents at this point. And all of them have handled one or two World Championships.

So what are then the explanations for the major rejuvenation of this top group? It is really a combination of two factors: first, the demands on the top referees are in several respects so great, that they can no longer combine this hobby (which is essentially what it is) with career and family responsibilities for very long. In the past, the typical career for an IHF top couple may have lasted for about 15 years, from around age 35-37 up to the age limit of 50. But that duration does not tend to be realistic any longer, especially in Europe, where the combined demands at the national level and from the many EHF games are considerable. So it was not surprising that more than half of the European referees who were in Beijing in 2008 retired soon afterwards, well before the age of 50.

But the need for rejuvenation had been anticipated by the IHF, and a pipeline in the form of the Global Referee Training Program had been created. In other words, the IHF actively seeks out young talents and puts them through systematic training, testing and observation. This makes it realistic to bring individual couples faster and earlier to the top level. And this combines nicely with the reality that nowadays the physical and mental demands of the game at the elite level necessitate having referees who are in top shape and can handle the speed and physicality without fatigue and loss of concentration. However, as I said at the outset, experience is also a key component for successful refereeing, so it will be interesting to see how the group in London will collectively withstand the pressures and handle its importing task. We wish them success!