In recent time I commented on the pending proposal to introduce a third team time-out per team and game, and I also discussed the perceptions about how the current allocation of team time-outs is typically being used.  When doing so, I did not realize what I have now heard from well-informed sources: a decision has been taken to introduce the possibility also for the referees to request a time-out.  This is indeed a surprising and interesting idea!  Presumably it will be officially reported to the IHF Congress next month.

It seems that the referees in a game will be allowed to request one 1-minute time-out in each half of the game.  They will only be able to do it when the ball is out of play, and they must take care not to interfere with a quick restart of the game, for instance after a goal has been scored.  Similarly, it would obviously not be appropriate to use the time-out in certain other situations, e.g., precisely when a team is ready to execute a 7-meter throw.

IHF Referee Chief Manfred Prause notes that “it is only fair that the referees also are given this opportunity.  There are many situations in a game where the referees, just like the teams, may need some little time to discuss tactics or regain their composure.”  Prause also clarifies that while improved opportunities for communication between the referees now may exist through the use of ear phones, this is typically available only at the elite level.  The time-out may be particularly welcome at the lower levels where less experienced referees are used.

Commission member Roland Buergi is a little bit concerned that the usage of a time-out may provide a signal that the referees have become worried or are somehow ‘admitting’ that they believe they have just made a mistake.  “The referees need to be smart and avoid using the time-out in connection with a controversial decision or right after they have been criticized”, he suggests.  One might think that the best timing is instead when there are some important changes in the flow of the game or the atmosphere on the court.

Commission member Ramon Gallego admits to some initial skepticism about the idea.  “We have worked very hard to emphasize and improve the fitness of the top referees”, he says, “so it would be awkward to give the impression that the referees need these time-outs simply because they are getting tired”.  I understand Gallego’s concerns but I suspect that in fact it might be the players who will appreciate the added opportunity to catch their breath.

All the details have not been determined yet, and it is likely that the IHF and the continents will do some experimenting in events prior to the 2011-12 season when the ‘black card’ will be formally introduced.  Indeed, the utilization of a ‘black card’ with a white ‘T’ is one of the few specific aspects that have been decided.  Red, yellow and green are colors that are already being used, so there were some voices in favor of a blue card, but the traditional referee color of black apparently won out.

It is going to be interesting to follow the implementation of this new idea.  I bet there are many retired referees who will think that it is something they could have used in their own careers…

Swedish Handball Federation President, Hans Vestberg, in his younger days.

As shown in the photo, the business of handball is a ‘bloody serious’ matter for Hans Vestberg (here in his younger days as an enthusiastic player).  As many who followed the World Championship in Sweden know, he combines his professional life as Managing Director for the world-renowned Ericsson group with a continued handball involvement as the President of the Swedish Handball Federation.  This combination is in many ways symbolic for the following story. 

In connection with the World Championship in Sweden, the Swedish Men’s Elite League (HEH) announced ambitious plans to try to become more competitive.  A particular frustration is that the Swedish top clubs frequently lose strong players to financially stronger clubs abroad.  While HEH certainly does not see it as realistic to resist the pressures from Bundesliga clubs or the richer Spanish clubs, it is a particular objective to become competitive enough to avoid that the Swedish clubs are drained by clubs in neighboring countries, especially Denmark.  Perhaps there is also some special pride and prestige involved in not losing out to the immediate neighbors.

Put differently, the HEH wants the Swedish League to acquire a status just below the counterparts in Germany and Spain.  I had a chat with Stefan (Abbe) Albrechtson, strong man in HEH and in Saevehof (incl. Partille Cup).  He emphasized that the league is not in any way seeking some kind of separation from the Swedish federation, along the lines of the situation in Germany and Spain.  On the contrary, he and his colleagues in the Swedish top clubs look to the federation for coordination and support.  Educational efforts and exchanges of best practices need to be synchronized.  Clearly, the persona and spirit of someone like Hans Vestberg is not likely to hurt that effort.

The Swedish tax legislation makes it difficult for Swedish clubs to compete with counterparts in other countries, and the chances that new major sponsors will spontaneously come forward are also limited.  The focus must be on working more efficiently, in the sense of being more business-like, stronger in the emphasis on publicity, TV coverage and service to the spectators.  HEH has its own web TV production with about 60 games per year, and the national TV channels now cover around 50 games per year after previously having wanted no involvement at all.  The top clubs now typically have modern arenas.  Abbe does not believe in hand-picking teams from larger cities or having a ‘closed’ league.  The traditions in favor of the current system, with the Elite League as a top of a pyramid are far too strong.  But using business contacts and knowledge in the competition for local or regional sponsors is critical.

