In connection with their hosting of the Olympic Games, the British have been very quick and proud to use a lot of media articles to proclaim that they are the ones who ‘invented’ a large proportion of the sports in the Games and a whole lot of other sports as well. The lists vary from source to source, but they often include sports which some other countries have been in the habit of claiming as theirs.

Most people are ready to accept that soccer/football originated in Britain, but the lists generally also tend to include archery, badminton, boxing, field hockey, rowing, sailing, swimming, table tennis, tennis, track & field and water polo. If you disagree, please do not blame me; I am just passing on the consensus of British media! Of course, they also want to take credit for some (currently) non-Olympic sports, such as cricket, croquet, golf, rugby and squash. I think they probably also have the rights to some other strange things such as netball.

But they are quite prepared to accept that, by contrast, other countries deserve the credit for a small number of Olympic events, such as the U.S. inventions of basketball, volleyball and triathlon. Similarly, they are willing to admit that the Germans seem to be the ones who started gymnastics. And in some footnotes there are references to the competing claims for the obscure sport of handball from Denmark and Germany. The British seem quite content not to have anything do with that ‘un-British activity’.

And yes, this confirms what I have always noted, both in conversations with British friends and with people from around the ‘Anglo part’ of various continents: it is really the ‘fault’ of the British that our revered handball has had such a scattered emergence around the globe. In Africa, for instance, it is very clear that North Africa and some francophone countries on the West Coast keep dominating, together with the special case of Angola. By contrast, I remember asking government officials about handball during visits to Kenya and Ghana, former British colonies, and I was met by a blank stare.

The same fate was generally bestowed upon Commonwealth nations in Asia, so this is why handball has always had this awkwardly polarized situation in Asia, with strongholds around the Persian Gulf and in China, Japan, and Korea. India is only recently beginning to participate in handball, but at a very modest level. Similarly, the Australians were, and mainly remain, handball novices when they were hosting the Olympic Games in the year 2000.

Another interesting twist involves the French overseas ‘regions’ of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion, which you could say have amounted to ‘secret weapons’ for France in the international competition, producing world-class talents such as retired stars Richardson and Abati, together with current top players Dinart, Narcisse and Sorhaindo. I bet the British team would not have minded having some reinforcements like that on their team in the London Olympics.

The early starters in PanAmerica were Canada and USA in the north and Mexico and Argentina in Latin America. But this certainly had nothing to do with a British (or Spanish) influence. Migration and contacts related to specific ethnic groups provide more of an explanation. As I noted in one of my recent articles, the lack of immigrants from regions with handball background to this day remains a handicap for handball in the U.S., compared with the steady and natural inflow of newcomers who have grown up with soccer. So when we ponder this reality, let us remember that, essentially, the blame for handball’s difficulties in the U.S. really lies with the British and their lack of appreciation for handball…

As a ‘footnote’, while it has been very nice to see the enthusiasm of British spectators for a sport which has no background in their country, and while the preparations and competitive spirit of the British handball teams were admirable, there are already signs that handball in Britain may not be able to count on a sustained boost in the aftermath of the Olympic Games. Quite surprisingly, it was already reported shortly before the start of the Olympics that the participation of the British women’s team in the upcoming World Championship qualifying had been cancelled. And now we are finding media reports to the effect that the government is already bringing the British handballers down to earth after their Olympic excitement. Much in line with the situation in the U.S., the government has declared that funding will only be provided for sports with genuine chances for an Olympic medal!!!

As most of you are likely to be aware, the IOC and FIFA have worked out a special deal under which the Olympic football tournament is essentially available only to players under the age of 23. Three players per team are allowed to be above that age. This particular rule came into effect in 1992. In 1984, the previous prohibition against participation by ‘professional’ players was lifted, and the rule for 1984 and 1988 limited the participation on European and South American teams to players who had no previous World Cup experience, whereas no such limit existed for the rest of the world. The 1984 ruling was disliked, inasmuch as it created an inconsistency between countries, so this led to the change in 1992.

The reason behind the current rule is that FIFA absolutely does not want the Olympic tournament to compete with FIFA’s own World Cup, while on the other hand the IOC really does not want FIFA to withdraw from the Olympic Games. So this is what causes IOC to allow this unique compromise. It has led to relatively interesting Olympic football tournaments, with a considerably more balanced strength between continents, as compared with the World Cup. African nations have benefitted in the past, and now in London we saw a final between Brazil and Mexico, while Korea and Japan played for the bronze medals. In other words, not one single European team, including the host country, managed to qualify for the semifinals, but the quality of the tournament was still relatively good.

