Last week I expressed my strong concerns about how the EHF and some national federations illegally set aside what is prescribed in the playing rules regarding post-game suspension following disqualifications during games. Essentially, these federations explicitly violate the rules by not respecting the formal distinction between ‘red card WITH report’ and ‘red card WITHOUT report’. They do so by instigating disciplinary proceedings in cases where the referees have used their prerogative to classify a disqualification as one that is NOT to be causing a report and any subsequent action.
Despite my own frustrations with this issue, I was very surprised by the widespread reactions I got via e-mail and telephone calls, from representatives for leagues/clubs/players, referees, media and handball fans. They gave such strong support for my views and added important comments, so I have decided to follow up with a brief summary of the key concerns:

Leagues/clubs/players are seriously concerned about the inconsistencies and the unpredictability that follows from the illegal practices. This is just the opposite of what was intended by the clear distinctions in the 2010 IHF Playing Rules. I got comments that described the practice of setting aside the Playing Rules as a state of lawlessness that we do not want in the world of sports.

People were asking why it would occur to the EHF to do something like this and, of course, how the IHF could tolerate it. It was suggested that it must reflect a desire on the part of the EHF and other federations to ‘flex their muscles’ and demonstrate their perceived power in an inappropriate way. Several persons commented that, in an asymmetric way, it amounts to punishing more harshly than the rules prescribe.

The rules were changed in 2010, and the concept of ‘exclusion’ (causing a team to play shorthanded for the rest of the game) was removed. Instead, it was decided to introduce TWO separate categories of disqualifications: the ‘routine’ form, that is specifically not intended to lead to further punishment after the game; and then the category reserved for really dangerous/reckless fouls, for grossly unsportsmanlike conduct, and for the situations involving what we could call ‘last minute sabotage’.

The latter category, based on what the REFEREES decided, is the ONLY one that gives the responsible federation the authority to consider a further punishment on the basis of the referee report. It should be noted that it is NOT automatic that there should be a further punishment; the federation may decide that the ‘rest of the game’ disqualification was sufficient. It really could not be more clear-cut, and it is hard to see how the EHF and the other federations involved could have misunderstood. And it is equally hard to see where they think they get their authority from; it is really as illegal as it would be if a federation wanted to add a punishment to a player who received a 2-minute suspension or caused a 7-meter.

It was also pointed out that the illegal practice creates problems in the existing efforts (which are embraced also by the EHF itself) to ensure that the referees have the courage and good judgment to use the red card when it is appropriate, instead of backing off and letting it suffice with a 2-minute suspension. But several people now commented to me that referees become tempted to refrain from giving a ‘red card WITHOUT report’, because they fear that the federation will take upon itself to start a disciplinary process and perhaps give out a suspension, something that the referees know is illegal and unjustified by virtue of their decision to place the event in the ‘WITHOUT report’ category. This risk that the referees will feel pressure to avoid giving red cards is totally undesirable, and this cannot possibly be what the EHF and others are seeking to achieve.

So how about it, my many sensible and competent friends at the top of the EHF: HOW WOULD IT BE IF YOU WERE TO ANNOUNCE THAT, STARTING WITH THE 2012-13 SEASON, YOU WOULD ABANDON YOUR ILLEGAL AND UNDESIRABLE PRACTICES AND INSTEAD START FOLLOWING THE UNIVERSAL PLAYING RULES!?

There have been too many instances recently, where a red card has led to post-match uncertainty, disputes and improper handling of the matter. Mostly, because these are the situations which are given more publicity, it involves EHF competition, but I have information that similar problems seem to exist in national federations, for instance in Germany. This is very regrettable, because players and clubs should be able to count on predictability and consistency; it is also largely unnecessary, because the basic IHF Playing Rules, which MUST be respected by all continental and national federations, offer both clarity and limits regarding the post-match handling of a disqualification (‘red card’)!

The 2010 playing rules make a very important distinction between the ‘basic’ disqualification due to a foul or unsportsmanlike conduct (rules 8:5 and 8:9 respectively) and the more dangerous fouls and serious conduct (rules 8:6 and 8:10 respectively) where the referees are required to send a report to the organizing federation regarding the disqualification. The important point here is that the referees are the ONLY ones, using their subjective judgment on the basis of existing criteria, who have the prerogative to decide if a foul falls under rule 8:5 or 8:6 and if a misconduct falls under 8:9 or 8:10. Moreover, this decision must be taken immediately by the referees at the time of the incident, and they are obliged to inform the team immediately, if their decision is to classify the action under 8:6 or 8:10.

This means that if the referees have given a red card and have concluded that 8:5 or 8:9 applies, meaning that no report is to be sent to federation, this is the END of the matter. The federation has NO right to override the judgment of the referees and take upon itself to decide about a further suspension. Indeed, one of the fundamental reasons for the distinction between ‘disqualification without report’ and ‘disqualification with report’ is precisely to avoid any uncertainty regarding the player’s status for future games and to prevent the possibility of capricious and inconsistent bureaucratic action. Presumably, it can only be ignorance or arrogance that causes the federations to ignore what the playing rules prescribe, and it is regrettable that the IHF turns a blind eye to these improper practices!