Clearly, any hopes of moving up to a higher level more generally depend on a stronger business sense among the handball leaders. Traditional methods do not work any longer.  The clubs need a stronger outreach in the community and also regionally.  Coaches and people with technical handball knowledge need to be supplemented by strong managers, financial experts and organizers.   Abbe surprised me a bit by saying that there is not much of an effort to draw on the experience of other sports such as football or icehockey.  He feels that the methods needed for handball depend more on the special features of handball.  Attracting people and money involves ‘selling’ handball as a specific product.

It is really interesting to hear this optimism and to see such initiatives at a time when many major clubs in other countries are struggling.  Most of the clubs in the Spanish top league ASOBAL are on shaky ground.  And in Denmark there are recent studies indicating that the majority of the top men’s and women’s club are encountering increasing problems.   For instance, the creation of the new top club AGK Copenhagen is seen with skepticism and fear by many in Danish handball, as it may be causing too much of a polarization between strong and weak, and setting the bar far too high for virtually anyone else.  But going back to the Swedish scenario:  at this moment in time, the economy is in a much more favorable situation than in most other European countries.  There remains a focus on quality of life, with sports as an important area for participation and enjoyment.  So perhaps this is the right moment for optimistic initiatives.

I still remember the debate that preceded the introduction of the team time-out, first in the Olympic Games in 1996 and then in the general rules from 1997.  Many experts viewed the whole idea with some skepticism or even outright suspicion.  Would it really be appropriate for a coach to use a time-out to interrupt the flow of the game for the opponents; should that not really be regarded as unsportsmanlike?  And why these stoppages to convey instructions to the team, when in any case you can bring players to the bench and give the necessary explanations!  Plus of course the additional objections from the purists, who did not like the idea because it was picked up from basketball…

Clearly the concept is now generally accepted.  Although I should perhaps be careful with the word generally, as there are many countries who do not permit team time-outs at the lower levels or in youth games, simply because they take up too much valuable time when several games are squeezed into a limited timeframe in a hall.  But at the top levels it has become accepted as an integral part of the game, used either to find ways of changing one’s own team’s tactics or, yes, to try to counter something that the opponents are doing.  Many times it is saved until the last minute of the half, to be available to agree on some special effort during the last attack of the half, especially on offense but even on defense.

In an IHF Forum last fall, with experts debating possible changes in the game development and in the rules development, one of the few ideas connected to the rules that came up was a proposal to increase the team time-outs from two per game (one per half) to three per game for each team.  To some extent it must have been proposed as a benefit for the coaches in the fast-paced games at the elite level, but I suspect it was also an issue of interest for television and to some extent for spectators and other media.  So I was a bit amazed when I heard that it might be proposed for the general rule book to be used at all levels, but this does not make any sense at all.  Surely it must be a mistake, and the correct approach would be to consider if for the completion regulations of the IHF, continental federations and national federations, so that it could be applied in the top games.

In any case, knowing that this proposal is being discussed, I found it interesting during the recent World Championship in the approximately 30 matches I watched live to make note of how the team time-out was being used.  I must admit I did not literally make notes, and of course I saw just one third of the total number of matches in the Championship.  So my impressions may not be so accurate, and this is precisely why I hope that the IHF could find the resources to carry out a small study.  When and why is the team time-out being used?  This would not just be ‘interesting’; it could be of help in determining the exact rules for how a possible third time-out per team could be used.

My impression, in comparison with previous Championships, was that more than ever before the time-outs were saved to the last couple of minutes of the game, just in case a special situation would arise>  Personally I am not sure that this fits in with the main reasons why the team-time out originally was introduced.  But perhaps one could turn that argument around and say that if now the coaches are so conservative, this might in fact support the need for one additional time-out (or even two) that could be used at some point(s) during the game when a basic change in tactics or methods seems needed.  This often happens when the opponents have scored several goals in sequence or when one’s own team has failed to have success with the initially agreed tactics.

So it would really be nice if someone, with the help of the match videos and score sheets could go back and check for all matches, when and for what apparent reason was each time-out used.  A simple indication of what happened in the score and in the run of play for a number of minutes prior to the time-out should give sufficient clues to someone familiar with handball tactics.  And the success rate when using the time-out during the last minute(s) would obviously also be interesting!  Please IHF, find some experts or handball students who would be interested in this small project!

