A World Championship serves many purposes, so there are inevitably conflicting objectives and views regarding the best format. Almost any format will help us determine the medal winners in a fair manner. But beyond that, there are many different opinions.

Some argue that a World Championship with x teams should have as it overriding objective the participation of the x best teams in the world. (It seems to me that football could argue that they come close to that, but no one has explained how this could be easily achieved in a sport like handball). Others note that the main thing is to have close and exciting games between evenly matched teams, for the sake of attractive TV coverage and good PR for our sport. But many remind us that we are talking about a [u]World[/u] Championship and that all continents must have a chance to participate fully.

Unfortunately, there has been too little debate about how these seemingly conflicting objectives could come together under one particular format. Most of the ‘debate’ has focused on whether 24 teams should be divided into 6 groups of 4 or into 4 groups of 6. Sorry, but this is just a bit too ‘myopic’. If experienced people came together, surely many interesting ideas could come out of a thorough and uninhibited brainstorming. I am prepared to offer one particular idea, without any claims that it is the ‘best’ idea, let alone the only idea. But at least it shows that one can find ways of combining objectives.

The teams from the non-European continents want to participate in THE World Championship. They do not want to be told to go and play in a ‘B’ World Championship. They want to see and learn from the top teams. But they are sometimes a bit naïve: I read that the players from Thailand saw it as’ the best thing that had ever happened to them’ that they had had the chance to play against Russia, even if they lost 8-45. I am afraid that nobody else is interested in, or helped by, such a game. This is not why we organize a World Championship.

But there are stronger teams, ‘just below the top’, from all continents, who genuinely want to have a chance to play against solid teams from other continents, where the winners advance to the final stages and games against the real top teams. These teams deserve such a chance. And it should happen within the framework of one big event.

The top teams, who often also have many of the top individual players, who are already ‘stretched to the limit’ in their club teams, probably would not mind an event that is somewhat shortened for them and where they avoid some of the most one-sided games. So what does this point to?

The idea would be to keep 24 teams (qualifying in the same way as the 24 teams who are now in China) but to allow 8 top teams to go directly to a ‘main round’, saving 4-5 days for them. These would be the highest-seeded teams, but with the caveat that Africa, America, and Asia would need to be represented among the 8, so typically there would be the top 5 Europeans and 3 Continental champions.

The teams ranked 9-24 would play in 4 preliminary groups of 4, with more or less the current seeding procedures, so that the teams would get to play teams from the other continents. The best two in each group would advance to the main round, while the lowest two would go to a President’s Cup for the places 17-24, ensuring them enough games in total to make the experience worthwhile.

In the ‘main round’, there would again be 4 groups of 4, with 2 of the 8 top teams in each group, together with 2 each of the other 8 teams that had just shown (the days before, not one or two years before) that they were the most competitive ones of the remainder, deserving an opportunity to play against the top teams for a chance at the absolute top positions. This ‘main round’ format with 4×4 teams then lends itself to many different possibilities for the final stage, with quarterfinals, with 2 semifinal groups or whatever you want.

This gives ALL the 24 teams a chance, not just to play until the end, but to move towards the final round IF they really are good enough. It eliminates some of the worst one-sided games and conversely, it leads to proportionately many more games where the result is extremely important. Again, I have no vested interest in this specific approach, but I do believe it shows that new, useful ideas can come up if one only really tries.

Feedback would be appreciated, including your own alternative ideas!
Chime in our our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Team-Handball-News/108817968908

In the last couple of weeks, both John Ryan and I wrote about some twists to the unfortunate story where France appeared to qualify for the football World Cup at the expense of Ireland, following an undetected ‘handball’ in a critical moment. We noted the connections to some issues regarding handball, such as the usage of technology. Find our articles here: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.886 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.885

Now this issue and another one from the football qualifying have blossomed and have gained a direct to connection to handball. First, it is a bit laughable but not surprising, that suddenly FIFA President Blaetter has become a great friend of the UEFA idea to use extra ‘goal line judges’, something that he had previously ridiculed. Now this idea will suddenly be discussed for the 2010 World Cup. See one of the news stories on this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1230290/Sepp-Blatter-calls-extraordinary-meeting-FIFA-chief-probes-fallout-Irelands-World-Cup-play-defeat.html

But some of you may also have observed that the qualifying fight (literally) between Egypt and Algeria, in the end won by the Algerians, had led to something close to a state of war between the two countries. And lo and behold: rather than letting sports serve as a way of patching things up, sports events are now being used as a weapon in the fight. As recently announced, see posting on the IHF web site, http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2196 the draw was made for the men’s and women’s African Championship to be held precisely in Egypt in February. Now the Egyptians wanted at least a postponement, especially as Algeria is one of the participating countries, but the African Confederation refused this request and instead ordered that the event be held elsewhere! See news reports: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091129/world/sports_egypt_algeria_diplomacy

John, and other self-proclaimed football haters, stop reading here! Going back to football rules and regulations while I am at it, I cannot refrain, as an old football referee, to make fun of two areas where old-fashioned thinking in football has left them with rules that fail to pick up on simple and successful ideas in handball!

