Like other similar sports, handball has rules with provisions that state that “decisions made by the referees on the basis of their observations of facts or their judgments are final”. By contrast, “appeals can be lodged only against decisions that are not in compliance with the rules”. The latter category applies to situations that, fortunately, do not occur in the great majority of matches.

Also sports (such as NBA, NHL and NFL) that for a long time have been used to a high-tech environment that goes beyond what is the case at most top level handball matches, have come to realize that the human factor must remain fundamental to the decision-making in the matches and that excessive recourse to high technology is not advantageous to the proper running of the game. In other words, these sports use “instant replay” or “video review” very [u]cautiously[/u] and only in situations (and for purposes) that are carefully specified and highly [u]regulated[/u].

Football/soccer, through its International Football Association Board (IFAB), just a few days ago took an amazing decision to remain completely conservative. IFAB decided that further experiments with goal-line cameras or balls with computer chips will not be pursued. This was not due to problems with the technology; it was simply a decision taken ‘on grounds of principle’. It was noted that the introduction of such methods would “open the door for video review, something that we absolutely do not want”. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/administration/releases/newsid=1177755.html#ifab+decides+pursue+goal+line+technology

As some IFAB members put it: “the human aspect of football is essential” and “the big moments [ed.: meaning mistakes or controversies] get the supporters talking and this is what makes the game so vibrant…” In other words, it is implied that mistakes and controversy are good for the popularity of football!!! But at the same time, IFAB left the door open for ‘other (=human) ways of helping the referees make the right decision’. This would involve an expansion of the role of the ‘4th official’ and the possible introduction of two more officials, along the lines of what is now being tested by UEFA.

One might hope that the strange preference for the ‘excitement of serious and import mistakes’ is not shared by handball. Presumably, also in handball we all want a match to run smoothly, without excessive interruptions. But handball is different from football, as there are more stoppages and as we use time-outs, even though it does not go as far as in basketball. Moreover, video review could only exist in handball at those levels where there is adequate availability of cameras and other equipment. Nevertheless, for that elite level, [u]it behooves us at least to consider whether video review is desirable on grounds of principle and, if so, feasible in a practical sense[/u]. To make such determinations, one needs to have an idea of what methods and what procedures would be involved. The text below is intended to provide some ‘food for thought,’ and not as a way of prejudging the whole matter.

[u]Possible situations[/u]

1. As valid protests can be lodged against decisions that “are not in compliance with the rules”, it follows that it would be important to use available replays to avoid suspected non-compliance immediately when it occurs (so that if possible it could be corrected before the game is continued) or at least to determine the reality after the fact. In the latter case, it could be done in response to a protest lodged.

(For illustrative purposes, some examples of decisions “not in compliance with the rules” are: (i) giving possession of the ball to the wrong team, after the game has been interrupted due to a faulty substitution; (ii) not giving time-out in a situation where it is obligatory; (iii) allowing a suspended player to remain on the court. By contrast, subjective referee judgments regarding offensive fouls or 7-meters, or observations of facts such as ‘stepping on the line or not’, ‘goal or no goal’ or faulty substitutions etc, basically must not be subject to review).

2. While ‘goal or no goal’ was just mentioned as an example of decisions that, on grounds of principle, must not be subject to review, there is one specific situation that fully warrants an exception. This is the situation where the real issue is not whether the ball entered the goal or not, but as to whether it did so before the end of a half, or before a whistle signal (for some other reason) from the time/scorekeeping table. In such a case it is conceivable that the referees may not have a clear opinion, and it would be legitimate to resort to video review.

3. A similar exception would also be prudent, for the sake of the image of our sport, in cases where serious violations occur “behind the back” of the referees, and would go unpunished unless the relevant managers of the competition could act on the basis of video evidence. It would only involve very serious forms of fouls or misconduct, i.e., those types that according to the playing rules require reporting for further action.

[u]Procedures[/u]

It is important to note that it is not enough, from the standpoint of adequate legal safeguards and practical reliability of the video review approach, to determine exactly [u]when[/u] such review may be used. It is equally important to ensure that solid [u]procedures[/u] exist for [u]how[/u] it should be used.

This obviously involves reliable access to a video monitor, staffed by a neutral and competent person under the control of the match supervisor, and equipped to handle the retrieval and playback with the sophistication needed, for instance slow-motion and comparison of image and sound. Quickness is also a major consideration in making a review viable, particularly one that involves situations where the game cannot be restarted until a result is available.

