In ‘handball-world.com’ there was an article on December 3, which was at the same time worrisome and almost amusing. On the surface, it was primarily a statement from the referee chief Peter Rauchfuss in the German Federation (DHB), apropos a pronouncement from the German Bundesliga (HBL) boss Frank Bohman regarding the need for professional referees. http://www.handball-world.com/news-index.php?LID=1&GID=1&auswahl=28751

As I would have expected from Peter Rauchfuss, who is very experienced and always seems to demonstrate common sense, he points out how impossible or undesirable it would be to try to make a sudden switch to professional (= full-time employed) referees. He notes, among other things, that the demands of the refereeing function at the elite level require individuals with strong personal talents and important career experience, ideally with some managerial competence. Handball in Germany or elsewhere does not have a situation like in the NBA or NHL, where young referees with demonstrated talent can be recruited and built up for a solid long-term career situation, in a setting where the financial circumstances make it realistic to give up on an alternative professional career.

Regrettably, the HBL representatives seem to understand too little about the world of refereeing to help carry on a constructive debate. Statements which imply that the Bundesliga referees do not spend more time on refereeing and preparations than the time they spend on the court actually refereeing the HBL games show a totally unrealistic understanding and constitute an insult. But it is also clear from other statements that the issue of professional referees is really a ‘bogus’ issue. What really seems to be at stake is just one more aspect of the battle for power and prestige between HBL and DHB.

What HBL should appreciate is that they enjoy the benefits of strong traditions and a situation where DHB is one of the absolute top organizations in providing high-quality education and management of handball referees. Peter Rauchfuss and many of his colleagues are really first rate. What HBL instead might ask is if they contribute sufficiently to a situation where DHB, in its responsibility for refereeing from the HBL at the top down to the very bottom of the ‘pyramid’ in Germany, really needs solid resources to handle the specialized training and monitoring at the elite level, not just in terms of manpower but also for instance in terms of technology. But this is a very different matter from HBL suddenly wanting to seize control over an area where they do not have any particular expertise.

Not just HBL, DHB and German handball want high-quality refereeing in the Bundesliga. What goes on there is a major issue of propaganda for our sport globally. So, although I speak without knowing exactly what resources Peter Rauchfuss currently has at his disposal and how advanced his operations are in a scientific and technological sense, I am sure that there must be room for improvements. So clearly HBL could and should assume a responsibility for contributing, rather than focusing on power and prestige.

But the training of the existing referees is not the only consideration. The Bundesliga has become the strongest league in the world by having the resources, through its clubs, to recruit the very best players and coaches in the world. In a similar way, it would seem natural to reinforce the resources available to DHB and HBL by also utilizing top referees from outside Germany. Surely they are many IHF referee couples within easy reach who could surpass the quality of the bottom half of the group currently used by the HBL. It would be quite realistic for a dozen such couples to handle one or two games per month in the Bundesliga. Moreover, this would be logical, in the sense that the exodus of players from many countries to HBL has lowered the quality of the national leagues in those countries, to the point that it is detrimental to a number of top IHF/EHF referees who do not get enough real top quality matches in their own countries.

When you see this heading, perhaps you will find it to be of some consolation that this time I am not talking about incidents in handball. But what I will comment on involves a mentality that suggests that there is no reason why we would not have similar problems in other forms in our own sport. Perhaps the rules in handball do not lend themselves to quite the same behavior, but I am sure also we have some loopholes.

I should not really keep you in suspense any longer. My story involves football/soccer, and more specifically something that happened in a Champions League match between Ajax Amsterdam and Real Madrid, two of football’s most prestigious clubs, a little over a week ago. First I need to explain that in football, unlike in handball, a warning (a ‘yellow card’) is not necessarily wiped out or meaningless once the game is over. In football, whether under FIFA, UEFA or national federations, there are regulations which mean that if a player accumulates a certain number of yellow cards during a competition (or a segment thereof) , then he will be suspended for a match.

So late in the match I mentioned, there were two key players from Real Madrid who knew that if they received one more yellow card before the match ended, then they would be suspended in the next match. And as their team was leading 4-0 close to the end, and as the next game, the last one in the group play, was essentially meaningless, it would be preferable to be suspended for that meaningless match. If they instead played in that match and received another yellow card, they would be ineligible in the next, much more important game, namely the first round of the subsequent knock-out competition.