I am talking about the well-known situation in football where a player’s injury causes the game to be stopped even though there was no foul or other reason for a stoppage. How does one then resume the game? Well, one ‘forces’ a team to kick the ball out-of-bounds, after which the opponents voluntarily, and accompanied by thunderous applauds, throw the ball in to the opponents to restore the order. Such eminent sportsmanship!? No, utter nonsense! Introduce the handball principle whereby the team that was in possession gets to restart with a free-throw. Of course, a direct free-kick in football can be somewhat more dangerous and advantageous in football, but an [u]indirect[/u] free-kick is surely a safe and innocent way of getting underway again. But, no, says, FIFA, ‘it is unconscionable’ to use a free-kick when there has been no rules violation. Does this ‘terrible breach of principles’ bother us in handball? Certainly not: the restart with a free-throw is perfectly natural and simple.

Another area where football can learn from us: when the referee whistles for a free-throw against the team with the ball, a handball player knows he has to drop the ball immediately and move away from it. Or else he is out for 2 minutes. There were some faint protests against this ‘bureaucratic’ rule when it was introduced many years ago, but now people are happy about the discipline that it has achieved, precisely the discipline that is so totally lacking in football in the corresponding situation. Players routinely kick or throw the ball away some distance, to get more time to set up before the opponents can take the free-kick. Of course it is a violation, but the established praxis is for the referees, also at the elite level, to close their eyes and accept this unsportsmanlike and irritating feature. So do not tell me that ‘little’ handball cannot be a forerunner in dealing with rules situation. And many football fans (and referees!) envy us for this firm rule. Too bad only that the mighty FIFA is too important to follow our good lead…

As indicated earlier, in connection with my articles about the type of changes that are needed in the IHF By-Laws, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.857 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.868 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.877 the IHF hastily put together a ‘working group’ http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=285&idart=2136to review and discuss all the relevant issues. The group already met, and it seems it miraculously managed to cover all aspects in a meeting during the course of a day. This gives a rather clear indication of how superficial the treatment of the issues was or, more likely, how narrow the focus of the discussions was. Clearly, there are a few, very few, issues that the current regime really finds interesting. One can guess that they involve primarily the Executive itself.

But these are merely assumptions, because transparency exists in IHF only when it is convenient. It is clear that proposals from the working group, which presumably now will quickly cease to exist, will go directly to the IHF Council members, without any opportunity for all the people around the handball world, who elected these Council members, to have a chance to know what is being proposed and to attempt to influence their representatives in the Council. This is likely to serve as a good illustration of what kind of By-Law changes could be anticipated…

Friends of handball in all the continental and national federations: surely you are not content with this kind of process, where you will not even know what the issues are, let alone what the proposals will be, until they are placed in front of you for the ‘extraordinary’ IHF Congress in Rome. Surely you will want all the time from now on to review and form your own opinions about what the working group has discussed and proposed, and perhaps even more important: what it has failed to discuss and propose. Everyone knows that, at the time of the Congress, there is little hope for an individual national federation to bring up successfully its own ideas and/or to resist the ideas that are presented as the opinion of the Council. Act now! Demand to know!

IHF By-Laws: Desirable Changes (Part 1): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.857
IHF By-Laws: Desirable Changes (Part 2): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.868
IHF By-Laws: Desirable Changes (Part 3): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.877

IHF By-Laws: http://www.ihf.info/upload/Manual/IHF_STATUTS_CHAP_01_GB.pdf
IHF By-Law Working Group Members: http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=285&idart=2136to
IHF: Meeting Days at the IHF Office: http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2308

One of the areas where I had hoped to be able to continue to work in the IHF towards further improvement is the collaboration between match officials and team officials in the pursuit of good sportsmanship and a positive image.

Here the [u]two aspects[/u] that come together, or sometimes clash, are the need for the [u]coaches and team officials to carry out their function without unnecessary constraints[/u] and the need for [u]our sport to project a favorable image[/u] at our major event. The coaches have a job to do, and this inevitable involves emotions, physical (re)actions, acts of self-interest, and even some ‘gamesmanship’.

