I am sure we would be amazed if one of the top teams in the Olympic tournaments announced that they would bring a very young team, with only one player having previous Olympic experience. And nobody tends to suggest that experience is not relevant in the refereeing, so perhaps you will find it shocking when I point out that only ONE of the 17 nominated couples has experience from a previous Olympic tournament. This is the couple Krstic/Ljubic from Slovenia. But before you start getting nervous, I will try to provide some explanations and reassurances.

Olesen/Pedersen (Denmark) and Lazaar/Reveret (France) handled the medal games already in the 2009 Men’s World Championship, so they are no newcomers. The Spanish couple Raluy/Sabroso handled the men’s final in 2011, and the Norwegians Abrahamsen/Kristiansen handled the final in EURO 2012, apart from having been at the top level for quite some time. Geipel/Helbig from Germany have three World Championships under their belt, and they are remarkably the only German handball presence on the court in London, as the German teams did not qualify.

The ‘Balkan’ referees, apart from Kristic/Ljubic, tend to be among the younger members: Gubica/Milosevic (CRO), Nachevski /Nikolov (MKD), and Nikolic/Stojkovic (SRB). The same goes for the Czechs Horacek/Novotny. But all these couples have been in men’s and/or women’s World Championships at least once. France is the only nation with a second couple, as the Bonaventura sisters are one of the two women referee couples. The other one is Florescu/Duta from Romania. It may seem as if two women’s couples is not a lot, but it is in fact an important milestone on the way towards, one hopes, a more balanced composition at the top.

As always at the Olympic Games, the host country is entitled to have both teams and referees participating. This is not the first time that the Olympics have been held in a country with modest handball standards, and it requires a careful balancing act to fit these rather inexperienced referees, Bartlett/Stokes, into the match schedule. From Panamerica, the nominees are Marina/Minore (ARG) and from Africa Coulibaly/Diabate (CIV). The Asian continent sends two couples: Al-Suwaidi /Bamatraf (QAT) and Al-Marzouci/Al-Nuaimi (UAE). These non-European couples have the disadvantage of not being able to gain the same match experience as the European, but they are the best ones in their respective continents at this point. And all of them have handled one or two World Championships.

So what are then the explanations for the major rejuvenation of this top group? It is really a combination of two factors: first, the demands on the top referees are in several respects so great, that they can no longer combine this hobby (which is essentially what it is) with career and family responsibilities for very long. In the past, the typical career for an IHF top couple may have lasted for about 15 years, from around age 35-37 up to the age limit of 50. But that duration does not tend to be realistic any longer, especially in Europe, where the combined demands at the national level and from the many EHF games are considerable. So it was not surprising that more than half of the European referees who were in Beijing in 2008 retired soon afterwards, well before the age of 50.

But the need for rejuvenation had been anticipated by the IHF, and a pipeline in the form of the Global Referee Training Program had been created. In other words, the IHF actively seeks out young talents and puts them through systematic training, testing and observation. This makes it realistic to bring individual couples faster and earlier to the top level. And this combines nicely with the reality that nowadays the physical and mental demands of the game at the elite level necessitate having referees who are in top shape and can handle the speed and physicality without fatigue and loss of concentration. However, as I said at the outset, experience is also a key component for successful refereeing, so it will be interesting to see how the group in London will collectively withstand the pressures and handle its importing task. We wish them success!

In its meeting today, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the body that takes all decisions on changes to the universal FIFA playing rules, took some fundamental decisions. Regarding the issue of applying technology to ‘goal or no goal’ situations, it must be described as a remarkable turnaround over a period of just a few years. FIFA had previously agreed with the position so strongly held by, for instance, UEFA President Michel Platini, that the human factor, and therefore also human mistakes, must remain a part of the game. It had even been suggested that the occasional controversy about some critical mistake would be good for football… But after today’s situation, considering the worldwide exposure and influence of football, one could imagine that the debate about use of technology might pick up also in other sports such as handball.

It should be noted that the alternative (or possibly supplementary) approach of positioning assistant referees at the goal-line was formally approved as a permitted approach under the global rules. But the main focus was on the use of technology, and after extensive testing approval was now given for the use of two different approaches. One is essentially the system known from tennis (Hawkeye), with high-powered and appropriately positioned cameras being the key component. The other one is Goalref, a system based on having a computer chip inside the ball. This is the approach tested by the IHF, also during a Junior World Championship a few years ago.

It should be emphasized that while these methods, assistant referees and two forms of technology, are now officially permitted, they are not in any way mandatory. It was noted that the approach based on technology would currently have a price tag of US$ 150-250.000 for each field. Obviously, this would be realistic only at the elite level. But FIFA expressed the hope that the price would soon come down considerably and that other, possible less expensive, methods could be developed. The reliance on assistant referees also carries a cost. Perhaps more important than the match fees paid to them, there is the issue of removing experienced officials from the job as referees in their normal matches. In some countries, there have been concerns about assignments as assistant referees in UEFA matches making top referees unavailable as referees in their national league. Every method has its price.

In football, FIFA is frantically underscoring that there are no plans to extend the use of technology beyond the ‘goal or no goal’ situations. But many observers sense, probably correctly, that once the barrier has been broken and technology has been allowed, then there will be arguments for an expansion, perhaps to offside situations and decisions whether a foul took place inside or outside the penalty area etc.

In handball, we have discussed use of technology, for instance video review, for additional situations. The crux is to draw the line between situations that involve the observation of absolute facts (where technology might be appropriate) and the subjective judgment by the referees (where a further review must not be allowed). And there are matters of fact, where help by technology could be useful. If an error can be corrected immediately, rather than causing a formal protest after the game and a possible replay, much would obviously be gained. This could involve giving the wrong team the ball for a restart, not observing that a suspended player remains on the court, or forgetting to stop the clock in situations where it is mandatory. Other situations involving disputes about the playing time could also be included. But the key is to ensure that the normal flow of the game would not be negatively affected.

On a different but very sensitive issue, the IFAB also decided to give temporary approval for wearing head scarves in official competition under the FIFA rules. It was indicated that there is insufficient material to judge whether any health or safety issues might exist, so this is the reason why the approval is only temporary while experience is gained. The question of the exact design also remains to be settled. Clearly, while handball action takes place relatively more ‘around the level of the heads of the players’, with arms flailing etc, it is difficult to imagine that there are objective reasons for handball to have a different ruling from football on this point. Indeed, permission for head scarves was in fact ‘snuck into’ the IHF Rules in 2010, despite an earlier intention to wait for a common approach together with other sports. One would assume that the FIFA ruling now contributes to making head scarves a non-issue in handball for the future.