So, at their own initiative, or more likely at the instigation of their notoriously selfish and cynical coach, they caused (=forced) the referee to give each of them a yellow card for time-wasting, an absurd action in a game that their team had already won. The Amsterdam spectators and the TV commentators immediately understood what was up, and the players got the nasty reaction that they deserved.

But the saddest part came later. When media started criticizing the players and coach, the reaction was totally cynical. “There was nothing strange about it; this is what many players do all the time”, was one of the responses. The coach naturally denied any involvement but defended his players. “Of course we expect our players to behave in the best interests of the club”, was the comment of another team official.

And even worse: in response to newspaper and web reports, the ‘general public’ started weighing in. And I am talking about people with no particular sympathies for Real Madrid but just regular football fans. Most of the comments involved criticizing the media for “making a big deal about it”. Others saw it as a reaction of envy aimed specifically at Real Madrid. Yet others came up with the wonderful suggestion that “the players should be applauded for drawing their yellow cards through harmless action, instead of doing it by kicking the leg of an opponent”. And then there were some who criticized the referee “for not outsmarting the players and (illegally)refusing to give them the yellow cards that they had to be given under the rules”.

I can have some understanding for cynical and unsportsmanlike reactions expressed in the heat of the battle, at the moment something happens. But to find that ‘sports fans’ calmly, a day or two later, find it normal and appropriate to go out of their way to express such opinions, that tells me that regrettably these ‘sports fans’ have very little sense for what sportsmanship is all about, and it tells me that players and referees in any sport must expect to be treated and judged in that kind of fashion. If they act properly, then they must expect to be considered stupid or soft, but if they commit a ‘professional foul’ or an unsportsmanlike act that benefits the team, then they will be celebrated and considered smart.

Whenever there are some changes in the rule book, which typically happens no more often than every four years, there is always some apprehension among players, coaches and referees, and some confusion on the part of general handball public. The changes that took effect on July 1 this year were quite limited in scope, so this is likely to be one reason why there has not been a loud debate about the impact of the changes. But there have been a number of comments in the media, with views expressed by both team representatives and spectators, so I will focus on three specific areas that have received some attention. In doing so, I have not just picked up media reports, but I have also had conversations with some former colleagues on the IHF Rules & Refereeing Commission.

The major change in the rule book in terms of structure and text was in Rule 8, the very fundamental rule on fouls and misconduct. This clearly makes people wonder if the intention was to change how the game is supposed to be played, but I referred to ‘structure and text’ precisely because the intention was not to change the meaning of the rules and their interpretation more than marginally. Nevertheless, it seems that there have been some isolated instances in some countries, where the instructions have been misinterpreted or have not reached out to everyone. We do know that, unfortunately, not even all of the traditional handball countries have a strong structure in the area of referee education and rules interpretation. So for many of the ‘small’ handball countries the challenges are obviously even greater.

Anyway, it seems that some referees and instructors had misunderstood the intention to be that, from now on, fouls and ‘dirty play’ should really be clamped down on and be punished more harshly than before. But this was/is not the case. The goal of the changes in structure and wording was to provide more clarity. The structure of rule 8, with one ‘ladder’ for fouls and one for unsportsmanlike conduct now better matches the concept of ‘progressive punishment’ and also makes much more clear what are the differences between fouls that are more of a ‘routine’ nature and those that need to be singled out for tougher punishment immediately.

Moreover, instead of examples, the explanations and distinctions are now based on criteria. This should have the effect that the referees could now feel more secure in their decisions; so to the extent that this meant that previously they were in some cases less certain and therefore went for a more lenient action, then on the margin there could be some sense that in some individual cases we now see a tougher line. But any general trend towards more 2-minute punishments or ‘direct red cards’ should not really exist. So any suggestion that the IHF has generally escalated the interpretations is wrong!