Moreover, it has to be absolutely clear who is responsible for the decisions to use the video replay and who has the final word on the evaluation of the replay. The rule book is clear about the normal authority of the referees, but it seems that in connection with a video review all authority essentially must pass to the senior official who is supervising the match. This person would also have to decide whether the video really is conclusive.

While bureaucracy must be kept to a minimum, these issues about [u]how[/u] video review is to be used must be regulated in detail. However, there is little point in getting further into the details for such procedures until, hypothetically, it is agreed that the implementation of video review is being seriously considered.

With my review of the issue, I am just hoping to provide a basis for a further debate about the desirability and the feasibility of video review at the higher levels in handball, and perhaps it could give the IHF and other interested parties an impetus for moving ahead with a serious discussion.

Laszlo Sinka is one of the most well-known handball profiles in Europe. In addition to having been the key figure in Hungarian handball for many years, he is also a member of the EHF Executive Committee (and also the Chair of the EHF Beach Handball Commission).

[i]CA: Laszlo, could you tell our readers a bit about your handball background, before you moved into these top positions in the HHF and the EHF![/i]

LS: I played as an “all-round player” for nearly two decades at different levels in my home town, Százhalombatta. My wife was also a handball player, in the Hungarian 1st division. After my retirement, I played at charity matches, often representing the Hungarian Masters Selections. If I could, I would still like to train and play ,but due to chronic injuries I had to stop.

[i]CA: Hungary is not one of the largest countries in Europe, but it has always had great sports traditions; and for a long time, handball has been able to stay at a high level, both with the national teams and the club teams; what is the secret to this success? [/i]

LS: Yes, we are proud of our handball history (nearly 80 years old) and we try to pass on this great heritage to the upcoming generations. But we are also looking ahead and working hard to keep up with the world’s elite. The HHF is a well respected body and has working relations with domestic and foreign associations. Handball is the second most popular sport in Hungary (after soccer of course); last year a total of 83 million viewers watched matches on TV.

[i]CA: in some European countries, the men’s side dominates very strongly, but in Hungary the women’s handball has perhaps remained even more stabile and strong at the international level; what is the reason for this?[/i]

LS: Handball is the most popular team sport for women in Hungary and plays an important part in our entire education system. Based on the large quantity, we have an extensive competition system at the developmental level with different age categories. This nurtures quality players for our strong National League from which our national players are mostly selected.

[i]CA:. I would imagine that you were not entirely happy with the result of your men’s team in the EURO2010; what do you see as the main reasons for this result, and what are your expectations for the near future? [/i]

LS: I could not identify one main reason for the result. Rather, the team’s performance was greatly influenced by the coincidence of a few components: the relatively short preparation time, a lack of tournament fitness, injuries and late rehabilitation, unavailability of some key players, and perhaps mental weakness hampered us. Yes, it was a painful experience for us but at the same time the early exit from the ECh provided us with the opportunity to analyze, regroup and work out a strategy in order to qualify for the WCh, by winning tough games against Slovenia.

[i]CA: when one follows Hungarian club teams in Champions League on the webcasts, it is always apparent that there is a very enthusiastic spectator support; what is it that leads to this strong support and does it exist also for the lower levels of matches?[/i]

LS; Handball provides excellent entertainment for the majority of the population. In certain areas of Hungary, generations have grown up with handball and pass this passion onto their children. Of course, our National Men’s and Woman’s Teams are the most popular and always play in front of a full capacity crowd, at home. Many spectators are watching the 1st division matches for both genders, and our Champions League teams from Veszprém and Győri attract the most supporters. But generally speaking we have a good attendance even in the lower divisions.

[i]CA: it seems that many of the best teams come from cities and town around the country and not from Budapest; does this have a special explanation?[/i]

LS: The most successful clubs were situated in Budapest until the last two decades. After the changing of the political system at the end of the 1980’s, the big Budapest clubs lost their government supported “mother companies” and there was not enough private enterprise replace the financing. But in the smaller cities around Hungary people are more fanatic about their ‘home’ teams and there is less competition with other sports for local support. So places like Debrecen, Győr, Veszprém, Békéscsaba and Székesfehérvár became our ‘strongholds.’.

[i]CA: over the years I have observed that you have always been able to come up with new strong coaches for your teams; what programs and efforts do you have in place to be so successful in the area of coaching?[/i]

Coaching education is an important part of our organization and has a special place in the long-term strategic plan of the HHF. We have a good working cooperation with different institutes and organize coaching education courses along with them. We have a strict licensing system. It is part of our strategy that we encourage our retired yet experienced payers to continue their activity in handball, as coaches or referees.