Among some of our readers, it raised the question whether a similar arrangement could be feasible, beneficial and allowed also in handball, and I decided to get the reactions of a number of handball friends from around the world. From a U.S. perspective, it had been suggested that some form of age limit would lead to a ‘more equal playing field’, with better opportunities for non-traditional handball nations. Similarly, it was suggested that in such countries one could hope that this kind of rule could spur an increased emphasis on youth development in handball. And the benefit for the traditional handball powers in handball would be that it would remove the Olympic Games as an additional burden in the competition calendar, which in Europe already entails four other major events in every four-year period. Right now we hear top club teams in Europe complaining that many of their players are coming back tired from London.

But, not surprisingly, I have quickly been overwhelmed by skepticism or, more bluntly, sharply negative reactions during my inquiry. It appears that, as one could sense from the enthusiasm with which even the most experienced players seem to embrace the Olympic opportunity, that this would absolutely not be the way in which the top players would want to have their burden reduced. They would instead want to cut back on World Championships or continental events. Moreover, there is no expectation that the IOC would ever be prepared to discuss such an arrangement for handball. Football is unique in its power base to ‘get away with’ such an arrangement, and IHF would probably be told that if the best players were not be made available, then the IOC would be happy to drop handball and replace us with some other sport(s).

Moreover, as many have noted, the level of a handball tournament for, say, ‘under-23’ would be so vastly inferior to a full-strength tournament that handball would ‘shoot itself in the foot’ from an image and PR standpoint, under the hypothesis that the IOC would allow it. And it is clear that if one looks at the quality of the World Junior Championships, and also reviews what players would in fact remain on the Olympic rosters from London, then the depletion would really be quite dramatic. The top teams in the Olympic soccer tournament had emerging stars who knew how to dazzle the crowds, but we could not count on the same situation in handball.

Several of my sources even doubted the premise that there would be more of a ‘nivellation’ between continents and nations. In fact, I heard the suggestion that the traditional handball countries would be even more likely to have the upper hand if one moved down in the age brackets. And indeed the results from recent years of Junior World Championships seem to confirm such an assumption, especially on the women’s side. To the extent that the ‘other’ continents may have seemed to have had a relatively better chance on the men’s junior side, this is in fact more related to a deliberately more generous allocation of slots to the other continents. So, all in all, the notion of an age limit clearly seems to fail to create any enthusiasm!

As I mentioned in my first post-Olympic comments, I spent time during the second week of the Games in the company of Americans sports fans watching handball on TV. Almost without exception, it was their first opportunity to get familiar with our sport. So it entailed an opportunity to do some ‘preaching’ and explaining, while also listening to often quite amusing comments from the handball novices around me.

The comments included a mixture of the type of reactions that I have constantly encountered during my soon 40 years in the U.S. and some more surprising observations. Generally speaking, handball met with the approval of the people around me, and their reactions showed that this was not just the result of politeness. As often happens, people got excited even without having any prior knowledge of the teams and without being able to appreciate the fine points. “This is such a typically American sport”, was a comment that I have become used to over the years. And “why are we not good at this”, is then the obvious follow-up question.

What people tended to appreciate was the amount of physical contact, especially the fact that this is very much part also of the women’s handball. “This would be something for women who like American football”, was one comment, and “it is nice to see a ball game where you can be successful without being extremely tall”, was the reaction of someone watching the Koreans. Having a goalkeeper, instead of just a basket, was a feature that some viewers felt added a dimension. And the continuous action, without a lot of time-outs, met with approval, as did the existence of the ‘advantage rule’, which some recognized from soccer.

It was also seen as helpful that the structure and action of the game is so straight-forward that it is easy to follow and enjoy also for a beginner. As someone commented, you can easily anticipate when a critical moment is coming up so that you have to focus a bit extra. But then some felt a bit lost in their appreciation for what constitutes an ‘offensive foul’, and I had to admit that the referees did not always manage to show the desired consistency. Similarly, I got comments to the effect that “the decisions about when to give a 2-minute punishment seemed a bit capricious”. This came from basketball or icehockey fans, who are more used to the notion that ‘a foul is a foul’.

Several of my ’emerging handball fans’ seemed to assume that an Olympic sport such as handball “surely already was well established in the U.S.” and that it was their ‘fault’ for not having gotten to know it before. But they assumed it must be a relatively new sport at the Olympics, such as BMX or beach volleyball. They were astonished when I explained the longstanding traditions in Europe but also the comparatively feeble evolution in our country.

