A forfeit certainly isn’t ever the referee’s decision. As shown by the video above, there was an ongoing security situation, but it was mostly Senegalese fans who were attempting to enter the pitch. The body language on the Senegalese players resembled that of a team walking off in protest, but I don’t know that for sure. But this is what I mean; there are no protocols for this situation, at least none that anyone expects CAF to follow. Teams can do whatever they want because they know that there will never, ever be any real consequences for their nonsense. CAF is never going to declare a forfeit and give the trophy without finishing the game. So if Senegal thinks walking off and delaying the penalty as much as possible helps their chances, who or what is stopping them?
I mean, it's easy to focus on CAF here just as it's sometimes easy to focus on CONCACAF. But the truth is no international cup final is going to end on a forfeit in the contemporary world. Nor would any professional domestic cup final in any nation we might pay any attention to. No written protocol really matters in a cup final (or possibly even any KO match in a tournament like this); the authorities are going to get the match finished on the pitch. Instead of focusing on how the authorities handle things, it might be worth asking why this behavior happens in a CAF cup final versus other settings, but I would actually argue that no confederation is immune to this possibility, with the probable notable exception of UEFA.
Well, under the LOTG, the R could certainly have abandoned the game, but as @MassachusettsRef explains in greater detail, that just ain't gonna happen in federation competition final like this. (And an R does not have authority to declare a forfeit--that would be up to the completion authority.) He also could have cautioned all 10 players who left the field, but again at this level that isn't what the competition authority is going to expect. As far as "safety" as an excuse, I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that was the motivation--rather that the coach told them to go to the locker room in protest. So what sanctions will follow? Will AFCON suspend the coach for telling the team to leave the pitch?
After the discussion point I've seen on social media "did Brahim miss on purpose?", it seems worth noting that in one of the two group matches (unconvincingly) handled by this referee, who comes from the same country as both the CAF General Secretary and chairman of the CAF Referees Committee, this happened: https://streamff.com/v/d11dc291 Tomorrow I will catch up with the final but my hopes aren't high for a top performance .
Not directly related to what happened on the field, but apparently the press box had its own issues 2013043604420280737 is not a valid tweet id
What the…? That’s so bizarre. I mean it was a clear foul. Why did Tunisia even consider kicking the ball back to Tanzania there? (Even if it wasn’t a foul, that’s a silly thing to do… even more so if it’s a clear foul).
I don’t disagree with your assessment of the reality of the situation. But I’m pointing out that the teams are aware of that reality too. And there’s nothing stopping them from shamelessly abusing it. You say the organizers will make sure the match is finished on the field, but how far will they go to make that happen if the team decides to play a game of chicken? If Senegal had bunkered in the locker room and said “we’re not playing until the call is changed / until the referee is replaced to make a different call / until we get whatever we want”, and they actually commit to that… what’s stopping them? Teams can just make whatever demands they want, because everyone knows that the organizers will cave eventually. I don’t think that’s a good thing! I think teams who behave in such a way, who don’t respect the authority of the referee or the governing body, and who are willing to go to such unsporting extremes to get their way, should be punished extremely severely. Agreeing to participate fairly by respecting these authorities’ decisions even when you disagree with the decisions should be a prerequisite to participating in international football. Teams who don’t participate on those terms shouldn’t be allowed to play anymore, for a long while. But no organization has the chutzpah to go to such an extreme to protect the integrity of the game. I mean, you say UEFA’s probably an exception, but I disagree: we saw this scenario happen with the World Cup Playoff in 2022 involving Russia. UEFA and FIFA were gonna let Russia play; whether you agree or disagree with such a decision, the authority’s choice should be respected. But the other teams refused to play their matches because ultimately they knew that UEFA and FIFA were gonna cave. And they did. The inmates are running the asylum. In short, I’m arguing that there should be a pre-defined clear limit to have far organizers are willing to go to make sure a game is played, with clearly defined punishments in place to deter teams from ever crossing that line.
I really think we’re spiralling towards a “Constitutional Crisis” of sorts at World Cup 2026, either for reasons on or off the field. International football (not to mention other aspects of life particularly in the host nation) has been plagued in recent years by a lack of order, a lack of rules-based authority. Rules and norms don’t matter anymore because no one cares enough to enforce them. All the writing is on the wall. My prediction is that, at World Cup 2026, somebody will really test the boundaries of just how far this game of Chicken can go.
