In its meeting today, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the body that takes all decisions on changes to the universal FIFA playing rules, took some fundamental decisions. Regarding the issue of applying technology to ‘goal or no goal’ situations, it must be described as a remarkable turnaround over a period of just a few years. FIFA had previously agreed with the position so strongly held by, for instance, UEFA President Michel Platini, that the human factor, and therefore also human mistakes, must remain a part of the game. It had even been suggested that the occasional controversy about some critical mistake would be good for football… But after today’s situation, considering the worldwide exposure and influence of football, one could imagine that the debate about use of technology might pick up also in other sports such as handball.

It should be noted that the alternative (or possibly supplementary) approach of positioning assistant referees at the goal-line was formally approved as a permitted approach under the global rules. But the main focus was on the use of technology, and after extensive testing approval was now given for the use of two different approaches. One is essentially the system known from tennis (Hawkeye), with high-powered and appropriately positioned cameras being the key component. The other one is Goalref, a system based on having a computer chip inside the ball. This is the approach tested by the IHF, also during a Junior World Championship a few years ago.

It should be emphasized that while these methods, assistant referees and two forms of technology, are now officially permitted, they are not in any way mandatory. It was noted that the approach based on technology would currently have a price tag of US$ 150-250.000 for each field. Obviously, this would be realistic only at the elite level. But FIFA expressed the hope that the price would soon come down considerably and that other, possible less expensive, methods could be developed. The reliance on assistant referees also carries a cost. Perhaps more important than the match fees paid to them, there is the issue of removing experienced officials from the job as referees in their normal matches. In some countries, there have been concerns about assignments as assistant referees in UEFA matches making top referees unavailable as referees in their national league. Every method has its price.

In football, FIFA is frantically underscoring that there are no plans to extend the use of technology beyond the ‘goal or no goal’ situations. But many observers sense, probably correctly, that once the barrier has been broken and technology has been allowed, then there will be arguments for an expansion, perhaps to offside situations and decisions whether a foul took place inside or outside the penalty area etc.

In handball, we have discussed use of technology, for instance video review, for additional situations. The crux is to draw the line between situations that involve the observation of absolute facts (where technology might be appropriate) and the subjective judgment by the referees (where a further review must not be allowed). And there are matters of fact, where help by technology could be useful. If an error can be corrected immediately, rather than causing a formal protest after the game and a possible replay, much would obviously be gained. This could involve giving the wrong team the ball for a restart, not observing that a suspended player remains on the court, or forgetting to stop the clock in situations where it is mandatory. Other situations involving disputes about the playing time could also be included. But the key is to ensure that the normal flow of the game would not be negatively affected.

On a different but very sensitive issue, the IFAB also decided to give temporary approval for wearing head scarves in official competition under the FIFA rules. It was indicated that there is insufficient material to judge whether any health or safety issues might exist, so this is the reason why the approval is only temporary while experience is gained. The question of the exact design also remains to be settled. Clearly, while handball action takes place relatively more ‘around the level of the heads of the players’, with arms flailing etc, it is difficult to imagine that there are objective reasons for handball to have a different ruling from football on this point. Indeed, permission for head scarves was in fact ‘snuck into’ the IHF Rules in 2010, despite an earlier intention to wait for a common approach together with other sports. One would assume that the FIFA ruling now contributes to making head scarves a non-issue in handball for the future.

I have written about other aspects of this general topic before, but now additional information has come to my attention that raises issues. What triggers my reaction is the sudden decision by the EHF Court of Arbitration (the third and highest level in the EHF structure for legal matters) to accept the appeal from the German Handball Federation (DHB) and rescind the 2-game suspension that had previously been given to Dominik Klein for an unusual situation in the last game of Germany against Poland in EURO 2012 last January.

Many of you will remember this situation, where Klein pushed a Polish player, who in turn fell on top of another German player which caused a serious leg injury. The referees showed Klein a red card, indicating a disqualification, and some days later there was an announcement that Klein had been given a 2-game suspension by the Disciplinary Commission at the EURO 2012, which would keep him out of last week’s and this week’s qualifying games against Bosnia. (The suspension did/does not apply to club games). It was later announced that DHB had appealed the verdict to the Jury (in the case of a centralized competition such as EURO 2012 the second level, equivalent to the EHF Court of Appeals in the case of decentralized competition). The Jury confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Commission.