[i]CA: yes, what about the area of refereeing? you have strong traditions in Hungary; what do you do to encourage young talents to get interested in refereeing?[/i]

LS: We think the referees’ education is just as important as that for coaches. In fact, we strongly believe that the two can and should go hand in hand. It is based on our philosophy that tries to keep everybody within the game. So we encourage retired players to do a referee course and start whistling. Talented young couples with enthusiasm and desire then can take a step forward, entering the EHF Young Referee Project. We also test other referees every year.

[i]CA: there is currently an intensive debate about the pressures on the top players, due to the competition calendar for clubs and national teams; what solutions do you see to this problem?[/i]

LS: Everybody agrees that the number of matches top players have to play are already too many and to put more matches into the schedule is almost impossible. On the other hand, the media – TV in particular – and sponsors need these high quality matches in order to maintain the momentum of the sport, and this is in our common interest. So within the field of sports administration very little can be done… One area for improvement is perhaps the application of the most up to date sport science for players rehabilitation and better impact of training sessions.

[i]CA: of course, handball must compete with other sports and other activities in order to remain attractive for new young players, spectators, media and sponsors; how do you see the ability of handball to remain competitive in Hungary and more globally?[/i]

LS: A decreasing population results in less children and more new age attractions reduce the interest in sport. So the competition amongst the different sports for potential players becomes tougher and more aggressive. Our philosophy is to make handball accessible to everybody. So we start with mini – or as we named it after the ball they are playing with – “sponge” handball even at kindergarten level. We even organize competitions for the +45 age categories. Then we have the growing off-shoot of our sport, Beach Handball. It also depends on the game itself: we are lucky, because handball is a fast and spectacular team sport with lots of excitement and passion, – and this makes promotion easier.

[i]CA: from your long experience, do you have any specific suggestions for how handball could be made even more attractive?[/i]

LS: I think the existing playing rules are good, suitable for the public and fulfill the requirements of a game of the 21st century. However, there is room for improvement: the better application of the rules by the referees and the better utilization of the rules by the coaches and players. This is a natural process and it will bring the game forward until another change of the rules becomes necessary to adapt to how the game develops.

CA: On behalf of our readers, I want to thank Laszlo Sinka for making himself available for this very interesting and optimistic commentary on both the background and the future of Hungarian handball!

A few weeks ago I read with interest an article in the German handball web site handball-world.com. http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=24182&GID=1 In summary, people interviewed in the article argued for the idea that retiring top players could quickly become top referees on the basis of their practical sense for the game at the top level and their personal experience with the many complex situations on the court that are difficult for the referees to evaluate. So many judgments in a game are based on the knowledge of tactics and the ability to anticipate action, to see correctly what happens and to ‘feel’ what this means. Handball refereeing [u]is[/u] a demanding job.

My reactions to the comments in the article were of course generally positive. Who could be against the idea of improving the recruitment of candidates for the elite referee level!? It was also nice to see that several well-known players, coaches and federation representatives were so supportive. In order to convince former top players to become referees, this is the attitude that is needed. But I also had to smile a little bit at some of the comments.

For instance, one could get the impression that this is a brand new idea that nobody had thought of or tried before. Clearly this is not the case, as I am aware of such efforts both from a large number of traditional handball countries and also some new handball countries that do not have a cadre of experienced referees. In fact, I have myself been involved with such efforts both internationally and at the national level during the last 30-40 years (Sweden and USA). It was suggested that candidates could easily be found and that the main obstacle would be their reluctance to start at the bottom and move their way to the top very slowly. And I also suspect that it is easy to underestimate the difficulties involved in making the transition from a top player to a top referee.

First of all, despite encouragement from federations and coaches, it would not be realistic to think that suddenly large quantities of top players would become interested in refereeing. They are likely to continue to prefer other roles, including coaching, if they want to stay involved when retiring as players. So it could never become the main source for the elite referee category. But [u]even a small increase would be helpful[/u], so there is no reason to be negative. Then the argument about being treated as all other beginners, without any chance to start higher and/or move up faster is likely to be flawed. In my experience this is not what happens. Smart national federations realize that they have to be flexible and give credit for the experience and talent they want to draw on. So they are likely to make whatever exceptions that are warranted [u]in the individual case[/u], depending on the ability demonstrated.