One particular situation has caused some debate or dispute: the new statements in the rules regarding the situation where a goalkeeper leaves the goal area to try to intercept the ball during a counterattack for the opponents. For reasons of injury prevention, it has now been made abundantly clear that it is the goalkeeper who carries the basic responsibility for avoiding dangerous body contact. He/she can observe the evolving situation, whereas the opponent, with a typical focus on the ball that is coming from behind, is more vulnerable. It is almost impossible to try to make this rule crystal clear on paper or by describing a specific game situation verbally. One must see it live or have it on video, but at least the principle just mentioned should be clear.

The intention is not to find more reasons to disqualify goalkeepers. The objective is to greatly reduce the risk for major injuries and to make the goalkeepers think and act accordingly. They must change their instincts. This may mean that in some cases they decide to stay in their goal area and that, in other situations where they find themselves outside and confronting an opponent, they think ‘safety first’ and literally go out of their way to avoid a collision. And the good news is that goalkeepers generally seem to have gotten the message. They seem to think and act in the way we were hoping for, and there have been very few reports of situations where goalkeepers had to be disqualified for careless actions. It is understandable if a goalkeeper sometimes feels inhibited or frustrated by this ‘threat’, but surely this is much better than the option of considering a change whereby the goalkeeper is prevented from leaving his area!?

Finally, just a short comment on a third aspect of the new rules: the IHF decided to introduce the concept of a ‘coaching zone’. There is full understanding for the instincts and wishes of a coach to be physically active during the game; but it was felt that the job can be done without moving in front of the time/scorekeeping table, blocking the view of the people working there and ‘being in the face of’ the match delegates and increasing the risk for confrontations. There were some arguments that we would now hide behind bureaucratic rules, instead of trying to make the more important distinction between a correct working method and an unsportsmanlike behavior on the part of the coaches. But all the indications so far are that the concept of the ‘coaching zone’ is workable and has served its purpose.

In other words, there seem to be reasons for satisfaction both with the desired effect of the changes and with the willingness and ability of the coaches and the players to adapt! However, it may be a bit premature to jump to the conclusion that the rules have helped the referees put the game on the right track. We have not yet reached the critical stages of the Champions League, which through television reaches out and sets examples that could be both good and bad. And above all, in less than 2 months we have the men’s World Championship. Here it will really be critical for the IHF and its very best referees to show that the new rules help achieve consistency, and more specifically at the right level!

Being of Swedish origin, I have of course always known about the reputation of the Danes for being the outgoing, gregarious types, especially in comparison with the boring, introvert Swedes. So when national teams visiting the United States create or experience some commotion, perhaps it is not surprising that they are Danes.

The first little story is from the late 70s, when the Danish men’s team, captained by Anders Dahl-Nielsen, visited for four or five matches against the U.S. national team, on the West Coast and in Texas. I was a referee in the two games in Texas. The first game was played in San Antonio, more precisely at Fort Sam Houston, the birthplace of military aviation. And the old, dilapidated ‘gym’ looked more like an abandoned hangar. But it was the setting for a really first-rate game.

Then we moved on to Texas A&M University, a school where engineering is one of the main fields. So the players on the local team spent the day before the game manufacturing the goals, and unfortunately the paint was not quite dry yet in time for the Danish team’s practice session. But more solid goals with more exact measures I have never seen.

But the real story came during the barbeque party that the hosts had organized out on a ranch nearby. We were brought out there on a cattle transport, and it was very nicely arranged with lots of food (and, yes, some beer) plus a lot of activities. The Danish players especially enjoyed the ‘bareback’ riding. But then we could all here some gun fire. The Danes were not so preoccupied at first, but then someone inquired about the reason. The nonchalant but not very reassuring answer was: “don’t worry; it is just our guards at the perimeter, shooting the rattlesnakes that they spot!!!” This brought the riding to an abrupt halt, and the now very pale-faced players suddenly looked much more like Swedes…

The next episode was caused by the Danish women’s team a few years later, and here the commotion was definitely caused by the Danes. They had a free day at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, prior to the start of a 4-country tournament, to rest and come to grips with the jet lag. The Training Center is a fenced-in area without public access, so in the strong sunshine at the high altitude the players thought it would be a great idea to sunbathe in the normal Danish manner, i.e., topless!!!