[u]The match officials[/u], both the referees and those ‘at the table’, have the job of contributing to a [u]good atmosphere[/u], enabling the players to display their skills, reducing the risks to the players, providing a ‘level playing field’ by [u]applying the rules in an even-handed manner[/u], and generally helping create a [i]positive image[/i] of our sport. I think it is fair to say that problems, when they do arise, are generally [u]initiated by the teams and the coaches[/u], while the match officials tend to have more of a preventive and enforcing role. But it still makes sense to me look at the issue from both perspectives.

If one listens to the [u]coaches[/u], they attach a lot of importance to seeing the match officials do their job in a pragmatic, common-sense fashion, [u]without undue bureaucracy[/u], and without hiding behind rules and regulations. They want to see real reasons for any constraints placed on them when they are trying to do their job in a tough situation.

A [u]coach[/u] will also, quite reasonably, expect that the match officials have a good deal of [u]understanding for the circumstances[/u] under which the coaches work. The coach expects appreciation for the fact that it is not a like a desk job where one calmly tackles one task after another. In the match, the coach is under great pressure, gets many reasons to react strongly, and finds it natural and inevitable to express the emotions in a verbal or physical manner. The match officials must be able to [u]distinguish[/u] what is natural and spontaneous from what is calculated and unsportsmanlike.

From the standpoint of the [u]coaches[/u], it is also vital that the match officials are absolutely [u]consistent[/u] in their dealings with the ‘benches’, just as they expect consistency in the referee decisions on the court. Credibility and respect will quickly be lost, if one team is admonished or punished for its bench behavior, while the other team is allowed to ‘get away with’ things that are just as conspicuous. This is compounded, if the clamp-down is on ‘bureaucratic’ aspects, while unsportsmanlike actions are ignored.

The [u]match officials[/u] also tend to have their ‘pet peeves’. Nothing becomes more irritating than a coach or team official who is constantly acting in a [u]provocative[/u] manner, for instance trying to ‘help’ the referees discover an offensive foul or a passive play. These [u]calculated[/u] ways of influencing are resented more than a spontaneous reaction after a referee decision. Coaches somehow do not want to appreciate that and, conversely, match officials are often [u]letting it go too far[/u]. Somehow it does not seem so easy to deal with it…

A major dilemma arises for the [u]match officials[/u], when an otherwise well-behaved coach [u]ignores or loses control of the behavior of his/her players[/u] on the bench. Perhaps it is understandable if the ‘head coach’ gets too caught up in what happens on the court; and this may be why some coaches delegate the ‘letter A’ (the designation for the ‘responsible team official’ under the rules) to someone else. But there can be no excuse if [u]none[/u] of the officials realizes that things have gotten out of hand, so that instead the match officials have to step in with punishments, a situation that is guaranteed to cause further irritation. But the fact is that one [u]cannot ignore[/u] a bench with players who do not just spontaneously celebrate a goal but constantly jump up and down, protesting referee decisions with words and gestures, or even ’egging on’ the spectators.

A third cause for friction is when the [u]table officials[/u] encounter a coach who thinks so highly of himself/herself that [u]arrogance[/u] becomes the main attitude displayed towards the ‘lowly’ table officials. There are many gimmicks involved, such as ‘playing games’ with the ‘green card’, constantly and knowingly blocking the view of the ‘table’ despite reminders, ignoring requests for common courtesies, such as attending to some minor but important formality. Dismissive gestures also tend to part of the ‘arsenal’. Again, ‘strange’ behavior caused by stress and emotions is understandable, but deliberate disrespect has no place in the game.

In other words, there are [u]aspects that need and can be improved from both sides[/u]. Part of the problem is that the overall issue of collaboration, sportsmanship and image tends to be ignored. Contacts between federations and teams/coaches rarely focus on such matters in anticipation of a major event. It seems that [u]much could be achieved by simply starting and maintaining a dialog [/u]about the importance and benefits of avoiding irritation and controversy during matches and instead keeping the need for a positive image in mind.

Clearly it would be of great help if [u]coaches[/u] came to accept that their job is not just to lead their team in a determined and partisan manner towards victory. They are key representatives for our sport and highly visible. They must realize and accept that they do [u]have a responsibility for the image[/u] and the future success of our sport.