Although it is now beyond my influence, I dare assume that also the IHF would set aside normal age limits and happily receive ‘special’ candidates outside the normal programs and progressions. I could even imagine that the IHF/PRC would give clear signals to encourage national federations to strengthen their efforts in this respect. Indeed, instead of just waiting passively for possible candidates to come forward, such efforts should be proactive, in the sense that players with the right attitude and personality should be sought out and approached. Also, I would not limit the search to national team players; 1st and 2nd division players in major handball countries would clearly be able to bring the relevant experience. In any case, it is doubtful that the absolute star players would be the first ones to volunteer, and personally I am not so sure that their standing as stars would be an advantage.

It was also correct and useful that some of the contributors emphasized that the ‘status’ of the refereeing job would be an inhibiting factor in attracting former top players. Indeed, the same applies to [u]all[/u] recruitment for the refereeing function. And here the national federations have a heavy responsibility. I do not think that financial compensation is the main issue, although it is certainly a factor. There are many other things that are important: better educational and mentoring capacity, combined with the availability of stronger match delegates, would make a big difference; but a general increase in the priority, support, and protection given to the referee function is also needed.

Millions of people around the world put in endless hours of hard work for the purpose of enabling athletes at all levels to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of sports. For most of them it is either their hobby as a coach, manager or referee, or it is a part of the ‘job’ of being a parent. The overwhelming majority do not get any tangible compensation for their efforts; for some perhaps it is mainly a sacrifice, but for most – one hopes – it is a pleasure with its own intrinsic rewards. A minority, however, have it as their job or their career in some other sense. They earn a living from it, and some earn more than that. For yet others it is not the money, or just the money, it is the power and prestige, an ego trip in the world of sports.

But the Olympic Games, like now in Vancouver, tend to offer a healthy reminder: sport is – and should be – primarily for the athletes; and in a secondary way for all those who find it stimulating to watch. As many before me have more eloquently expressed, sport is not just enjoyable to do and to see, it teaches lessons for life and about life. I have had the great privilege to be part of the Olympics on many occasions. It was exciting but it required hard work, almost around the clock; one gets immersed, almost to the point of losing perspective. So, in a strange way, it is somehow a bit special, like for me now during the last couple of weeks, to be able to watch, if only on TV, the Olympics without being involved and just take it all in. Enjoying the fantastic performances, the struggles, the victories and the narrow defeats; and of course hearing and thinking about the personal stories and efforts that lead up to these performances.

So I am going back to those who in an unselfish and idealistic way make the performances of the athletes and the organization of such wonderful events possible: [u]they[/u] surely do not need any reminders about what sport is all about. [u]But[/u], then there are those who, directly or indirectly, earn their money, their positions, their power, their comfortable lives ‘on the backs of’ the athletes, often without much concern for fair play and good sportsmanship. Do [u]they[/u] not need some kind of reminder about what is, and what is not, expected from them? Some are found in business and politics surrounding the sport. But many are of course directly involved in the management of sport in one way or the other.

You know that in the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games, there is always [u]an athlete and a judge swearing oaths[/u] about ‘abiding by the rules,’ ‘impartiality,’ ‘true spirit of sportsmanship’ and ‘for the glory of sport.’ This seems entirely appropriate and may serve as a useful reminder. But what I think is [u]missing[/u] is that, in every Closing Ceremony the [u]IOC President, on behalf of the IOC and all sports federations around the world[/u], and by extension all those doing business with them, should be asked to [u]swear an oath that the same principles will be upheld, as these sports federations do their work for the athletes and sports[/u] until the next Olympic Games!

A few days ago, THN offered a translation of an internet article in the German magazine Der Spiegel. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.964 We also offered some brief clarifications of the concepts involved. The key numbers according to Der Spiegel were that the President’s remuneration had been changed from an honorarium of 30,000 Sw.Frs. to a salary of 500,000 per year, and that, in aggregate, the remaining 16 Council members had had their honorariums increased from 174,000 Sw.Frs. per year to 825,000. This suggests an average increase from around 10,000 per year to more than 50,000 per year. (Around that average, I suspect there is a wide range, from Executive Committee members through Commission Presidents to the second-tier continental representatives).

Not surprisingly, the revelations in Der Spiegel have caused people to react. I have received feedback essentially of two types: “this is really outrageous; how can it be allowed to happen!?” and “I am not sure how to react; is this out of line or not?” I can fully understand both reactions, but perhaps the latter one is more to the point: while it is easy to react spontaneously, it is more difficult to have a clear opinion unless one has a frame of reference. In other words: to sense whether something is ‘out of line’, one must ask: “[u]in relation to what[/u]”?