Well, apparently this abomination, by Colorado Springs standards, could be seen from some distance through the fence by some people passing by. The local police was quickly alerted and came out in full force to deal with this major security problem. Who knows what kind of riots could have resulted if this exposition had been allowed to continue. Naturally, the police came well equipped with video cameras to secure the evidence. Apparently they saw it as a serious matter that could not be left unpunished. Arrests and/or immediate deportation were being discussed. The tournament seemed to be in danger.

A desperate colleague from the USA federation reached me at home, where I was just about to start my travel to Colorado Springs. The plea was: ‘could I, as someone of Scandinavian origin but familiar with proper American behavior in public, speed up my travel to come out quickly to explain things to the Sherriff; especially to testify that the behavior displayed by these Danish people was perfectly normal and acceptable in Scandinavia and that they could not reasonably have suspected that the habits are so different in the ‘land of freedom and liberty’.

Fortunately, it was possible to convince the authorities, and the tournament could take place with the Danish team [u]on[/u] the court instead of [u]in[/u] court. The worst thing that happened to any of them was a 2-minute suspension. But for some time afterwards, there remained some hesitation about inviting those free-spirited Danes again. About the video evidence collected: I guess we were lucky that this was long before the days of YouTube…

Many of our readers know about Inaki Urdangarin, probably the most successful player in the history of Spanish handball. The final role of his career was as a captain for the Spanish national team in the 2000 Olympics. I had met him earlier, of course, as he was always very approachable and friendly both on and off the court, but that’s where I got a chance to see how he nicely he juggled the final stage of his playing career with his family responsibilities. That’s where he first introduced me to his wife, H.R.H La Infanta Dona Cristina and we had a nice chat in their native language. But I must admit I got a bit rattled when he soon thereafter wanted to introduce me to ‘his mother-in-law’. It took me a few seconds to realize that I was about to face H.M. the Queen of Spain.

Anyway, Inaki, now better known as the Duke of Palma de Mallorca, is now an established family man and well into a professional career, drawing on his academic background in business administration. The interesting thing is, however, that after his transfer last year to a new position with Telefonica, the large Spanish multinational, he has now doubled the number of handball fanatics in the Washington D.C., area, as he lives across town from me in a Maryland suburb.

When his move first became known, I was joking with some handball players in the area that perhaps they could entice him to join their modest local team, and I suggested to the USA federation that they ought to find a way to rope him in and get some help with the propaganda efforts for handball in this country. After all, the Spanish made themselves ‘popular’ for their colonial spirit here in the Western Hemisphere a few centuries ago, so the spirit of converting the ‘hedonists’ from basketball to handball would be natural thing. Well, I figure that, more realistically, the former handball star has been too busy with work, family, and representational duties to worry much about handball in the U.S.

But I did get a shock the other day, when a friend drew my attention to a photo that was floating around on the internet:

[img]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4642/bewf7bd86.jpg[/img]

bicycle riding is of course just fine; but that terrible way of bringing up one of his sons by allowing him to… well, I do not even want to mention the word here! Of course, I could not use words as strong as ‘treason’ when commenting on the acts of a member of a Royal family, even if I know that our handball friend would understand the ‘pique’ intended and save me from court marshal procedures.

But I hope this article will somehow in some mysterious ways get to his attention, so: I beg you dear handball friend: put a stop to this before it is too late. Tennis, in the spirit of Nadal, would be OK, especially given your position as the Duke of Palma de Mallorca, but not…. And I think the only way to make amends at this point would be to find an opportunity to make some handball propaganda among the ignorant Americans while you continue to live among us!

There are some interesting developments and rumors in the Croatian handball. It is well known that the dominating club on the men’s side, Croatia Osiguranje Zagreb, is undergoing a form of ‘restructuring’, in terms of ownership and status. This naturally is combined with increased ambitions regarding the club’s strength and status on the European scene. One key objective is then obviously to hold on to Ivano Balic beyond his current contract. He is assumed to like the idea of finishing his career at home in Croatia, but someone of his caliber will always be sought after by other wealthy clubs.