But this was not the end of it. More recently it was found that the DHB had appealed to the EHF Court of Arbitration. Many, myself included, found this DHB action rather tasteless, because our observations of the incident when it happened, made us feel that a suspension of that length was quite justified, not because of the injury that happened to occur but because of the seemingly reckless nature of the action. We assumed that the referees had classified the action as ‘particularly reckless or dangerous’ and warranting a report, and that the Disciplinary Commission had used its authority and judgment by reviewing the report and concluding that a suspension of 2 games was warranted. Therefore, there was puzzlement when the recent decision by the Court of Arbitration was announced. What could possibly have been the reason for this reversal? It caused speculation, some of a rather sinister kind, insinuating favorable treatment for DHB etc.

Of course, all the speculation could have been avoided if only the EHF had been using a more transparent system for announcing the decisions of its disciplinary and legal bodies. It is the norm that we just get the result but no indication of the rationale. This is really not a very helpful and appropriate approach. (As a sharp contrast and good model, one could point to system used by the National Hockey League (NHL), where great care is taken to explain exactly why (or why not) a suspension has been decided). More facts and clarity would clearly help provide more credibility for the application of the EHF legal system.

Before I go on and explain what actually seemed to happen back in January and now later in the Court of Arbitration, let me remind about the applicable rules. For many years, the two serious types of personal punishments were ‘disqualification’ and ‘exclusion’. The exclusion meant that not just was the player out for the rest of the game, but the team had to play shorthanded for the duration. This was seen as a far too drastic punishment, so in 2010, the universal IHF rules were changed and the concept of ‘exclusion’ was eliminated. Instead, the rules now have ‘disqualification without report’ and ‘disqualification WITH report’. (As I noted earlier, the latter category is for actions that are seen as particularly reckless or dangerous).

When the referees decide, and the point is that nobody else can decide it, that a foul belongs in the category ‘without report’ (rule 8:5), then there shall be no action beyond the end of the game. (Regrettably, both EHF, DHB and some other federations go against this universal rule and sometimes decide on punishments in any case…). If the referees decide that the foul needs to be classified as warranting disqualification WITH report (rule 8:6), then of course they must indicate this in the match report and submit a separate report directly after the game. The decision as to which category applies must be taken immediately when the situation happens. After showing the red card, the referees must inform both the official for the team and also the match delegate if they have decided that it is ‘8:6 and report’. The team has the right to know immediately. If nothing is being said, this means that the decision was ‘8:5’ and that no report will follow. The player will be eligible for the next game.

BUT, it has now come out that in the case of the Klein incident, the referees did not say anything about 8:6 and report, so the DHB had reason to assume that this was the end of the story. This was apparently confirmed by the absence of a notation in the Match Report. Instead, it seems that the EHF Disciplinary Commission in that group of the EURO 2012, despite having no such authority, must have taken upon itself to change the decision of the referees, placing the action in the category of ‘8:6 with report’ and adding a 2-game suspension. It is astounding that an EHF Disciplinary Commission can show such ignorance or disregard for the playing rules and their own lack of authority. It is equally amazing that the Jury did not discover and counteract this serious error, instead choosing to rubberstamp the initial decision. In other words, when reviewing the matter more carefully, the EHF Court of Arbitration had no choice: it simply had to set aside the decision of the lower levels.

In a nutshell: it is irrelevant whether we agree with the initial decision of the referees, because only they have the right to take the decision of choosing between 8:5 and 8:6. So the DHB opinion on that aspect is not of interest. And it is irrelevant what the reasoning of the EHF Disciplinary Commission was, even if they were present and saw the situation. They have no role to play, if the referees decide that it is 8:5 that applies.

It occurs to me that one small change in the playing rules might be of help. In the past, everyone could immediately see the difference between disqualification (red card) and exclusion (hand signal with crossed arms). Now what we see is simply a red card in both cases, and typically a spectator or TV viewer does not notice if the referees also give verbal information to the match delegate and the team official. Perhaps the time has for an additional/separate card; let me propose a blue one…

But more important is the need for the EHF to improve its decision-making procedures, its adherence to the universal IHF playing rules, and the transparency in its communications about disciplinary cases.