Someone offered the astute reflection that “of course soccer has a huge advantage, because so many of our immigrants these days bring that sport with them, while that does not seem to apply to handball”. I also heard the observation that the name ‘handball’ is a problem and ought to be changed. I gently reminded that this might not be so appropriate for Americans to suggest, considering our stubborn insistence on confusing people by referring to a certain sport as ‘football’ although 98% of the ball handling is with the hands… Others noted that the size of the court is a handicap, “as it does not fit into school gyms and would discourage schools from picking it up”. But ultimately, some of my new recruits noted that “as usual, it is likely to be a matter of money and good management”. Perhaps it will one day appear that at least one of my fellow viewers turns out to be a major philanthropist with a weak spot for handball…!

You may recall that my main reaction to the men’s handball competition was one of disappointment. Unfortunately, I must say very much the same thing about the women’s tournament. In fact, the similarities are quite amazing. The 2008 champions, on the women’s side Norway, managed to defend the title without really impressing anyone while doing so. Just like in the case of the men, it happened because none of the other team’s showed their normal strength, which would have been enough to deserve to win and to manage to do so. Just like the French men, the Norwegian women were on their way to disaster in the quarterfinal, but their opponents kindly let them off the hook!

The main difference was perhaps that the final for the women had more real drama and excitement, in comparison with the men. Once they managed to qualify for the final, it was not surprising that the team from Montenegro would put up a real fight for the gold. In fact, they were a bit unlucky in losing the final, and it is my background in refereeing that inhibits me when it comes to explaining why I think so… Women’s handball in Montenegro is perhaps the best parallel to men’s handball on Iceland. The population is twice that of Iceland, moving towards 700.000, but the pool of talented handball players is small.

The focus in Montenegro is on team sports, but football and basketball are clearly ahead of handball, and even volleyball is a strong rival for athletes and spectators. But in recent time it is handball that has given the headlines. Buducnost won the EHF Champions League just a few months ago, and now Bojana Popovic, their perennial world-class player led them to the silver in the final match of her career. She had previously won World Championship bronze with Yugoslavia in 2001 and five earlier Champions League titles for Danish clubs. Montenegro hardly looked like a team for the final in the early going. They lost to both Brazil and Croatia, before they managed to tie Russia. But the breakthrough came in the quarterfinal, where they knocked out the equally tough and combative French team, one of the favorites.

The Koreans are always giving priority to the Olympic Games, so they tend to build up their team in four-year cycles. This time, the team showed many of their traditional strengths in terms of speed, energy and tenacity. But somehow they never looked as sturdy as their colleagues from the past, so their style combined with injury problems seemed to make them run out of steam after they knocked out Russia in the quarterfinals. Talking about Russia, their veteran coach Trefilov urged them on during the games in his well-known loud and ‘desperate’ style. But this time his team did not respond to his emotions and efforts. At times they seemed to play in ‘autopilot’ fashion, without their usual spark. So Trefilov was bitter afterwards, announcing his retirement and predicting a bleak future for Russian women’s handball. Indeed, handball is a much more modest sport at the national level in Russia than their international achievements over the years would suggest.

The Spanish team never looked like a candidate for the gold. They were solid and consistent, just as their performances in recent years have suggested, with a third and a fourth place in the 2011 and 2009 World Championships. But there seems to be some ingredient missing that would get them to the top. By contrast, Brazil lived up to the expectations that they might be the ‘dark horse’ this time. They had the advantage of fielding a team that has been playing together for a while now, also through the agreement with the Austrian club team Hypo. They seemed ready and determined to battle for a medal and the performance in group play was impressive. While they lost to Russia, the wins against Croatia and Montenegro were enough to put them at the top of the group standings. They appeared to be riding this wave initially in the quarterfinal, having an amazing 15-9 lead against Norway after about 38 minutes. But it seems they got carried away, suddenly feeling too confident and losing concentration. After too many mistakes and a seemingly casual attitude, they lost the game they almost had won.

Finally, before the event, one of the discussions involved the lop-sided draw resulting from the strange seeding. Who would be the two teams, among six strong ones, who would not make the quarterfinals from the ‘group of death?’ Not so unexpectedly, this fate was shared by Denmark and Sweden. In the past year, Denmark’s women had suddenly but clearly come down from their traditional level, missing out on a medal in 2011 and not being very impressive in the preparation games this year. Sweden got a direct path to London, not because of their performance in 2011 but as runner-up in EURO 2010. But there were doubts about their team strength that now became confirmed. It seems that Sweden may need to rely on reinforcements from a new crop of talents, the winners of this year’s junior world championships.

