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

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

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

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

As I hear from other sources, and (for you German-speakers) as indicated in recent 'Handball-World' postings http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=22660&GID=1 http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=22670 controversy is erupting as the planned return of the referee couple Lemme/Ullrich is drawing closer. The German federation (DHB) has strongly supported the referees after they were given a 5-year suspension by the European federation (EHF). https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.802 For instance, DHB has lent them money to pay the fee that goes with an appeal to the EHF, and they have promised them a return to the Bundesliga in mid-December. (The EHF suspension does not necessarily apply at the national level). Now it appears that several Bundesliga representatives are not so enthusiastic about their return.

While the controversy to some extent may be related to more general strains between the DHB and the Bundesliga, it also appears that there is a bit of prestige and personal emotion involved. Irritation and ‘high volume’ is coming through. The Bundesliga and some club representatives seem to be concerned about image, and comments have also been made to the effect that unwanted speculation could arise if the referees returned and, just by chance, as can always happen, were to become involved in a controversial decision or a disputed game. By contrast, the DHB seems determined to prove the point that they continue to fully trust Lemme/Ullrich, while at the same time perhaps ‘thumbing their noses’ at the EHF. At the same time, however, the DHB seems to imply that they would not take an absolutely final decision until the appeal has been heard by the EHF.

It would not be prudent to speculate about the outcome of the appeal. However, it is relevant to remember that part of the EHF’s frustrations emanated from the refusal of the referees to name the person(s) responsible for putting pressure on them before a game in Russia. At least it is interesting to speculate about what would, hypothetically, happen if the referees suddenly did provide names and what position EHF would be in as a result; see my earlier article: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.803

At this time, however, I would prefer just to comment briefly on the determination on the part of the referees and the DHB to get them back in action in the Bundesliga. They know that their very distinguished international career is over. So people have wondered, what makes them so adamant about continuing in the Bundesliga? I am sure they might simply be eager to continue an activity that they have always enjoyed very much, and the Bundesliga is now the most interesting arena available to them. They might also feel that a period of good performances in the Bundesliga would in a sense prove that they are still the strong and trusted referees that they used to be. They care about their reputation.

Of course it would be improper for me, in this very delicate situation, to try to interfere and offer them some good advice, least of all in public. But for their sake, having known them as top-level referees and good friends over many years, I only hope that they take a decision that will lead to a worthy end of their career. Presumably they would want to be remembered the way they were at their peak (which may have been a couple of years ago), and not for the controversy that is surrounding them now. While they might see advantages and opportunities in a return, I am sure they will also understand that there are risks. As experienced referees, they should know how to make a decision based on sound judgment and not one that is based on emotions, prestige, or the views of others.

As noted by my colleague John Ryan in his earlier posting, and as many of you are likely to have found in the media, the reactions of disgust after Prokop’s actions are so strong and so widespread, that I probably would not need to add my own opinion. Moreover, to retain credibility as a columnist it is sometimes necessary to show some restraint and not give in completely to one’s feelings. In this particular case, however, I see no need and no possibility to hold back. [u]Prokop’s actions are simply the most despicable ones I have experienced or heard of in my more than 50 years in handball.[/u]

Therefore, it is no surprise that reactions from handball people around the world are so strong. They can feel what the impact is for our sport when something like this happens, they can put themselves in the position of the opponents in the match, and they clearly recognize the complete lack of ethics and propriety. So I fully understand, for instance, the reactions of Ulrik Wilbek, the Danish national team coach, a person well-known for his decency both during matches and in between, when he argues that Prokop should be banned for life. I also particularly appreciate the reactions of Austrian federation president Gerhard Hofbauer, another person whom I know as very correct and proper in his views and behavior. He publicly deplores the actions and does not rule out independent disciplinary measures by his federation.

