FUFA petitions
Jun 21, 2007
FUFA has faxed an official petition to CAF regarding Cranes’ qualifier against Lesotho last Tuesday.<br>The petition urges CAF to uphold the principles of Fair Play and award Cranes three points and two goals via an open-minded interpretation of the 2006 Nations Cup rules.
JOSEPH OPIO
[“If after the playing of the match in the conditions referred to in Art. 35, 36, it is established that the absence of the designated referees was the fault of the host association, the host team shall be declared loser by two to zero and shall be eliminated from the competition, irrespective of the result obtained on the field if the competition is played on the knock-out basis†— Article 36 rule 8 of the 2008 Confederation of African Football (CAF) rulebook]
FUFA has faxed an official petition to CAF regarding Cranes’ qualifier against Lesotho last Tuesday.
The petition urges CAF to uphold the principles of Fair Play and award Cranes three points and two goals via an open-minded interpretation of the 2006 Nations Cup rules.
Article 36 rule 8 specifies that regardless of the result, the host team shall be declared loser by two to zero if found guilty of having failed to avail the designated referees.
It’s beyond dispute that the Lesotho FA was liable for the referees’ absence on Sunday.
LEFA not only sent the air-tickets after the 14-day limit stipulated under Article 36 rule 2, but it also botched their travel plans by failing to “exploit the possibility of using an existing direct flight ….. that did not require any visa...â€
Such ineptitude, whilst adequate to direct CAF’s wrath towards LEFA, doesn’t qualify FUFA for the three-point remedy.
What does however, is the detrimental effect that LEFA’s incompetence later had on Cranes’ display.
FUFA asserts that the postponement drained the morale of Cranes players and disoriented the professionals — who were expected at their respective clubs by Tuesday.
And it has a point!
LEFA’s negligence and the tragicomic delays caused inconvenience to the Cranes — which had far-reaching significance on the qualifier’s outcome.
The risk of impending club fines couldn’t have inspired Cranes’ pros too.
Uganda’s grievance can only be remedied by a wider construction of Article 36 rule 8 — which would take into account the side-effects of the postponement upon which the CAF rulebook is silent.
Uganda’s visionary petition grants CAF a chance to set a precedent and avert a repeat of a similar circus — which would be an absolute nightmare in an age where TV is part of the modern game!
Were Uganda’s qualifier planned for broadcast, LEFA’s glaring ineptitude would have wrecked havoc with the TV schedules, inconvenienced all and sundry — besides casting the African game in truly unflattering light.
[“If after the playing of the match in the conditions referred to in Art. 35, 36, it is established that the absence of the designated referees was the fault of the host association, the host team shall be declared loser by two to zero and shall be eliminated from the competition, irrespective of the result obtained on the field if the competition is played on the knock-out basis†— Article 36 rule 8 of the 2008 Confederation of African Football (CAF) rulebook]
FUFA has faxed an official petition to CAF regarding Cranes’ qualifier against Lesotho last Tuesday.
The petition urges CAF to uphold the principles of Fair Play and award Cranes three points and two goals via an open-minded interpretation of the 2006 Nations Cup rules.
Article 36 rule 8 specifies that regardless of the result, the host team shall be declared loser by two to zero if found guilty of having failed to avail the designated referees.
It’s beyond dispute that the Lesotho FA was liable for the referees’ absence on Sunday.
LEFA not only sent the air-tickets after the 14-day limit stipulated under Article 36 rule 2, but it also botched their travel plans by failing to “exploit the possibility of using an existing direct flight ….. that did not require any visa...â€
Such ineptitude, whilst adequate to direct CAF’s wrath towards LEFA, doesn’t qualify FUFA for the three-point remedy.
What does however, is the detrimental effect that LEFA’s incompetence later had on Cranes’ display.
FUFA asserts that the postponement drained the morale of Cranes players and disoriented the professionals — who were expected at their respective clubs by Tuesday.
And it has a point!
LEFA’s negligence and the tragicomic delays caused inconvenience to the Cranes — which had far-reaching significance on the qualifier’s outcome.
The risk of impending club fines couldn’t have inspired Cranes’ pros too.
Uganda’s grievance can only be remedied by a wider construction of Article 36 rule 8 — which would take into account the side-effects of the postponement upon which the CAF rulebook is silent.
Uganda’s visionary petition grants CAF a chance to set a precedent and avert a repeat of a similar circus — which would be an absolute nightmare in an age where TV is part of the modern game!
Were Uganda’s qualifier planned for broadcast, LEFA’s glaring ineptitude would have wrecked havoc with the TV schedules, inconvenienced all and sundry — besides casting the African game in truly unflattering light.