Most people who follow sports might have expected that there would be frequent headlines about doping during the Olympic Games. And indeed there were some instances, although some of them involved revelations that dated back to previous Olympic Games. Testing methods have now improved, although they always seem to lag behind the skills of the perpetrators and the experts helping them. But this meant that some samples that had been kept since previous Games were now tested and led to positive results. But the number of new cases during the competition in London thankfully seemed smaller than expected.

Instead, anyone who followed the Olympics must have heard about the stories that seemed to create such outrage and astonishment: athletes who manipulated the rules to gain an advantage. Of course, much of this depends on the nature of the respective sports. In handball and football, for instance, players will constantly and intentionally use methods that go beyond the rules, in the hope that the referees will allow them to get away with it. What goes on, literally below the surface, in waterpolo is perhaps best not to discuss. And a small nudge in an 800-meter race or sneaky move in a bike race seem to part of the normal competition.

But it is very different, when someone is accused of intentionally trying to gain an advantage by not winning a game or by causing something within the rules that is meant to force the judges to do something that is in their favor. To make it worse, some of the athletes do not seem to be the slightest reticent about openly telling the world afterwards about what they did, that it was intentional, and what they hoped to gain. In such cases, it is hard to know whether someone’s admission of guilt is really desirable… However, what is also sad to see is that, in many instance, naïve or thoughtless rules and competition formats play into the hands of those who want to get an unfair advantage, In other words, in many cases the problem could have been avoided if they sports federation had been a bit smarter.

The case that has received the most publicity is that of some badminton players who conspicuously tried to outdo each other in avoiding to win the game between them. The situation was that it was known to both the doubles teams involved that they would get an easier opponent in the next round if they lost the game. So it became a ‘game of chicken’, in the sense that both teams were guilty of action that was intended to make them lose points and then the game as a whole. The judges and the spectators were furious but helpless. But afterwards, because of the public outrage and the image problem, the players were kicked out of the tournament; and now after the Games, they have been given a more drastic suspension than the worst doping offender.

In team sprint cycling, a team fell behind from the start, whereupon one of the members fell intentionally and caused a restart under the rules. Moreover, he openly admitted afterwards that this had been part of their plans all along. The team went on to take advantage of the restart. In another case, the real issue was more a bureaucratic mistake, but it became a hot topic as it involved a gold medal winner in a high-profile event. One of the favorites in the 1500m race for men had also been entered in the 800m competition. But when he realized that this might be too much for him and reduce his chances in 1500m, his federation forgot to withdraw his entry. So to avoid disqualification he was forced to come out ready to start; but when he limped off the track during the first lap, the jury members got incensed and wanted to get him thrown out of the Games. A medical certificate, friendly or honest, resolved the matter, and his start in 1500m was rescued; whereupon he showed his class and won the gold medal!

Women’s football attracted attention, as in one of the groups the teams seemed to calculate that it was better to be a runner-up than a group winner, in order to have a supposedly easier path afterwards. With much less attention, there was some talk about the same thing possibly having happened on the final day of group play in women’s handball. Speculation was heard about a calculation on the part of the defending Olympic champions Norway, that it might be just as well not to fight too hard to win the final game, as a defeat might get them a less experienced opponent in the quarter-final. Of course, such an accusation would be very awkward, giving the virtual impossibility of ever showing what the intentions were. But then the topic lingered a bit, especially after Norway did win the quarterfinal.

As I see it, in the cases of badminton, football and handball, the real problem is related to the competition format. So for me it is an absurdity to punish the badminton players in the way that has now happened. Speculation about the advantages of not always winning a game or using the strongest line-up in a particular game happens routinely in many sports throughout all levels of competition. The job of a federation that wants to reduce the likelihood of such gamesmanship and the negative PR that goes with it, is to ensure a tournament format and schedule that reduces such opportunities. I know from experience that, precisely in the Olympic Games, the individual sports federations do not have free hands in the same way as in a World Championship. But some flexibility surely does exist.

And there may also be conflicting considerations. In handball it is clear that a format with groups of six will be more likely to create situations where manipulation may be tempting. The chances of having meaningless games, or games where neither team cares much about winning, are greater. The issue is to keep such games at a minimum, through smaller groups or more emphasis on direct-elimination games. This might lead to fewer games for the weaker teams, but (unlike the situation in a World Championships) this might be tolerable in the Olympics. It may also be preferably to use a draw to determine opponents when moving from groups to the next stage, rather than relying on a predetermined format. And of course, it does not help if, as in the case of handball this time, the draw and the seeding were knowingly flawed from the beginning, with one stronger and one weaker group for both the men and the women…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be interesting to get your reactions!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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