But the real ‘coup’ would be if the rumors are true that the club also endeavors to try to sign up Nikola Karabatic next season. http://www.handball-planet.com/2010/10/nikola-karabatic-to-join-hc-zagreb/ The mere thought of a Balic-Karabatic combination at the club level is obviously very intriguing. That would surely create a serious obstacle for the German-Spanish domination in the Champions League. Of course, many observer if the notion of having these strong rivals and handball personalities on the same team is not just a bit too explosive and risky. Would they really be compatible and how would it affect the team’s cohesiveness?

One of the dominating personalities in Croatian handball during recent decades has clearly been Zoran Gobac. He has just resigned from his position as Chairman of C.O. Zagreb, and he has also announced that he will leave his key position in the Croatian Handball Federation next year. http://www.balkan-handball.com/english/co-zagreb-chairman-zoran-gobac-resigned From my observations during my IHF period, Gobac has had a great and positive influence on the status of handball in Croatia. He would surely be leaving on a positive note, if the developments described above were to materialize.

Finally, another key figure in Croatian handball, Lino Cervar, continues be a person in the spotlight. After his many years of great successes, but also some degree of controversy, as the coach of the Croatian national team, he is currently coaching the Macedonian top club team Metalurg Skopje. The desire of the Macedonian Federation has been to get Cervar to extend his services also to the men’s national team. It seems, however, that this will not happen, as the wealthy sponsors of Metalurg frown at the idea of supporting in this a national team that apparently is not enjoying any kind of serious backing from the Macedonian government and its sports authorities.

Yesterday the IHF hosted a brief conference ‘Forum for the Future of Handball’. Discussions were held on three areas of topics: Game Structure and Development, Handball on TV, and Handball and its Partners. This type of conferences often produces very little in terms of new discoveries and great ideas. And it is not realistic to pursue topics very far during just a few hours. But it is still useful to have these events, because ideas that may already exist or be rather obvious may be given some added legitimacy or momentum simply by being discussed in a highly visible forum outside the closed doors of the IHF.

The IHF has issued a brief statement commenting on the main conclusions in the three areas. http://www.ihf.info/MediaCenter/News/NewsDetails/tabid/130/Default.aspx?ID=467 I will basically focus only on the first part, leaving the issues of handball on TV and marketing for later. Generally, it is easy for me to welcome and support the conclusions regarding rules and refereeing, because I have written about many of these topics in recent time.

I am not surprised to read that “the speed of the game has reached its limit” and I fully agree. This is not out of concern for the referees, although that is one consideration, but simply because I have heard numerous top coaches and players express the same sentiment in recent years. The control and quality would suffer with increased speed. And the current pace of the game may be high enough also for the spectators to handle.

From a TV standpoint, I am not surprised to see that there was support for an additional team time-out per team and game. This makes sense, but only in games broadcast on TV. For normal games, the current situation, with one time-out per team and half should remain adequate. Additional ones would cause unwanted extensions of the game at the lower levels.
Of course, I am especially happy to see agreement that the method of ‘video review’ should be pursued in the near future, in support of referee decisions in special circumstances. Over the last year, I have written detailed articles in support of such a development. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.977 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1052 But it will require a careful determination of appropriate procedures and safeguard, and it is obviously only realistic at levels where adequate camera coverage is available.

Otherwise I am very content that there was not a ‘flood’ of suggestions for rules changes. This tends to be the ‘easy solution’ when improvements are sought. But at this time there are no glaring problems in the rules, and stability would be important in the near term. Quite correctly, the emphasis was instead placed on measures in support of the top level referees. Also here I have written extensively and recently, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1099 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1095 noting that the IHF referees continue to need strong support also after they have been able to reach the World Championship level. Cognitive skills, decision-making capacity, and human relations skills are just some of the relevant aspects. And, as always, their understanding of the tactical and technical aspects of the game remains vital.

So, it is nice to be able to support what is being reported. But once again my frequent concern: why where there virtually no current top players in the Forum? Their perspective is very important!

In an article some time ago, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.908 I described the IHF’s Global Referee Training Program (GRTP) as a success story, but I also emphasized that the ‘hard work needs to continue’. The Program will have its purpose and its initial success undermined, if the former participants do not get the follow-up that most of them clearly need. I noted that the IHF ‘must shift gear and focus more on continued nurturing’.