It seems that the economic realities across Europe, with substantial unemployment and uncertainties about the future cause different reactions among sports fans. Some seem to hope or believe that top level sports should somehow stay immune to the repercussions and simply continue to provide at least some enjoyment and escape from the daily struggle. Others are heard commenting that it is becoming increasingly awkward and unfair that sports stars and performers in the world of entertainment should be able to continue to ‘earn the easy money’ when so many are suffering.

It seems the reality is that while many clubs are trying to keep up a good front to avoid ruining their image, many big name clubs are suffering substantially in both handball and football. When you are start hearing about financial problems in top football clubs in Spain and Italy (leaving aside other reports of scandals there), then you might wonder how clubs in less lucrative leagues can survive. And clearly it would be realistic for handball to suffer even more, as the financial stability of handball clubs, in terms of sponsors and ticket revenue tends to be even more questionable. And indeed, there are not many clubs left in the mighty ASOBAL league in Spain, clearly ranked No. 2 in Europe, which are not encountering serious problems. Players are not being paid and contracts are dissolved. Smaller budgets and lower ambitions are the result.

The impression is that of a polarization. Just like the Germany economy is the ‘locomotive’ in Europe, the Bundesliga and at least the top half of its clubs are just going strong. It would probably not be far from the truth today to say that close to half of the top 20 clubs in Europe are from Germany. And then there are about ten countries with just one strong club each. Perhaps France and Denmark would disagree. But it means that the polarization is also becoming evident within many handball countries where there is no longer much excitement about who will win the national league. And the participation and the results in the EHF Champions League are instead becoming more and more important. I can see John Ryan beginning to speculate that the days of a true Euroleague are not too far ahead, a league with one German and one non-Germany group perhaps.

It is also becoming obvious in connection with the EHF Final Four that Germany is dominant, perhaps too dominant. Not just did they have the winner and one more team among the Final Four. Moreover, while the other teams complain about the unfairness of always playing the event in Germany and the pressure this puts on the referees etc., one can just turn around and ask: where else could this event realistically be played?? First of all, there are virtually no suitable arenas, and in any case, which country could guarantee four sold-out matches despite very expensive tickets, especially if no team from the organizing country was playing!?

And then the surprise announcement during the weekend: immediately after the qualifying groups had been finished and days before the draw for the tournament was going to take place, there was an announcement from the Netherlands that they were suddenly backing out from organizing the women’s EURO 2012 in December. So there is now a mad scramble for another organizer with such short notice, and one of the ideas seems to be a joint Scandinavian venture involving Denmark, Norway and Sweden, who all have strong experience from organizing such events. But it is really a shock for the Netherlands, where there are strong traditions for women’s handball and where the financial situation generally did not seem so disastrous. But the sudden loss of the major sponsor made the situation untenable. So here again is the question, what countries have the stability, infrastructure and spectator interest to handle such big events?  It seems that very few have a realistic chance.

It has been known for years that the IHF President is frantically trying to find a way to become a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). On the surface of if, this would seem harmless, or perhaps even a good cause; to have a sport represented in this prestigious body might be having some beneficial effect. But when gradually the impression is that the IOC does not care much for this pursuit or that it is done in a way that generates controversy, then it seems that it is the kind of attention that handball would prefer to do without.

The IOC has four categories of active members: (1) a maximum of 70 members ‘whose memberships are not linked to any specific function or office’; one could say that they are elected simply on the basis of their personal merits; (2) up to 15 athletes; (3) up to 15 presidents or other executive/senior leaders of International Federations (IFs) or associations of IFs; (4) up to 15 presidents or other executive/senior leaders of National Olympic Committees or their world/continental associations. The members are elected by the IOC Session, i.e., the annual meeting of the current IOC members.

Hypothetically, the IHF President could be seen as eligible under category (1), but there has never been any suggestion that the IOC sees him as deserving such consideration. Alternatively, by virtue of being an IF president, he could be considered under category (3), either as being IHF President or as representative of handball in ASOIF, the entity where the 28 Summer Olympic sports come together to pursue their common interests in relation to the IOC and Olympic organizers. Currently, many of the IF Presidents are already members of the IOC, including the IF Presidents for football, basketball, volleyball and icehockey. Undoubtedly, this is a particularly sore point with the IHF President. However, as noted, there are only 15 slots and there are currently 35 IFs in the summer and winter Olympics combined. While handball as a sport may deserve attention, the elections are based on the persons.