However, it is also very telling that nobody seems to be entirely surprised by Prokop’s actions. Indeed, if these actions were described to a large group of handball insiders, and they were asked who they thought were the person responsible, I suspect almost everyone would get it right! In every large group of whatever kind, there is always someone who is so frequently behaving in an outrageous manner that, instead of being shunned or severely criticized, they are instead ignored or laughed at, because it is assumed that they are what they are and will never change. Through this misguided tolerance, we tend to create ‘Frankenstein’s monsters’ and in some sense we share the blame.

I think this is also why so many are so extremely upset. Finally they sense that ‘enough is enough.’ If the same actions had been taken at the spur of the moment by someone with a long and impeccable record, one would be more ready to except it as a temporary mental lapse. But when the guilty party is so notorious, is seen receiving his ‘red card’ with a big grin of satisfaction, and then cynically expresses a pride in ‘having done his duty’ as a tactical and experienced coach, then it has gone too far. No subsequent retractions or apologies would change that.

One aspect of ‘misguided tolerance’ that perhaps not so many know about, and that certainly would have caused the reactions of outrage to be even greater, is that Prokop, presumably on account of his many years in women’s handball, holds senior and important positions in the EHF hierarchy: he is the Chair of the Committee for Women’s Clubs and he is a Member of the EHF Competitions Commission. Clearly, one would hope that such positions of honor would be filled on the basis of factors other than pure longevity…

Turning then to the important issue of punishment that now needs to be meted out, I can have some understanding for those who focus on rules and refereeing. They ask if the referees did the right thing when they did not award a 7-meter throw, as such a decision might have negated Prokop’s actions and intentions, and they wonder if one might need to change the rules in some way. Here I first want to support the referees: they could possibly have been justified in ‘stretching’ the definition of ‘clear scoring chance’ and thus in giving a 7-meter, but clearly their decision was not a mistake. And my basic point is that this whole situation goes beyond rules and refereeing. Rules cannot, and should not endeavor to, become so geared towards ‘once in a lifetime’ situations and such deviant behavior. They must focus on being clear and simple for normal persons and normal situations. [u]Instead the real deterrent must come in the form of individual punishments that are so severe that they serve to keep such persons out of our sport![/u]

From this web site we have occasionally been critical of EHF disciplinary actions as being too soft, typically in cases of attempted referee bribery and similar forms of corruption. Clearly, an organization needs to apply consistent guidelines and procedures, and existing regulations may set limits for actions. In this regard, I was encouraged by comments from the EHF Secretary General, who stressed the ‘unique’ nature of this case, thus seemingly suggesting that it would also be ‘off the charts’ as regards the scope for punishment. Here the discussion cannot be about the number of games but the [u]number of years[/u]! Similarly, Prokop’s club (and, as insiders know, it is really literally ‘Prokop’s club’) must be made to know that their participation in EHF competitions is not accepted as long as it relies on such ‘leadership’.

Finally, I commented earlier on Prokop’s positions of honor in the EHF hierarchy. I do not know what the rules are for filling these positions and for firing incumbents, but in the current circumstances that should be irrelevant. Let me put it is this way: every day from now on that he is allowed to remain in his positions amounts to a day of flagrantly insulting the international handball community!

Some time ago I commented on the importance of having IHF establish clear goals and strategies, before it rushes ahead and focuses on detailed changes in its By-Laws. Nevertheless, as the IHF has now set a date for an ‘extraordinary’ Congress and has established a working group for considering changes in the By-Laws (a group that many observers find to have a ‘strange’ composition), several handball friends, both inside the IHF and elsewhere, have asked me to go ahead and present my views on desirable changes. I will divide up my comments and suggestions into 3 installments, with today’s efforts involving primarily the Executive Committee and the Council, soon to be followed by articles dealing with the Congress, the Commissions and some other specific issues.

First one needs to remember that the effectiveness of any rules and regulations depend on the good intentions of the people who are set to implement them, so even the most perfect By-Laws do not guarantee good governance. However, it also holds true that By-Laws, on the basis of actual experience, may need to be made more comprehensive and specific, precisely because one cannot just rely on adherence to sound principles in the absence of binding rules and regulations.