In this regard it must be kept in mind that many of the GRTP ‘graduates’ come from countries where they cannot count on strong support in the form of technical experts and financial resources. And the match experience will also come extremely slowly and randomly, unless the referees are European and can benefit from the intensive competition program of the EHF. Clearly it is not enough that these referee couples get an IHF event with good supervision and refresher training with one or two years’ interval. It is the continued nurturing that is crucial for referees who are still young and at a critical stage in their career: will they ‘take off’ and become elite level referees, or will they stagnate and find their GRTP training mostly wasted?

If one looks at the issue from a European perspective it is easy to say: ‘we, the IHF, have helped identify these young talents, and we have given them a jump start with intensive education and testing within the GRTP; now it must be up to the national and continental federations to handle the follow-up.’ But this is not realistic in most cases. Apart from the lack of technical experts and other resources, there is also the crucial aspect of a lack of suitable match training on a regular basis. It is not good enough to say: ‘sorry, we cannot change the realities in the continent; the countries in the continent must try to help each other on a bilateral basis etc.’ What must be kept in mind is that, while the initial training of referees within the GRTP obviously is beneficial for individual countries and continents, [u]the main beneficiary is the IHF itself![/u] It is the IHF who needs to bring these referees gradually up to the elite level, so that the IHF can meet [u]its responsibility[/u] of providing adequate refereeing in the senior World Championships.

Clearly, this is not a task that can be handled by a small group of volunteers, such as the IHF Rules & Refereeing Commission. They have the technical expertise, but there are too few of them for the many tasks they need to manage. Every year they have to focus on a number of Youth/Junior Championships and continental events. But they do have additional technical experts who could be utilized on a more continuous basis. So the manpower is not the main obstacle. It depends more on a determination to invest enough in the nurturing phase for the IHF referees, by ensuring that the overall manpower can be assigned to follow the referees more frequently and individually, especially in connection with matches. It also means that the manpower must be spread out, so that there are resources available to set up training camps and test events. And there must be strong, competent resources available from the IHF Office. But mostly it is a matter of budgeting and giving it sufficient priority and prominence.

If, as suggested in some of my recent articles, there is a feeling that the refereeing job at the elite level has become so demanding that one must begin to consider using [u]more than 2[/u] referees in a match, or to use new or expanded methods under the 2-referee system, then it would seem obvious that first of all we need to make sure that the existing IHF referees are more closely and thoroughly supported in their climbing towards the top. If a football referee from Uzbekistan could become the big surprise at the recent World Championship, then this is not explained just by extraordinary personal talent; it is also a testimony to the huge efforts undertaken by FIFA in making such referees ready for the very top. IHF must do the same!

A few days ago, I took our THN readers on an excursion into a possible future, with a THREE-referee system for the elite level in handball. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1092 The premise was that, at the top level, the speed and dynamics of today’s game offers insurmountable challenges for also the best trained referees. There is simply too much to try to observe and react to in today’s elite handball. So, after 40 years of using the 2-referee system, should we not at least consider the possibility of adding a third referee just at this level, and therefore start examining and experimenting with this approach? There has not been much time for feedback on my thoughts yet, but the feedback I have received has been predominantly positive. Handball people agree with the issue, and many feel that at least an unbiased and unprejudiced examination would be appropriate.

But in my article I also promised this ‘Part 2’ which you have now started reading. Here the focus is more on what things we might do to [u]improve the situation under our current 2-referee system[/u]. Of course, we have been continuously trying for many years to assist the referees with training, guidance and new methods. But undoubtedly more could be done. The basic issue is that the referees need to see more of what happens in the game, with a focus on what is relevant and with greater accuracy. And then there is the correct understanding of what happens and the resulting correct or optimal decision-making.

Clearly more can be done to help ensure, even on a mandatory basis in the case of the elite level, that the top referees spend more time with teams during practices to understand better the modern tactics, techniques and methods. An improved ‘[u]understanding of the game[/u]’ obviously contributes to a more correct anticipation of what happens on the court and enables the referees to improve their positioning. But the game understanding also helps the referees properly focus on the relevant aspect of a situation and to interpret better what they physically see but may not otherwise understand correctly. (I will here just mention fitness as another key component in positioning.)

