First I want to thank John for not pointing out that the referee and linesman who missed the conspicuous ‘handball’ were from my country of origin. There is now even some absurd debate raging as to who was the main culprit: the player who intentionally committed a ‘handball’ or the referee who did not catch it…

But it brings up an issue that has an interest also in ‘real’ handball. An ironic twist to the whole story is that UEFA President Michel Platini, a former star player from France(!), has pushed UEFA to experiment in the 2009-10 edition of the ‘Europa League’ with the utilization of two ‘goal judges’ in addition to the normal complement of referee and ‘linesmen’. These judges are supposed to help determine with greater certainty if a ball actually crossed the goal line, but they are also expected to intervene in the case of any type of violations near the goal, precisely such as Thierry Henry’s handball, if the referee somehow fails to see it.

One can be almost certain that if FIFA had adopted Platini’s idea for the World Cup qualifying matches, the deciding ‘handball’ would have been detected, and France would have been out! Now FIFA has to deal with the embarrassment. Both UEFA and FIFA, just like the IHF, have experimented with new, emerging equipment that is intended to determine electronically if a ball has fully crossed the line. However, it is apparent that this type of equipment has not yet been sufficiently developed to be trusted in major events. This is one reason why Platini, who in any case has stated that he is generally against drawing too much on technology, went for the ‘human’ solution.

Handball has its goal-line referee position, so the only part that is interesting for handball is the goal-line sensor, determining ‘goal or no goal’ in those situations, for instance a fast-break, where the referee cannot yet be in a goal-line position when the shot is taken. It is unclear when sufficient technological progress will have been made on this point. But handball also needs to deal with the broader issue of using modern technology, especially in the form of video review. Before I left the IHF, I left behind a draft for an initial policy in this area. I can only hope that it will not collect dust for too long. Handball may not be able to use video reviews as extensively as some other sports do, but some suitable situations can clearly be identified. Let’s hope action will be coming, and perhaps I will offer some concrete ideas in a future posting.

Finally, returning to John’s point about the different types of ‘handball’, including the one that is illegal in football/soccer. The Australians have just decided to dump the name ‘soccer’ in favor of football. It is too bad that we Americans cannot do the same, just because someone in our country stupidly decided to put the label ‘football’ on a game that cannot possibly do justice to that name, considering that it is nearly all about hands…

Today’s Norwegian newspapers offer some interesting revelations. http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/11/20/sport/handball/handballjentene/vm_i_kina/gunnar_prokop/9120791/ http://www.vg.no/sport/haandball/artikkel.php?artid=592528 In preparation for the upcoming World Championship, one of the key players on the Norwegian team, goalkeeper Terese Pedersen, is back in Norway from her employment with Prokop’s club Hypo. She takes the risk of revealing a few things, something which she realizes is likely to make her less than welcome back in Austria after the World Championship. But she also indicates that the current season is likely to be both her first and last one in Hypo in any event. The situation there is “too turbulent for her taste”.

Pedersen’s key revelation is that [u]Prokop has essentially ignored the suspension he was given by the EHF[/u]. “He is at the [u]training sessions[/u] in his usual manner. During last week’s return game against Metz, he stayed at home watching on television but was in constant phone contact with his daughter, who was at the game and relayed [u]his instructions down to the ‘marionette’ coach on the bench[/u]”. I assume EHF President Lian reads the Norwegian newspapers; what will he think, what will he do??

Pedersen also comments that Prokop’s actions that got him suspended for 3 years “was the most shocking thing she had ever experienced”. She especially was taken aback by his disgraceful behavior immediately after the game, when she herself “would have liked to disappear through a hole in the ground.” Rather than regretting his behavior, when he met with the team afterwards, he blamed his actions on them: they had played too poorly!

She also notes that Hypo has declared that they will stop salary payments if the team does not qualify for the next round in the Champions League. And the December salaries are being withheld for players like Pedersen who, against the wishes of Hypo, have accepted to play in the World Championship. Pedersen says she will fight this action. But Hypo’s coercion has caused three Brazilian star players to decline to play for their national team, as they cannot afford to deprive their families of the money they would stand to lose.

Following the recent EHF Congress, I contacted the EHF Management in the hope of obtaining some substantive comments on a number of issues that seemed to have particular relevance in the context of the Congress agenda. Here are the responses to my questions that have now been provided by Messrs. Lian, Brihault and Wiederer. We thank them for their willingness to respond.