The way I see it, there are really at least [u]five[/u] separate questions one could ask: 1. do other international sports federations pay such compensation and of the same magnitude? 2. how does one justify a sudden, huge increase? 3. how do the compensation figures compare with other IHF expenditure? 4. do the positions and the incumbents in the case of the IHF deserve what they get? and then 5. the [u]fundamental[/u] question: is the [u]decision-making process[/u] for these payments and arrangements transparent and appropriate?

On the first question, some federations provide numbers for a few key employees and elected official, while the majority are not transparent and either keep their numbers secret (also internally) or make it very hard to obtain firm and reliable figures. But the main problem is the relevance of the comparisons. Differences in organization size, financial circumstances, and management structure make it impossible or inappropriate to compare directly. Suffice it to say that most federations provide some kind of honorariums or allowances, varying from enormous amounts for a very large number of people (FIFA) to quite modest amounts in some smaller and less wealthy federations. The IHF’s [u]pre[/u]-increase figures, having gradually moved up during Moustafa’s regime from 0 to the 10,000 average for Council members mentioned above, seem to be more in line with most numbers I have heard.

In a sense, this also answers my second question: the [u]new[/u] IHF figures do seem very high by most comparisons. And there is really nothing in the IHF’s situation that suggests a basis for a brand new compensation philosophy. There is no drastic expansion of activities and duties, no newly found wealth has been announced, and no achievements worthy of major rewards can be pointed to. It is doubtful that IHF member nations would find any arguments either.

The IHF budget has tended to be rather static in terms of size, main income sources and major lines of expenditure. There have been no entirely new forms of revenue. The budget document is dutifully presented on an annual basis, but there is no real debate within the IHF or with the member federations. While some budget items are not easy to define in practice, at least it is clear that the share spent on operations as compared with administration is not impressive. And the 1.325.000 Sw.Frs. amount now reportedly being paid out to the President and the Council members is roughly of the same magnitude as the [u]entire[/u] budget line for development aid!

It is a delicate matter to evaluate jobs and performance, but IHF insiders are well aware that some of those who now will receive average annual amounts in the order of 50,000 Sw.Frs. do [u]not[/u] have the competence or inclination to accomplish very much for the IHF. As I discussed some months ago, in a commentary on necessary By-Law changes and current IHF management practices, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.857 it is also clear that most continental representatives in the IHF focus almost exclusively on the narrow and selfish interests of [u]their own[/u] constituencies, and spend very little time as true managers of the [u]IHF[/u]. Moreover, the current regime simply does not allow the IHF Council and most of its individual members to play an important role and carry out demanding tasks, and the attention to matters involving strategies and objectives is any case lacking.

If the President is so autocratic, and the Council is largely impotent in the overall decision-making process, then this could in a sense be used as an argument for the President’s conversion from a volunteer elected official to the position of full-time employed chief executive. The arrangement is certainly not without precedent in the world of sports, and a suitable high-level executive will demand a commensurate compensation. The questions are, however, [u]whether the IHF is really best served[/u] by an arrangement where an autocratic president’s role is intensified, whether Moustafa is the best one for such a job, and whether it is money well spent from the IHF’s limited resources. We know the President’s own answers to these questions, but what does the rest of the handball world think, including the poor developing handball countries who depend on the IHF for support? As someone asked: “what are all the miracles that the President now will perform in return for his salary, that he was not able to perform in the past?”

Many would have looked differently at the whole issue and the specific factors just discussed, if the compensation decisions had gone through the careful scrutiny of the member federations in the form of a Congress, and the Congress had given its blessing, not just for the compensation increases but for the notion of a president as a highly-paid full-time employee. Yes, there are parliaments and politicians who are in a position to decide on their own remuneration (although they do it openly), but is that the example to follow for an international sports federation? In 2004, when I became President of the IHF Rules & Referees Commission for 2004-08, I innocently raised this question, when I was surprised to find that the Council was being asked to vote on what was at that time a small increase in a more modest amount. I can assure you that this intervention from a newcomer was ‘not popular’. But for me it remains a matter of concern, on grounds of principle.

Finally, to echo some comments I have received: there is another real danger involved in the new, high level of remuneration of the IHF Council members: if we already have a situation where the President wishes to be autocratic, as he feels he knows best and therefore simply wants the Council to go along with his decisions, what are then the likely implications of his insistence on paying the Council members such large amounts? The President demands loyalty, and for many it would not be easy to walk away from such money. So has it not suddenly become [u]much more difficult to expect true independence and a real debate[/u] where serious questions or objections are raised???