In a recent article I commented on the availability of sufficiently strong teams in Europe and the other continents, and also about finding the right balance between the two blocks.  I concluded that, for the Men’s and Women’s World Championships, most likely 24 remained the best number of participants, especially as 20 creates complications regarding the format.

But there are other concerns, for instance regarding the overall length of the event (especially for players from the top club teams with heavy match schedules), about the intensity of the WCh schedule (especially for players who are not used to such a pace, and generally due to increased risks for injuries), and also the abundance of uneven and boring games between very strong and quite inexperienced teams.   On the other hand, these events are the only chance for the No. 2-3-4 teams from the non-European continents to measure their strength against opponents from other continents.  And it is important to find a format where the teams that at that moment are the best really get a chance to fight for the higher spots in the ranking (rather than having been eliminated in qualifying 6-12 months earlier).

Looking at these considerations, it should be possible to come up with a format that takes these different and seemingly contradictory arguments into account.  But one needs to think about it in a slightly unorthodox manner.  Is it really necessary to have all the 24 teams participating from the outset?  Is it not sufficient that the teams 17-24 do get a chance to be there in the end and to show that they have moved up in the rankings!  And would it not be an advantage if some of the top teams with a higher proportion of top players got a somewhat reduced schedule?

My idea is to have the teams 9-24 participate in 4 groups of 4 teams from the beginning.  This is likely to lead to a lot of more closely fought games among teams who want to move on to the next round.  The less experienced non-European teams get to play a variety of teams from other continents but will not have to play against the top 8 teams at this stage.  And the top eight teams get an added and well-deserved advantage from having done well in previous events.  The only debate might be about how one decides which the 8 seeded teams should be.  Perhaps one would have to be a little bit ‘political’ and include one team each from Africa, America and Asia, to ensure that they are represented in the next round.

So the top two teams from each of the initial four groups of four would advance to the main round, while the bottom two would get two more games in some kind of President’s Cup to work out the placements 17-24.  The eight teams that move up would be placed again in four groups of four, with the team seeded 1-8 having been distributed two each in these four main round groups.   The top two teams in each of the main round groups would qualify for quarterfinals. The remainder would play for positions 9-16.

This means that the bottom eight teams get five games each during roughly 8 days.   The teams seeded 1-8 would start later and would have 6 games each in about ten days.  The heavier burden would fall on the teams that move on from the preliminary round to the main round, and they would get eight or nine games, depending on their ranking in the main round.  But these teams would include the solid middle group and possibly also some teams that cause a surprise and move all the way to the quarter-finals and beyond.  Surely these teams do not mind getting some additional matches and surely the spectators would not mind seeing a bit more of them.

I am not trying to argue that this is the best or the only new idea that could be considered.  I just see it as an illustration of how one could address the different issues:  a chance for 24 teams to participate, a way of ensuring that those who are best at the right moment also do rise to the top, a way of ensuring less pressure on many of the top players, and a higher proportion of games that are close and exciting.  Undoubtedly, others could come up with other alternatives.  But the point is that one has to be prepared to move away from a format where all the teams participate from the beginning.

Russia appears to be resorting to offcourt shenanigans to improve its chances of qualification for Euro 2012

When I was in Sweden for the World Championship, I cannot remember hearing anyone regretting that the Russian team was not participating.  From a spectator standpoint, it is hard to remember when a Russian/Soviet team displayed the kind of attractive style of handball that today’s top teams show us.  Russia was in 16^th place in 2009.  Their next opportunity now, on the men’s side, is the European Championship next January.

I should insert the comment that, contrary to what handball people around the world might think, despite Soviet/Russian successes at the international level, with national or club team, handball is NOT a major sport in Russia.  I remember being told by their federation officials a few years ago, that handball is in fact not among the top 20 sports in the country.  Possibly, the situation might be a bit better on the women’s side, due to traditions with strong coaching and a thin base of really outstanding talents from the youth level and on up.

Anyway, it seems now that Russia is determined to be back for the EURO 2012.  The methods, however, may not be very fair and pleasant.  There has been an outrage in Denmark this week, which has on the schedule home and away qualification matches between the two countries.  For the match in Russia yesterday, the Danish team had some injury problems and needed to insert some reserve players.  However, with the excuse of offices being closed due to some obscure and extended public holiday, the Russians simply informed that there was no possibility to provide a visa.

