We woke up Wednesday morning to the publication of a decision of the CAF Appeal Board on the AFCON 2025 final case between Morocco and Senegal.
The decision has rippled across the continent, igniting debate and raising eyebrows in equal measure.
The ruling is a dangerous precedent on the adjudication of disputes in association football and can be faulted on 3 grounds:
(I) a misconception, a misinterpretation & a misapplication of art 82 & 84 of the CAF AFCON Regulations;
(ii) an assault on law 5 of the laws of the game;
(iii) an attack on integrity of the game.
(I) Arts 82 & 84 of the CAF AFCON Regulations requires teams, players and officials to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds ethics, integrity and sportsmanship.
Punishment is meted to those whose conduct brings the game of football into disrepute. These are general provisions of the CAF disciplinary which will apply in situations only where there are no specific provisions.
Articles 88-106 lays down elaborate acts of misconduct and the corresponding or applicable sanctions including forfeiture of matches, stadium ban, deduction of points, etc.
Why did the CAF Appeals Board find solace in the general rules, (which were inapplicable in the instant case) as opposed to the specific rules? (which cannot also be relied on to sanction Senegal).
It must be appreciated that, in the heat of highly charged contests marked by moments of provocation, it is not uncommon for players to protest decisions or even stage brief walkouts.
Such reactions are part of football’s emotional fabric; witnessed countless times, even within our domestic leagues, and, in themselves, do not constitute a serious offence.
It becomes offensive and an infringement of the rules of the game when one team causes or contributes to the abrupt end of a game through a walkout and doesn’t return to end the game.
Such conduct may be punished with a forfeiture of a match, and/or a deduction of points together with a fine, and other consequential sanctions
During the Marocco vs Senegal match in January this year, although there was a temporary holdup and/or walkout, the players returned to complete the match.
Individual misconducts may be identified and punished. The instant decision of the CAF Appeal Board is a high handed misapplication of the rules. A dangerous precedent that must be condemned by all well meaning followers of football.
After every game, the rules require a referee to write a report and make a determination as to whether the match ended or not subject however to stated misconducts.
Did the referee indicate in his report that the match did not conclude?
The circumstances for application of arts 82 & 83 were clearly non-existent in the case under review. By this decision, the CAF Appeal Board has brought unto CAF, untold and unnecessary public ignominy, opprobrium and contempt.
(Ii) Law 5 of the laws of the game constitutes the position/office of a match referee into the arbiter/judge of facts as far as the match is concerned.
Such factual decisions on conduct of the game are usually not subject to appeal. That is why in most matches referees’ decisions on fouls, offsides, goals, time played, time added, etc are not contested or reversed after the game.
It was apparent to all that the match between Morocco and Senegal was duly brought to an end by the match referee from Congo Mr. Jean-Jacques Ndala. Any contrary findings by the CAF Appeal Board has no basis in the laws of the games.
(iii) Integrity of the game
The decision to reverse the outcome of the match between Morocco and Senegal is an assault on the integrity of the game. Apart of CAF, and the two teams, the public is a key stakeholder of the sport of football, that’s why football games are played in the open and telecast widely to the whole world.
Without a reasonable and justifiable basis, CAF would not be taken seriously by the public if board room maneuverings can be implored to tinker with outcomes of games publicly played.
Serious credibility issues will be raised when football officialdom in Africa can operate like a Kangaroo court where obscure, inexplicable and controversial decisions can replace fair and transparent decisions taken in broad day light by referees.
Sponsors will begin to re-consider decisions to associate with a system where integrity of decisions can be compromised with impunity
- President Commissions 36.5 Million Dollars Hospital In The Tain District
- You Will Not Go Free For Killing An Hard Working MP – Akufo-Addo To MP’s Killer
- I Will Lead You To Victory – Ato Forson Assures NDC Supporters
Visit Our Social Media for More
About Author