It is clear to many observers that, for some time now, the IHF Executive Committee has become inappropriately autonomous and powerful, with far too little respect for the role of the Council and far too little accountability. This may partly be the result of excessive complacency on the part of Council members and others, but it is also a direct result of a lop-sided work distribution in the By-Laws. The fundamental flaw is that the Executive Committee is viewed as a much too independent body, instead of having the six Council members who are supposed to constitute the Executive Committee serve as [u]the Council’s [/u]executive body, with a full accountability to the Council as a whole. This must change!

Moreover, Article 16 in the By-Laws generally has a wording that is clearly too open-ended or all-encompassing in describing the tasks assigned to the Executive Committee. The powers to interfere in the work of other IHF entities are much too broad, and a large part of the suggested monitoring role would be far more appropriate for the Council to assume. In addition, some of the provisions in Article 16 are in direct conflict with roles and tasks already given to the Council in Article 15. This applies, for instance, with potentially disastrous effects, in the area of decision-making in financial matters.

However, this is not to suggest that the Council has a perfectly clear and appropriate mandate. One [u]could[/u] interpret the role of the Council to be very strong if some parts of Article 15 are taken literally. On the other hand, the By-Laws are totally, and quite inappropriately, silent on the key role that the Council undoubtedly must have in not just the ongoing policy-making but also in the underlying establishment of goals and strategies. But when one argues for a strengthened role for the Council, it is necessary to keep in mind that such a change is very much related to the composition of the Council and the basic responsibility that its members tend to feel, which in turn depends a lot on how they are elected.

Clearly it makes sense to try to achieve synergy by having two different dimensions represented, namely the technical and operational activities through the Commission Presidents and the broad knowledge of people being familiar with the grassroots work and the special circumstances in the different member countries. However, it has become very obvious that there is a problem involved in having about half of the Council consist of members who are specifically nominated by their respective continents and primarily tend to see themselves as persons expected to look after the interests of the continent that nominated them. This means that a large chunk of the Council may not really see itself as managers and policy-makers of the [u]IHF[/u] but as political representatives of one geographic segment of the IHF. (I cannot resist the temptation of making the comparison with the U.S. Congress and the unattractive ‘ear-marking’ traditions…).

While an effort needs to be made, there is no simple solution to this dilemma. Perhaps only [u]one[/u] member should be nominated by each continent for ‘rubberstamping’ in the Congress. Then the remaining slots could be filled on the basis of open elections in the Congress from among candidates from continents. Alternatively, perhaps the remainder of the Council should select the second person from each continent, on the basis of their previous collaboration with these individuals. Moreover, it could be mandated that the second person from each continent must be someone who does not have a role in the Continental federation and therefore can be have a more independent position. I am confident that other ideas could be identified on this important issue.

It must not be forgotten that one of the well-known weaknesses in the role of the Council comes from a lack of sufficiently firm and detailed By-Law requirements regarding the meeting procedures in the Council. Again, the ability to run meetings may depend largely on the individuals, but it is clear that the Council meetings have become too informal, inconsistent and ineffective in terms of the procedures followed. As has been noted on some controversial issues, this can become very dangerous. So, regrettably, it seems necessary to use the formality of the By-Laws to bring about change, including the need for more structured and formal meetings, with legal expertise available.

Finally, an issue that comes to mind when recent worries about decision-making based on sound legal principles is recalled: it is not an acceptable situation to have positions on the Arbitration Commission and the Arbitration Tribunal filled by persons who do not have the necessary education and experience as a jurist. The current By-Law requirements are not strict enough on this point.

IHF Bylaws: http://www.ihf.info/upload/Manual/IHF_STATUTS_CHAP_01_GB.pdf

Part 2, focusing on the Commissions, will follow in the next couple of weeks.