The same goes for those who nominate [u]‘table officials’ [/u]and those who serve in that capacity. These functions should not be filled on a ‘political’ basis, as rewards, or on the basis of positions held in a federation’s hierarchy. Instead, these are positions which require suitability, training and experience. I suspect that federations tend to make the double mistake of not establishing a specialized group of officials and, moreover, of finding it awkward to question the competence and the need for training on the part of those whom they do nominate. This is not fair to the teams, and it is not good for [u]our image[/u].

Views on this issue would be appreciated!

First I want to thank John for not pointing out that the referee and linesman who missed the conspicuous ‘handball’ were from my country of origin. There is now even some absurd debate raging as to who was the main culprit: the player who intentionally committed a ‘handball’ or the referee who did not catch it…

But it brings up an issue that has an interest also in ‘real’ handball. An ironic twist to the whole story is that UEFA President Michel Platini, a former star player from France(!), has pushed UEFA to experiment in the 2009-10 edition of the ‘Europa League’ with the utilization of two ‘goal judges’ in addition to the normal complement of referee and ‘linesmen’. These judges are supposed to help determine with greater certainty if a ball actually crossed the goal line, but they are also expected to intervene in the case of any type of violations near the goal, precisely such as Thierry Henry’s handball, if the referee somehow fails to see it.

One can be almost certain that if FIFA had adopted Platini’s idea for the World Cup qualifying matches, the deciding ‘handball’ would have been detected, and France would have been out! Now FIFA has to deal with the embarrassment. Both UEFA and FIFA, just like the IHF, have experimented with new, emerging equipment that is intended to determine electronically if a ball has fully crossed the line. However, it is apparent that this type of equipment has not yet been sufficiently developed to be trusted in major events. This is one reason why Platini, who in any case has stated that he is generally against drawing too much on technology, went for the ‘human’ solution.

Handball has its goal-line referee position, so the only part that is interesting for handball is the goal-line sensor, determining ‘goal or no goal’ in those situations, for instance a fast-break, where the referee cannot yet be in a goal-line position when the shot is taken. It is unclear when sufficient technological progress will have been made on this point. But handball also needs to deal with the broader issue of using modern technology, especially in the form of video review. Before I left the IHF, I left behind a draft for an initial policy in this area. I can only hope that it will not collect dust for too long. Handball may not be able to use video reviews as extensively as some other sports do, but some suitable situations can clearly be identified. Let’s hope action will be coming, and perhaps I will offer some concrete ideas in a future posting.

Finally, returning to John’s point about the different types of ‘handball’, including the one that is illegal in football/soccer. The Australians have just decided to dump the name ‘soccer’ in favor of football. It is too bad that we Americans cannot do the same, just because someone in our country stupidly decided to put the label ‘football’ on a game that cannot possibly do justice to that name, considering that it is nearly all about hands…

Today’s Norwegian newspapers offer some interesting revelations. http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/11/20/sport/handball/handballjentene/vm_i_kina/gunnar_prokop/9120791/ http://www.vg.no/sport/haandball/artikkel.php?artid=592528 In preparation for the upcoming World Championship, one of the key players on the Norwegian team, goalkeeper Terese Pedersen, is back in Norway from her employment with Prokop’s club Hypo. She takes the risk of revealing a few things, something which she realizes is likely to make her less than welcome back in Austria after the World Championship. But she also indicates that the current season is likely to be both her first and last one in Hypo in any event. The situation there is “too turbulent for her taste”.

Pedersen’s key revelation is that [u]Prokop has essentially ignored the suspension he was given by the EHF[/u]. “He is at the [u]training sessions[/u] in his usual manner. During last week’s return game against Metz, he stayed at home watching on television but was in constant phone contact with his daughter, who was at the game and relayed [u]his instructions down to the ‘marionette’ coach on the bench[/u]”. I assume EHF President Lian reads the Norwegian newspapers; what will he think, what will he do??

Pedersen also comments that Prokop’s actions that got him suspended for 3 years “was the most shocking thing she had ever experienced”. She especially was taken aback by his disgraceful behavior immediately after the game, when she herself “would have liked to disappear through a hole in the ground.” Rather than regretting his behavior, when he met with the team afterwards, he blamed his actions on them: they had played too poorly!

She also notes that Hypo has declared that they will stop salary payments if the team does not qualify for the next round in the Champions League. And the December salaries are being withheld for players like Pedersen who, against the wishes of Hypo, have accepted to play in the World Championship. Pedersen says she will fight this action. But Hypo’s coercion has caused three Brazilian star players to decline to play for their national team, as they cannot afford to deprive their families of the money they would stand to lose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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