Things got worse, when it was discovered that three key players who are on the Flensburg club team would not be allowed to enter Russia either.  The completely weird explanation was that these players, with their club team, had been to Russia very recently and could not now be allowed to enter Russia so soon again.  It is not that crazy bureaucratic and despotic rules interpretations are so surprising in Russia, but it is understandable if the Danes really assumed that this was a machination specifically intended to weaken the Danish team.  Danish protests did not help, and the EHF declared itself impotent.

It is rather awkward that this comes soon after a remarkable incident in the previous home game for Russia in the qualification event.  In a game against Switzerland, where Russia had a narrow lead close to the end, the final chance for Switzerland was removed by an incorrect intervention by the EHF match supervisor, who ‘saw’ something that clearly did not happen and thus took away the ball from the Swiss and instead gave them a 2-minute suspension.  The Swiss formally protested afterwards, and the protest was accepted by the first level in the EHF appeals mechanism.  A replay was ordered. 

Given the serious ramifications of that decision, concerning the fundamental rules principles involved, the EHF itself found it necessary to appeal to the second level.  While emotionally one must sympathize with the Swiss sentiments, I have to state that such rules interpretations must be based on principles and not on sentiments.  Accordingly, I must hope that EHF prevails, even if it means that Russia will have benefited from a mistake in its favor.  Perhaps it will, regardless of the outcome, be a reminder to the EHF about the necessity of being extremely selective in nominating supervisors for games where intensive pressure in different forms can be anticipated…

Finally, it is ironic that the fourth team in the qualification group is Belarus.  It may well turn out that Russia’s chances of qualifying will depend on the result of the final game, at home against Belarus.  I would not want to be Danish or Swiss and have my hopes based on Belarus being given a chance to gain any points in that match-up…

It is generally positive to try to create some PR around a Championship by creating awards and other forms of recognition for deserving persons.  The most common concept has been the nomination of an All Star Team, together with a Most Valuable Player (MVP).  But the concept has become increasingly boring, with a combination of predictability, strange choices and politics.

There tend to be persons available who have the necessary expertise to select the nominees, but the criteria are always unclear.  For instance, how much attention should be paid to goal scoring?  How important is it to get a perfect fit for each of the 6 court player positions, even if this means that a deserving player is left out?  Should one go more for longevity, i.e., players who are already established stars, or should one try to find some emerging stars?  And how much does one need to think about spreading the nominations over the top four or five teams, with an extra slot for the gold medal winners and/or a special recognition for the host team?

Moreover, the selection process can make the whole situation anticlimactic.  If, as now was the case in Sweden, the team is announced immediately before the two medal games, it is clear that nothing that happens in the finals could change the outcome.  This is really a bit strange but perhaps necessary for practical reasons.  And this may be why the MVP is sometimes, like now in Sweden, left off the All Star Team.  Is seems that this is by definition impossible, but at least it opens up one more place.  And when now Karabatic showed in the final how important he is to the French team, it seemed that he was a most appropriate choice for MVP.  But perhaps that selection could wait until after the finals?

This time there were reactions of surprise and disagreement, when some of the members of the All Star Teams were announced.  Surely Norway had better candidates than someone who was simply their reliable 7-meter shooter!  And did really many think that Doder was the best choice from the Swedish team?  And if now Balic and Vori did not deserve to be included, was it necessary to have a Croatian, if Zrnic somehow was the best choice.  And conversely, how could the Danish wing players be left out, and was there really nobody deserving on the Spanish team?  Perhaps one should have demonstratively refrained from choosing a pivot, considering that this must be the weakest year for pivots in a very long time!?

It came to my mind during the late stages in Sweden that one could perhaps create more excitement by introducing a different type of All Star Team, either in addition to the normal one or instead of the traditional approach.  For me, one of the most exciting aspects of the whole Championship was to observe the many new, younger players who had a dominating or surprising role on their respective teams.  This time there were plenty of them, as many of the top teams are undergoing a bit of a generation change.  I also heard many experts and ordinary spectators talk with excitement about these players.

So perhaps what we should have is some kind of ‘Newcomers’ or ‘Discovery’ All Star Team.  Not one with a lot of rigid rules regarding age or previous experience, but one based on the excitement and surprises caused by these emerging top players.  Perhaps one should call them ‘Future All Stars’.  And one might not need to have exactly 7 players, one for each basic position.  Perhaps one could select more freely up to 10 such players regardless of position.  I really do think this would create more genuine excitement and debate!  And people always seem to find it interesting to speculate about the future, rather than discussing if the All Stars from last time deserve to be nominated yet again…