There are a number of points I would like to make on this CAF Appeals Committee ruling. First, let’s clear the air on this Senegal leaving the pitch for 15 minutes argument. There is nothing in the CAF Afcon Regulations that specifically state how much time a team may be off the pitch for them to forfeit the game. Second, there is nothing in the IFAB Laws of the Game addressing a team walking off and/abandoning a game. With those pieces of housekeeping done, let’s look at the actual regulations. And I will focus on Art 82 as it is the main crux of the issue. Art 84 is simply the sanction for violation. ARTICLE 82 If, for any reason whatsoever, a team withdraws from the competition or does not report for a match, or refuses to play or LEAVES THE GROUND before the regular end of the match without the authorisation of the referee, it shall be considered looser and shall be eliminated for good from the current competition. The same shall apply for the teams previously disqualified by decision of CAF. There are two offenses here that Senegal MAY have committed. The first is “refusing to play” the second is “leaves the ground” REFUSING TO PLAY It could be argued by the language of the Regulation that that does not apply to Senegal because by starting and playing the game, they did not “refuse to play”. Looking at the chronology of the wording, it starts with - withdraws from the competition - does not report for a match - refuses to play - leaves the ground The progression is clear: - not appearing for the competition - appearing but not showing up to play - showing up but refusing to play - and then leaving after If we go by the letter and progression there, then we can say that the only one that applies to Senegal is the last one. If the language had been “refuses to continue play”, with the operative word there being “continue” that might present a stronger case. But this might just be me splitting hairs. Now to the “leaves the ground” part. There are 16 mentions of “field” or “field of play” in these AFCON Regulations in reference to the pitch. Here are two examples: ART 16.20.2 The match is restarted with the same players on the FIELD and with the same substitutes available when the match was interrupted; ART 42.3 A player expelled from the FIELD by the referee is automatically suspended for the following match in the framework of the same competition, without prejudice to other sanctions that might be imposed upon him subsequently. Mentions of ground always refer to the venue, not the pitch. This distinction was clearly not accidental. Senegal may have left the field, but they did not leave the ground. So if we follow that argument, then we can see that there would have been no reason for the game to be abandoned as Senegal did not leave the ground. Only the field. Clear distinction Finally, we go to the outcome of the game and the authority of the referee to determine the result LAW 5 The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected. “The referee may not change a restart decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official IF PLAY HAS RESTARTED or if play has restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or abandoned the match. Clearly, even if we agree that the referee made a mistake in not abandoning the game, the fact that they completed the second half, and played two additional periods of extra time before coming to a result, precludes anything else. The referee restarted the game, it was played to a conclusion and there was a result. Senegal won. Morocco lost. C’est finis QED

The late Issa Hayatou rarely did press interviews. I was privileged to be the last journalist to interview him, just before he lost his election to Ahmad Ahmad. Here is an answer he gave to one of my questions "We’re not acting by imitation, we’re not acting that “because FIFA (or UEFA) did it we absolutely have to do it with CAF”. Now, the context of the question was different, but the thought process applies to how he ran CAF: powerful, independent of external influences. Today, before FIFA even says jump, CAF is already sky-bound