It should be noted that, by tradition and not by any provision in the IOC Charter, the IOC allows the ASOIF to nominate one representative to the IOC Executive Board. (Technically, the IOC session votes and ‘rubber stamps’ the person wanted by the ASOIF). However, there is a caveat: the designated person must already be a member of the IOC. In other words, you cannot become an IOC member ‘through the backdoor’ by having the ASOIF nominate you.

When very recently the current ASOIF President, Denis Oswald, an old nemesis of the IHF President, announced his retirement, it opened up a seemingly attractive vacancy. However, the IHF President did not come forward as a candidate, perhaps precisely because it would not bring IOC membership with it. So when the ASOIF had its meeting last week, the President of the International Tennis Federation, Ricci Bitti, was the only candidate. But to complicate matters, while Bitti is an IOC member, for age reasons he is not eligible to become a member of its Executive Board. Accordingly, a separate election became necessary, for another person to represent the ASOIF. The person elected was the President of the International Boxing Federation, C. K. Wu, a veteran IOC member.

And again the IHF President had come up against the same obstacle as before: he was not eligible as he is not an IOC member. This really must have ‘added insult to injury,’ and there are reports both in the media and through other channels that it caused the IHF President to argue angrily against the ASOIF leadership, especially Oswald and Vice-President McQuaid. It seems he was upset that they refused to entertain his proposal that ASOIF should insist that the IOC change its Charter to make all IF Presidents automatic IOC members during their tenure as IF Presidents. (This is an idea that the IHF President has been known to push in the past). Alternatively, ASOIF should argue that the representative they wanted to elect to the IOC Executive Board should automatically become an IOC member if not already having that status.

Ideally, an IHF President should be able to use his position with ASOIF and his relations with the IOC in ways that are beneficial to our sport. As a minimum, one hopes for respect and a positive image. But over the years, there have been too many reasons to question that. The angry pursuit of a personal agenda has not been helpful, and the signals from the IOC and from the ASOIF colleagues have been unmistakably negative. The international handball family needs to take notice. Our sport deserves to have someone who can represent us better

It is not my/our habit to write about icehockey players in Teamhandballnews, and we do not know how many our readers know or care about this sport. Perhaps we touch a bit more often on football, in the context of governance, playing rules or some other aspect that lends itself to interesting comparisons with handball. For me personally, both sports are of great interest. In Sweden I grew up playing both handball and football, and I became a football referee just two years after I started in handball. In fact, I kept up the football refereeing for a dozen years also after moving from Goteborg to Washington D.C. And while I never really played icehockey (my skating was not very good!), it remains special for the simple reason that it is a sport where the traditions in Sweden and the U.S. are more equally prominent.

So I do follow the NHL regularly, especially now during the race for the Stanley Cup. And while he has often made life difficult for ‘my’ team, the Washington Capitals, my favorite player during the last 20 years has been Nicklas Lidstrom of the Detroit Red Wings. Yes, it may have something to do with the fact that he is a Swede, but it is much more related to the fact that he is one of the best role models whom I have ever come across in elite level sports. When he announced his retirement today, at the age of 42, he was immediately given a tremendous attention and many great current and former stars were lining up to offer him words of the highest praise.

He was voted the best defensemen in the NHL seven times; he was on the All-Star Team 12 times; he won the Stanley Cup four times with Detroit and on one of those occasions he was the MVP, the first one from Europe; he also won both Olympic and World Championship gold with Sweden. He played 1,827 NHL games, spending all his 20 years with Detroit. During those games he scored, as a defenseman, 318 goals and had 1,007 assists. Experts agree that he is one of the best two or three defenders ever to play the game. So it is not surprising that his retirement is drawing attention.

But more remarkable perhaps, during all these games, where he typically played more minutes than anyone and in all the important situations, he only had 590 penalty minutes. This is roughly one penalty per every six or seven games. It was suggested that his sense for the game and his anticipation allowed him to ‘be in the right place’ and avoid fouls, but it also said something about his sportsmanship. This also fits in with the remarks that were always heard but now today are the most conspicuous ones: he is humble, he is respectful, he is a leader, he is simply a great person! I really wish that, in handball and all other sports, where fair play and sportsmanship seem like old-fashioned qualities that have been shoved into the background, we had more players, more athletes who deserved to be talked about in this way!

