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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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