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.

I have written about other aspects of this general topic before, but now additional information has come to my attention that raises issues. What triggers my reaction is the sudden decision by the EHF Court of Arbitration (the third and highest level in the EHF structure for legal matters) to accept the appeal from the German Handball Federation (DHB) and rescind the 2-game suspension that had previously been given to Dominik Klein for an unusual situation in the last game of Germany against Poland in EURO 2012 last January.

Many of you will remember this situation, where Klein pushed a Polish player, who in turn fell on top of another German player which caused a serious leg injury. The referees showed Klein a red card, indicating a disqualification, and some days later there was an announcement that Klein had been given a 2-game suspension by the Disciplinary Commission at the EURO 2012, which would keep him out of last week’s and this week’s qualifying games against Bosnia. (The suspension did/does not apply to club games). It was later announced that DHB had appealed the verdict to the Jury (in the case of a centralized competition such as EURO 2012 the second level, equivalent to the EHF Court of Appeals in the case of decentralized competition). The Jury confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Commission.

But this was not the end of it. More recently it was found that the DHB had appealed to the EHF Court of Arbitration. Many, myself included, found this DHB action rather tasteless, because our observations of the incident when it happened, made us feel that a suspension of that length was quite justified, not because of the injury that happened to occur but because of the seemingly reckless nature of the action. We assumed that the referees had classified the action as ‘particularly reckless or dangerous’ and warranting a report, and that the Disciplinary Commission had used its authority and judgment by reviewing the report and concluding that a suspension of 2 games was warranted. Therefore, there was puzzlement when the recent decision by the Court of Arbitration was announced. What could possibly have been the reason for this reversal? It caused speculation, some of a rather sinister kind, insinuating favorable treatment for DHB etc.

Of course, all the speculation could have been avoided if only the EHF had been using a more transparent system for announcing the decisions of its disciplinary and legal bodies. It is the norm that we just get the result but no indication of the rationale. This is really not a very helpful and appropriate approach. (As a sharp contrast and good model, one could point to system used by the National Hockey League (NHL), where great care is taken to explain exactly why (or why not) a suspension has been decided). More facts and clarity would clearly help provide more credibility for the application of the EHF legal system.

Before I go on and explain what actually seemed to happen back in January and now later in the Court of Arbitration, let me remind about the applicable rules. For many years, the two serious types of personal punishments were ‘disqualification’ and ‘exclusion’. The exclusion meant that not just was the player out for the rest of the game, but the team had to play shorthanded for the duration. This was seen as a far too drastic punishment, so in 2010, the universal IHF rules were changed and the concept of ‘exclusion’ was eliminated. Instead, the rules now have ‘disqualification without report’ and ‘disqualification WITH report’. (As I noted earlier, the latter category is for actions that are seen as particularly reckless or dangerous).

When the referees decide, and the point is that nobody else can decide it, that a foul belongs in the category ‘without report’ (rule 8:5), then there shall be no action beyond the end of the game. (Regrettably, both EHF, DHB and some other federations go against this universal rule and sometimes decide on punishments in any case…). If the referees decide that the foul needs to be classified as warranting disqualification WITH report (rule 8:6), then of course they must indicate this in the match report and submit a separate report directly after the game. The decision as to which category applies must be taken immediately when the situation happens. After showing the red card, the referees must inform both the official for the team and also the match delegate if they have decided that it is ‘8:6 and report’. The team has the right to know immediately. If nothing is being said, this means that the decision was ‘8:5’ and that no report will follow. The player will be eligible for the next game.

BUT, it has now come out that in the case of the Klein incident, the referees did not say anything about 8:6 and report, so the DHB had reason to assume that this was the end of the story. This was apparently confirmed by the absence of a notation in the Match Report. Instead, it seems that the EHF Disciplinary Commission in that group of the EURO 2012, despite having no such authority, must have taken upon itself to change the decision of the referees, placing the action in the category of ‘8:6 with report’ and adding a 2-game suspension. It is astounding that an EHF Disciplinary Commission can show such ignorance or disregard for the playing rules and their own lack of authority. It is equally amazing that the Jury did not discover and counteract this serious error, instead choosing to rubberstamp the initial decision. In other words, when reviewing the matter more carefully, the EHF Court of Arbitration had no choice: it simply had to set aside the decision of the lower levels.

In a nutshell: it is irrelevant whether we agree with the initial decision of the referees, because only they have the right to take the decision of choosing between 8:5 and 8:6. So the DHB opinion on that aspect is not of interest. And it is irrelevant what the reasoning of the EHF Disciplinary Commission was, even if they were present and saw the situation. They have no role to play, if the referees decide that it is 8:5 that applies.

It occurs to me that one small change in the playing rules might be of help. In the past, everyone could immediately see the difference between disqualification (red card) and exclusion (hand signal with crossed arms). Now what we see is simply a red card in both cases, and typically a spectator or TV viewer does not notice if the referees also give verbal information to the match delegate and the team official. Perhaps the time has for an additional/separate card; let me propose a blue one…

But more important is the need for the EHF to improve its decision-making procedures, its adherence to the universal IHF playing rules, and the transparency in its communications about disciplinary cases.