[i]1. One of the issues for the Congress was the format for qualification events for national teams; what are your main objectives when you now consider changing the format again? [/i]
A new qualification system, with home and away matches, has been implemented for the first time for the 2010 championship. When the decision had been made it had been decided to assess this system and propose adaptations. This is what was done at the last congress. The global idea is to preserve home and away matches, to offer every nation the possibility to be involved and to mobilize public and press interest. This will be achieved through the two-phase organization which should make it possible to avoid – or at least greatly reduce – the number of uninteresting games for which TV coverage was difficult to obtain and costly. To summarize, we will see 7 groups of 4 nations with 2 teams qualifying from each group to play together with the organizer and the defending champions at the EHF EURO 2012

[i]2. What are your expectations for the 2009-10 edition of the Champions League? If one compared with the more streamlined situation in football, is there any risk that the large number of different club competitions for both men and women could detract from the focus on the Champions League? [/i]
It seems that the CL is clearly identified as THE top club competition and other cups do not enjoy any comparable prestige. The advance booking for the final four is going extremely well and we shall have to analyze the final result. Clearly the new formula (reduction of the number of participant teams, last sixteen, quarterfinal, final four, global concentration) has made the competition more exciting and easier to understand.

[i]3. You had an interesting proposal for a ‘Strategic Forum’ for all stakeholders, but unfortunately it did not gain the necessary majority; what do you plan to do to obtain stronger support for such an initiative in the near future?[/i]
The outcome of the EO congress will be analyzed at the next executive committee meeting. It is the firm intention of the leadership of the EHF to continue in the same direction concerning what has to be achieved, but a pedagogical approach has to be adopted to make the nations understand that they are not being deprived of any power, quite the opposite.

[i]4. Your focus in recent time has been on a dialog with federations, clubs and their representatives: how do intend to ensure that you get a similar dialog directly with the players and their representatives, and what would you hope to get out of such a dialog?[/i]
Players have over the past few years expressed a wish for this dialogue and we tried to implement the concept of athletes’ commission as understood by the IOC. Clearly this has not been very productive. It may be hoped that the new concept will convince the players that it is indispensable for them to be involved. With them, the EHF will have to design an appropriate form of communication and an adequate structure.

[i]5. In the aftermath of a flurry of revelations about bribery attempts and other forms of corruption, you have acted fast to create a structure with guidelines, expectations, reporting channels etc. What do you now anticipate: will this effort alone help make federations and clubs come to their senses so that the problem cases fizzle out, or will the existence of clear reporting channels make it likely that we will see relatively more revelations? [/i]
It may work both ways: more discipline because of our vigilance, but also more revelations for the same reason. It seems that the first signals have been understood and approved by a majority of national federations. It is still too early to anticipate on the final outcome.

[i]6. Personally I agree with those who feel that the main deterrence comes from very tough action in those cases that are discovered; do you now have a more explicit set of guidelines for penalties in your Regulations and do you intend to take a tougher line in future cases now that everyone has been so firmly forewarned? [/i]
It seems that the new guidelines are quite tough as may be judged from the comments after the first punishments have been imposed. This is quite clearly the type of situation where we have to observe the new developments and adapt. The fact that we have signed on an independent professional expert may help.

[i]7. It appears that handball is more and more becoming affected by betting, unfortunately then with a risk for the emergence of illegal betting activities such as through the notorious Asian gambling mafia; how do you weigh the potentially good and bad impact of betting, and do you really feel equipped to handle the negative side, especially in view of EHF’s vast competition structure?[/i]
We are working on the issue with other team sports that have implemented an alarm system concerning betting.

[i]8. From your vantage points, with two of you holding senior positions in both organizations, how would you characterize the co-existence between the EHF and the IHF at this point in time? Mostly strains due to different objectives or a lot of synergy? [/i]
The two perspectives differ and we are working together in order to articulate them.

[i]9. The IHF has announced an intention to ‘beef up’ its web page, and an increase in transparency would certainly be healthy. From the experience of the EHF in the areas of PR and communications, what advice would you be able to offer the colleagues in the IHF?[/i]
Advice has not been requested, if this becomes the case, it will be forthcoming.

[i]10. The IHF will soon have an extraordinary Congress to deal with possible changes in the By-Laws, and a working group is being formed. I was a bit surprised to see that the EHF is not represented, but I assume this does not mean you are without opinions and preferences on the matter. Could you tell us about some changes that you think would be particularly important? [/i]
Clearly the leadership of the IHF has decided to put legal experts in charge. One of the issues at stake certainly is the definition of a more satisfactory articulation between the IHF and the continents. This, however, is inevitably connected to the various degrees of development of handball on the various continents.

[i]11. Finally, going back to the EHF: with the recent Congress as an opportunity to take stock, what do you see as the main challenges for the EHF moving forward? [/i]
The EHF has to get its members to understand that due to the efforts of each member federation and the work of the EHF, handball has changed greatly from what it was when the EHF was founded; hence a whole series of new questions like qualitative demands for the organization of main events or even participation in such major competitions as the CL, articulation with the stakeholders, workload for players, attempts at corruption, etc. At the end of the day our challenge is to articulate a high level of expertise with a democratic philosophy.

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: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.873