I can't recall a more glaring example of an apples to oranges argument here in quite a long time. My jaw dropped at this one. We absolutely did not "see this scenario." You're comparing in-match behavior by players during a cup final to off-field political manuevering by bureaucrats in the run-up to a match. And you're making that comparison to say that you disagree with my assessment... about cup finals. I don't even know how to really engage here. Except to say that this type of on-field behavior would almost certainly not happen at a EURO or UCL Final. And the same can't be said for a Gold Cup or Copa Final, for example. That was my point. Which I think still stands. And has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a national federation refusing to play Russia or Israel or whomever. As to your larger point... what demands of Senegal did CAF cave to? I don't think what you're saying there is true or accurate either. In these extreme situations, teams let of steam inappropriately, act unprofessionally, and violate inumerable competition regulations. And then they finish the match. You cite an even more extreme hypothetical example where Senegal literally doesn't return to the field. Okay, at that point, you get the forfeit. That's the answer. But just as CAF has incentive to finish the match, so does Senegal--or any team in a cup final, which is why the forfeit never happens. Eventually, a high stakes game of chicken ends without the team forfeiting and without the competition authority punishing the team immediately.
While both those statements are true in this particular case, I don’t think they are always true. I don’t think the teams always have an incentive to finish the game because I don’t think the game of chicken will always end in this way (the game going on without the team getting what they want). And the Russia situation is an example where the game of chicken did not end in that way: abstracting the specifics away, it was fundamentally a high stakes game of chicken between a protesting team refusing to play a match and a competition authority which eventually backed down. Look also at the chaotic referee assignments during this tournament, where some appointments were changed because teams complained. A game of chicken between a protesting team and a competition authority that eventually backed down. Yes, the specifics are very different in terms of reason, timing, etc., but the fundamental problem is that the governing bodies do not always hold their ground. The game of chicken doesn’t always win without the protesting team getting their way. And everybody knows it. So the authority will continue to be challenged, especially if there are minimal repercussions for doing so.
The idea that the CAF final this week represents something new in African soccer is just not true. In CAF, this is called "last weekend." Also, the notion that this is a "constitutional crisis" that could be fixed by the teams agreeing before the game to "respect the decisions of the authorities, even if they disagree with them," is hillarious.
To be completely honest, besides that Senegal threatened to leave the FoP (thanks VAR for reducing controversy!), this was relatively tame for an AFCON scandal. Things have got much more ugly in the past, for instance after this quarterfinal in 2015:
Without even needing to go back 10yrs, reminder that this happened at the last AFCON: https://www.streambug.org/cv/e4469b This tournament was very well-run from the refereeing perspective (so, for CAF standards, excellently or even miraculously well-run), the appointments made sense, the referees savoured a high level of match control, I don't remember big problems with the benches management, the referees were praised in the media // the most controversial decision hitherto had gone against the hosts, and the game in question was actually quite well-refereed... this still happened. At a certain point, with some of the matches played by the host countries in these tournaments, you just have to accept there are too many people in the same place at the same time who could never keep fully calm and composed under such pressure (I'm talking players, coaches et al).
Probably worth noting that Senegal's anger appeared to be just as much about the fact that the call which disallowed their goal was not sent down by the VAR for an OFR, whereas the call for the PK was, i.e. the controversy was just as much about when to send down/not send down a decision for an OFR as it was about the calls themselves.
To suggest the guy missed the penalty on purpose doesn't make sense since he's the same player who went out of his way to draw the infraction in the first place. We're barely into 2026 and another example of VAR getting over-involved and putting the CR in a tough position.
Is there an angle that better shows the foul call to deny Senegal a goal? Because all I’ve seen is this and I’ve got to say, I’ve got questions. https://www.streambug.io/cv/0e3fb9
I also think the alleged clear penalty is mostly a flop. Sure, there’s an arm on the shoulder and a pull but the theatrical fall is not commensurate with the nature or force of the pull. Not sure I’m storming off the field. But absent additional evidence for either decision, I think I’m with Senegal on the merits of both these decisions.
Given the weak penalty, and the very subdued way Senegal celebrated the save, the media already have a theory that he was trying not to score.
I haven’t seen the match, but there is zero chance this was the referee’s standard for a foul throughout the march, because there already would have been chaos long before stoppage time. Sure, you can say that’s a foul, but if it is, the match would have had 5 fouls on every set piece and bunches of yellows and pk’s already.
To me, it seems to simply be a higher vanatage point of the play we've already seen. This guy goes down quicker than a drunken sailor. It should have been a goal. I would hope everyone who posts here regularly here came to the same conclusion after seeing it only once. I'd like to know how FIFA referees couldn't come to this same decision. Yes, it's not the brightest thing to do to be grabbing someone around the head, but the over-reaction of flopping down is so clear to everyone except the referee and VAR.
His reaction afterwards and after the game would not be consistent with the actions of someone purposely shanking it. He's the guy who initiated the PK and milked it. Now, he's going to shank it because he "feels bad"? Heck no, he has a chance to win the match. There are numerous videos out there where players do the "chip shot" in the middle of the goal (not a fan of this) because they believe the keeper will/has dove one way or another and are embarrassed as the keeper easily saves it. The media never played the game at a serious level and their job is to provoke. There is zero chance this was purposeful.