In part 1 I mentioned briefly the recent rejuvenation of the referee corps at the elite level. In part this has been necessary to replace ‘early retirees’, but there has also been a conscious effort to rejuvenate, in line with the increasing focus on fitness, speed and agility. However, there is a downside to this: experience is not exactly irrelevant, let alone a handicap, in the efforts of a referee to handle the job in an optimal way. It is not enough to anticipate and to physically see accurately. In the many complex situations on a handball court, it is also important to know and detect the most relevant cues in what you see. This largely is helped by [u]experience[/u], by having seen the same type of situation ‘a thousand times before’. The same goes for the ability to interpret the cues and translate them into good decision-making. So it becomes critical to help the talented young referees to get the maximum out of their more limited experience, through professional feedback and evaluations, supported by video from their own games and more generally.

There are also scientific methods that help referees (just like the athletes) to improve their [u]visual attention[/u], to reduce their ‘cognitive anxiety’ (e.g., the pressures of the situation), and to upgrade their ability to ‘read complex patterns of moving objects’, i.e., players and balls. For me the comparison with an icehockey goalie is a good one. He might have a more dangerous job, but he really has be razor sharp in focusing on the relevant aspects of a fast-moving and stressful scenery in front of him. And training is available for such functions.

Moving on to other aspects of technology: I have commented in the past on the great advantages that have already been gained from the usage of [u]wireless communications [/u]between the two referees and a supervisor at courtside. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.801 The referees are getting increasingly used to this new method and use it more and more intensively. It adds an extra pair of eyes in the sense that one of the referees can help his colleague focus on the right aspect of what is happening at a particular moment, and it is also facilitates a timely exchange of information about important trends in the game. But in that latter sense, an extra pair of eyes is also available if the observations of a really [u]competent supervisor[/u] are used more fully. IHF has initially been very cautious, limiting the interventions to a very specific number of serious issues that fit the supervisor’s traditional role. But this needs to be expanded, assuming it is ensured that the person ‘in the loop’ is indeed a refereeing expert, who should then be able to alert the referees in a much broader set of circumstances with observations and advice.

I have written entire articles https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.977 about the prospects of using [u]video review [/u]in certain specified situations in games where adequate equipment and staffing is available, i.e., specifically at the very top level. In such situations, however, the capacity does not have to be used entirely in a ‘defensive’ sense, meaning to sort out a problem after the fact. With a video monitor available to the supervisor in the kind of circumstances described in the previous paragraph, the role of the supervisor and the usage of the wireless communications could also be enhanced. With this I mean that it would help the referee supervisor provide more accurate feedback and advice.

Finally, while there has been a particular focus on providing up-to-date guidance regarding running paths and moving patterns (largely thanks to the efforts of my IHF successor Manfred Prause), especially as it relates to counterattacks and other turnovers, there has not been the same strong focus on positioning under the current ‘diagonal’ approach in the 2-referee system. Yes, the emphasis has been on admonishing the goal referee to focus more exclusively on the action at the 6-meter line, something which by default tends to increase the burden for the court referee. But less has been done to help this court referee, and it seems this should be given more attention. In my personal opinion, one thought would be to suggest [u]more flexibility in positioning[/u], picking up on the main advantage of the ‘side referee’ position under a hypothetical 3-referee system by having the court referee swing over to the side line position with some regularity. But additional ideas would surely come up in a brainstorming.

And my whole purpose of today’s comments and ‘Part 1’ a few days ago, is really to [u]encourage brainstorming and to push for an examination of new approaches[/u], both under the 2-referee system and under a possible 3-referee system. We must guard against the old attitude that ‘everything is already perfect!’

When one is an IHF insider, particularly in an exposed position such as that of the Referee Chief, one has to be careful about commenting openly and spontaneously about new issues and ideas; they can easily be misunderstood as formal proposals that are about to be introduced, or at least as ideas that have been carefully thought out and tested. So in my capacity of a former IHF insider but now just a web writer, I can be more carefree and bring up topics just for the purpose of provoking reactions and discussion. My provocation today involves the question if there is now a need for additional eyes, as far as the refereeing of games at the absolute top level are concerned.