And then, as I was preparing this write-up, came to my attention something that almost ruined my day but also provided a rather telling contrast, namely the comments from Jurgen Klinsmann, the football coach, after the U.S. lost 1-4 against Brazil last night. The U.S. team had won handily against Scotland a few days ago, and now the time had come to show perennial world champions Brazil that the U.S. team had ‘arrived’. But the Brazilians wanted none of that and simply went ahead and outclassed the U.S. team with a technically brilliant performance. So what were the comments from Klinsmann, himself a former world star player, afterwards: “maybe we are a little naïve; it seems we don’t want to hurt people, but that’s what you’ve got to do”; that echoed comments after a previous loss: “we need to get nastier!” Enough said….. Fortunately, U.S. media have reacted strongly.

Last week I expressed my strong concerns about how the EHF and some national federations illegally set aside what is prescribed in the playing rules regarding post-game suspension following disqualifications during games. Essentially, these federations explicitly violate the rules by not respecting the formal distinction between ‘red card WITH report’ and ‘red card WITHOUT report’. They do so by instigating disciplinary proceedings in cases where the referees have used their prerogative to classify a disqualification as one that is NOT to be causing a report and any subsequent action.
Despite my own frustrations with this issue, I was very surprised by the widespread reactions I got via e-mail and telephone calls, from representatives for leagues/clubs/players, referees, media and handball fans. They gave such strong support for my views and added important comments, so I have decided to follow up with a brief summary of the key concerns:

Leagues/clubs/players are seriously concerned about the inconsistencies and the unpredictability that follows from the illegal practices. This is just the opposite of what was intended by the clear distinctions in the 2010 IHF Playing Rules. I got comments that described the practice of setting aside the Playing Rules as a state of lawlessness that we do not want in the world of sports.

People were asking why it would occur to the EHF to do something like this and, of course, how the IHF could tolerate it. It was suggested that it must reflect a desire on the part of the EHF and other federations to ‘flex their muscles’ and demonstrate their perceived power in an inappropriate way. Several persons commented that, in an asymmetric way, it amounts to punishing more harshly than the rules prescribe.

The rules were changed in 2010, and the concept of ‘exclusion’ (causing a team to play shorthanded for the rest of the game) was removed. Instead, it was decided to introduce TWO separate categories of disqualifications: the ‘routine’ form, that is specifically not intended to lead to further punishment after the game; and then the category reserved for really dangerous/reckless fouls, for grossly unsportsmanlike conduct, and for the situations involving what we could call ‘last minute sabotage’.

The latter category, based on what the REFEREES decided, is the ONLY one that gives the responsible federation the authority to consider a further punishment on the basis of the referee report. It should be noted that it is NOT automatic that there should be a further punishment; the federation may decide that the ‘rest of the game’ disqualification was sufficient. It really could not be more clear-cut, and it is hard to see how the EHF and the other federations involved could have misunderstood. And it is equally hard to see where they think they get their authority from; it is really as illegal as it would be if a federation wanted to add a punishment to a player who received a 2-minute suspension or caused a 7-meter.

It was also pointed out that the illegal practice creates problems in the existing efforts (which are embraced also by the EHF itself) to ensure that the referees have the courage and good judgment to use the red card when it is appropriate, instead of backing off and letting it suffice with a 2-minute suspension. But several people now commented to me that referees become tempted to refrain from giving a ‘red card WITHOUT report’, because they fear that the federation will take upon itself to start a disciplinary process and perhaps give out a suspension, something that the referees know is illegal and unjustified by virtue of their decision to place the event in the ‘WITHOUT report’ category. This risk that the referees will feel pressure to avoid giving red cards is totally undesirable, and this cannot possibly be what the EHF and others are seeking to achieve.

So how about it, my many sensible and competent friends at the top of the EHF: HOW WOULD IT BE IF YOU WERE TO ANNOUNCE THAT, STARTING WITH THE 2012-13 SEASON, YOU WOULD ABANDON YOUR ILLEGAL AND UNDESIRABLE PRACTICES AND INSTEAD START FOLLOWING THE UNIVERSAL PLAYING RULES!?