In those cases where there referees do submit a report, because a disqualification falls under rules 8:6 or 8:10, there are sometimes some misunderstandings, both among the responsible federations, and among the general public. The purpose of the report is to enable the federation to determine IF there should be further consequences and if so to what extent. In other words, a suspension is NOT automatic and mandatory just because a report has been filed. It is always up to the respective federation to apply its own principles, guidelines and procedures. Here they have a complete prerogative and are not under the jurisdiction of the IHF. Culture and traditions may impact the decision-making, and this may vary from country to country.

Of course, this does not mean that one does not want to see consistency and a clear logic in the decision-making WITHIN each federation. On the one hand, similar cases need to be treated in a similar way, so standardization is important. On the other hand, there must also be flexibility to make a distinction between cases that are not quite similar, or where the seriousness of the action varies, so one must guard against any tendencies to a ‘robotic’ decision-making. It also needs to be recognized that it is in fact difficult to compare and get consistency between entirely different types of cases. For instance, what is fair and consistent if one compares dangerous and reckless fouls that may lead to injuries, with grossly unsportsmanlike behavior that does not physically hurt anyone but may have a direct impact on the result of a game?

One particular situation, which unfortunately arises far too often, is the special case of illegally preventing the opponents from resuming the game or getting to a scoring chance during the LAST MINUTE of the game. Clearly, the reason why this, by definition, has been placed in the category of ‘disqualification WITH report’ is the desire to go as far as possible in discouraging this kind of cynical action, which is really bad for the spirit and the image of our game, especially if it does have its intended effect during the game. When the rule was introduced, attempts were made to tie the rule and the punishment not just to the ‘last minute’ but also to the notion of having a potential effect on the outcome.

Clearly there is a difference between situations where everyone knows that ‘the next goal will decide’, and situations where it is either impossible to know whether the next goal is so important or where it is clear that is UNimportant (and the action is really a case of sheer stupidity). It is also relevant whether the cynical player commits the action in a way that is at least physically harmless or whether the cynicism includes subjecting the player to physical danger. But despite these differences, the federations tend to be ‘on autopilot’ when giving out suspensions: for the EHF, one game seems to have become the standard. Here it would be appropriate to increase the length in those cases where the awareness of the impact was clear and/or there was reckless physical action involved. As it now is, many players and teams laugh at the ‘price’ of ONE game.

Wherever we are located, many of us are likely to be enjoying these two events, featuring enormously skilled athletes and very intense competition. But we are probably also groaning about many habits and incidents that detract from the overall experience, especially if we have a particular interest in refereeing and fair play. The impression is that we can consider ourselves comparatively lucky when we focus on rules and elite level refereeing in handball. But there are also indications of dangers and lessons to be learned.

The most conspicuous problem in the late stages in the regular season in the NHL and now in the play-offs is the total deterioration in the respect among players for the well-being of the opponent. Hard hitting and desperate methods can be both understood and tolerated, but an epidemic of actions which are either intentional or totally careless is putting many star players on the side-line with major injuries. Hits against the head, often causing long-lasting concussions, seem to be the ‘favorite’ method for the moment. The NHL tries to use suspensions as a deterrent, but there is no indication that this is really discouraging these actions.

Fortunately, we have yet not seen the quite same the cynicism in our recent, major events in handball. In our case it is more a matter of isolated incidents. But ‘flying elbows’ or fists to the face are dangerous actions that can far too easily occur in handball, especially if the referees are not alert and courageous, and if the federations to do not take such matters seriously enough.

In the case of NHL, I see a connection to another problem that I ‘desperately’ want us to avoid in handball. It is a tendency, or mentality, that may be relatively more common here in the U.S. What I am talking about is the attitude that in the play-offs, or in the final minutes of any game, “you should put the whistle away and let the players decide the outcome”. This has been more conspicuous than even in this year’s Stanley Cup, but to my mind it is totally misguided! First of all, it does not lead to fairness and a proper outcome if you ignore fouls and other violations. What simply happens is that the most cynical teams and players take advantage by being ruthless. Is this really what we want? And even worse, it creates an escalation on the ice/court so that finally there is a sense that ‘anything goes’ , with more and more dangerous action (including elbows to the head) and revenge fouls.

In the case of UEFA and Champions League, I want to focus on two issues. The first one involves ‘theater’, especially in terms of exaggerating the impact of a minor body contact or completing faking the existence of a foul from an opponent. In my opinion, football is getting worse and worse in this respect, mainly because there is too much tolerance for it. It creates major irritation between players, it leads to fouls and other forms of misbehavior, it creates a loss of respect for the referee. We really need to be careful in the handball and must be more prepared to take tougher action against such tendencies before these unpleasant habits become as common in handball as in football.

And then there is an issue related to an inherent advantage that we have in the handball rules, an aspect that we must take great care to protect and preserve. I am talking about the distinction between punishments for fouls and the restoring of a goal chance that has been illegally removed. It is terrible to see that football is not more rapidly dealing with the issue of ‘double punishment’ (penalty kick AND red card) for removing a clear scoring chance in the goal area. This is really unconscionable. But it also tells us that we in handball must take great care to make our referees understand the right situations for: 7-meter only; personal punishment but no 7-meter; both 7-meter and personal punishment. Another rules aspect that will not realistically change: in football the penalty kick depends simply on the position and not on scoring chance. This means that shirt pulling in the penalty area causes the referees to decide either to see what happens or to close their eyes. Perhaps this unsatisfactory effect should be remembered by those who think that we allow too much subjective judgment for the decision about a 7-meter in handball. I am sure that many football referees would love to have that prerogative!