Read Comments Comments (6)

• Alhaj Baakome 18 hours ago

  This is a stupid comparison. None of the other natches was played fully,together with extra. If the referee had ended the match, as a result of Senegal walk out, they would have forfeited the match. Even if Senegal was leadin ...
  read full comment

  This is a stupid comparison. None of the other natches was played fully,together with extra. If the referee had ended the match, as a result of Senegal walk out, they would have forfeited the match. Even if Senegal was leading and walked off, they woukd have been declared losers. However this match ended, so CAF is wrong, very wrong.

  reply
• Irie Man 16 hours ago

  GAF's decision is correct, even though it is painful. A wrong thing allowed to proceed to the end does not validate the wrong. I know somebody who won a case against an instutution, in the folliwing case: An institution gave ...
  read full comment

  GAF's decision is correct, even though it is painful. A wrong thing allowed to proceed to the end does not validate the wrong. I know somebody who won a case against an instutution, in the folliwing case: An institution gave the person a teaching contract, which the person signed the contract and took the job. When he assumed post, he was given a time table that he had to teach in all the 7 days of the week (yes, from Monday to Sunday). The lecturer wrote to the institution to complain and to ask for free days, but the institution refused and pointed to the contract he signed, and told him to go to court if he thought he was treated inappropriately. The lecturer indeed went to court, and the institution went to the court to defend its action, on the fact that the lecturer read the contract, acepted and signed, and so the court should throw the case out. But the lecturer's lawers argued that labor laws demand every employer to give their workers 48 continous hours (2 contigous days) of rest, so the lecturer signing the contract, whether by ignorance or by whatever does not nulify the fact that the institution disobeyed labors laws and hence national laws., and therefore the court should render the contract null and void. Truly, the court overturned the contract and the lecturer won the case.
  
  Now FIFA's rules say that if a team refuses to honour a scheduled football match, or if a team walks off the pitch during a football mach, their opponent should be declared the winner with 3 goals. In this case, Senegal walked off the pitch, but returned and the refree ignorantly allowed the match to continue, and eventually Senegal won. Yes, the refree erred, and the Moroccans also ignorantly agreed to play. However, it still doesn't nulify the fact that Senegal broke the rule. And just like the case of the lecturer, Morocco still had the right to go for arbitration after the game. To Morocco, it was the refree's fault, but they just had to follow the proceedings, and to file a complaint later.
  
  CAF has done nothing wrong: the rule is the rule, the law is the law, period.

  reply
• Yao 16 hours ago

  The decision of CAF will be overturned when it goes to CAS. Senegal should not waste time filing their appeal to CAS.

  The decision of CAF will be overturned when it goes to CAS. Senegal should not waste time filing their appeal to CAS.

  reply
• Irie Man 16 hours ago

  Give reasons

  Give reasons

  reply
• PITO 9 hours ago

  Irie Man, your comparison to this case is flawed from the start. The teacher had a problem with an institution- OK THIS is two personna case teacher vs institution. CAF, Senegal and Morocco is a three personna case. You are C ...
  read full comment

  Irie Man, your comparison to this case is flawed from the start. The teacher had a problem with an institution- OK THIS is two personna case teacher vs institution. CAF, Senegal and Morocco is a three personna case. You are Comparing apples and oranges here. Morocco had a right to sue CAF and Senegal also has right to Sue CAF. This is the three persona case. The problem is CAF allowing the game between these two to continue to its legal conclusion and Morrocco agreeing to take the chance penalty and continue was a gamble. All ceremonies by CAF and external repercussions have taken place after the match concluded. CAF has taken a silly backtrack and Senegal likewise has a right to appeal on very valid and logical grounds.

  reply
• Sansiro 15 hours ago

  My problem is (1)the refree and the match commissioner why did they allowed the match to continue?( 2) Morrocans why them too they didn't protest on the pitch or drawn the refree and the match commissioner attention on the la ...
  read full comment

  My problem is (1)the refree and the match commissioner why did they allowed the match to continue?( 2) Morrocans why them too they didn't protest on the pitch or drawn the refree and the match commissioner attention on the law?(3) do we have a law that can change full time results of a football game?

  reply