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, https://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.

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!