In part 2, a week from now, I will comment on aspects such as more intensive utilization of the communications system recently introduced for the referees and the supervisor in events at the top level of handball. I will then also touch on the utilization of video cameras and replays in games at those levels where this might be feasible. Positioning will be another consideration. And I will also discuss ways of taking education and training a bit further in the efforts of helping the referees to see and understand what is happening on the court, involving areas such as anticipation, concentration, attention and decision-making. But today I want to concentrate on the question as to whether it would make sense to consider [u]introducing a third referee in games at the highest levels[/u]!

It is almost exactly 40 years since the 2-referee system was officially introduced in handball. (Of course, I am fully aware that in many parts and levels of the overall handball world it remains necessary to use only one referee in a game, simply due to the shortage of qualified referees). During these 40 years, the game has developed tremendously, especially at the elite level. IHF and continental/federations have made major efforts to help the referees through refined instructions regarding work distribution, positioning and running paths. There has been a lot of emphasis on ‘understanding the game’, as a requirement for better anticipation and positioning. Conditioning and agility have been emphasized, partly in combination with a rejuvenation of the referee corps at the international level.

But the basics of the 2-referee system, in terms of the ‘diagonal’ approach and the work distribution have remained unchanged during the entire 40-year period. Is it not reasonable to think that the time has come, at least to [u]examine[/u] whether the existing system is optimally used and even whether it has reached its limits; in other words whether there is scope for adding a third referee at the [u]elite[/u] level?! In the next few paragraphs I am [u]not pushing[/u] for such a change. I will merely try to bring out some of the aspects that would need to be considered in detail. But in doing so, I am naturally hoping that somebody will find the time and the energy to examine these issues in practice!

Clearly one should not consider adding a third referee without analyzing thoroughly the purpose and the role. As I see it, it should add a position, ‘side referee’, that allows someone to observe the action between attackers and defenders in the critical area, between the 6-meter and the 9-meter lines, from another (often better) angle, standing at the side-line. It should also provide relief for the ‘goal referee’ and the ‘court referee’ so that they could focus more on actions away from the ball, which in the case of the goal referee means a more constant focus at the 6-meter line without any conflicting priorities. The court referee should be able to stand further back from the players with a chance to get a broader overview, not necessarily following the ball movements so much, in a position that would also help at quick turnovers.

The main concern if adding a third referee is that there would now be one more person feeling compelled to ‘justify his/her existence’. In other words, one would have to guard against too much overlapping in the responsibilities, especially between court referee and side referee, with a risk for unnecessary or premature interventions. Teamwork and trust would become critical, and ‘preemptive’ communication (through microphone/headsets), like “I have it”, would minimize the risk that a referee feels that it is necessary to step in for a colleague who in fact has decided [u]not[/u] to whistle. There would also have to be a basic guideline that the court referee mainly takes situations outside the 9-meter line and/or near his side-line, while the side referee is the main person for situations between 9 and 6 meters and/or near his side-line.

Obviously, what I have just outlined is only one possible model for using three referees, and experimenting and comparisons might lead to new ideas. There would be a number of specific details to work out under such a system. For instance, would the three referees move up and down the court during long periods without changing their relative positions? This would mean that the ‘side referee’ would be in that role at both ends. (Instead of the current diagonal, it seems clear that the goal referee and the court referee would be near the same side-line). Would it under this system make sense to keep the side referee at one and the same side line all the time, or should one shift the whole ‘triangle’? And another detail, how would one best handle the 7-meter executions? But these are details in the overall scheme…

What I would sincerely hope is that unavoidable transitional problems, like under any type of change, would not discourage people from at least considering the whole idea. Of course such a new system would require adjustments and adaption, but this is what we handled well when the 2-referee system was introduced. Also, during any experimentation, it would be important not be too quick in jumping to conclusions in one direction or the other. Different variations should be tried and one should have a lot of time for feedback from the participating referees. And the testing would have to be done under realistic conditions and in events with elite teams, because this is the only relevant level.

In recent years, the IHF has embraced the notion that the rules and referee development must go hand in hand with the developments in the game itself. Therefore I am optimistic that there will be an interest in looking further into the potential advantages of having a third referee at the elite level.