The Rabat Aporia: Anatomy of a Procedural Collapse – The 2025 AFCON Final Fiasco 873
The final chapter of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations, pitting Morocco against Senegal in the heart of the capital, will not merely be remembered as a high-octane athletic duel. Instead, it has evolved into a definitive case study of institutional gridlock. Caught in the friction between IFAB’s Laws of the Game and the labyrinthine CAF Disciplinary Code, the incident of January 18th at the Moulay Abdellah Stadium transcends a simple disciplinary spat. It exposes a legal "gray zone" where procedure faltered alongside authority, revealing a seismic rift where subjective interpretation overrode the strictures of normative alignment.
I. The Materiality of Facts: The Engineering of "Passive Resistance"
Contrary to the inflammatory narratives that spread in the heat of the moment, the Senegalese squad never executed an irreversible physical withdrawal from the field of play. While there were visible inclinations toward the touchline—acting as a symbolic defiance of the officiating crew—the players remained within the technical perimeter. This effectively neutralized the immediate trigger of Article 82 of the CAF regulations. Legally, this distinction is paramount: we are not dealing with a forfeiture by abandonment, but rather a state of tactical paralysis.
This maneuver appears to stem from a sophisticated instrumentalization of the rulebook, designed to occupy a space that freezes administrative sanctions. By exploiting the ambiguity between vehement protest and outright insubordination, the bench utilized the boundary lines as a strategic lever, sidestepping irreversible penalties in favor of a more pliable disciplinary framework.
II. Procedural Flaws and the "Suspect Celerity" of Officiating
The match’s conclusion witnessed a manifest erosion of the official’s sovereignty, underscored by two critical departures from international standards. The crux of the dispute—and the inherent weakness of any future sanction—lies in the officiating body’s management of the temporal dimension.
Both IFAB directives and the CAF Disciplinary Code mandate a stringent protocol of diligence before any declaration of forfeiture:
Encroachment of Technical Zones: Under Law 12, the intrusion of staff members onto the pitch should have triggered a wave of dismissals. This inertia cannot be dismissed as a mere lapse in judgment; it represents a fundamental breach of the match’s legal security.
The Overlooked Notice Period: An official is required to grant a legal window for reflection—typically five to ten minutes—to allow the captain to restore order. In Rabat, this timeframe was either ignored or, at the very least, improperly formalized. By failing to explicitly notify the captain—the sole sui generis interlocutor on the pitch—that the formal "default clock" had started, the referee created a state of manifest legal insecurity.
The procedural error here is twofold. By failing to formally summon the players to resume within the allotted time, the referee denied the opposing federation the chance to comply with the rules. One cannot hand down a sentence as final as a forfeiture (a 3-0 loss) without scrupulously following the "procedural roadmap" of the crisis. This indecisive haste transforms the incident into a processual failure. The chaos in Rabat was not solely the work of defiant players, but of an officiating team that failed to enforce the temporal framework dictated by international norms.
The Enigma of Law 14: The decisive penalty, marred by a blatant early movement by the goalkeeper, imperatively required a VAR-led retake. Referee Jean-Jacques Ndala’s decision to blow the final whistle with such intriguing speed suggests "situational officiating." By bypassing technological verification, the official seemingly prioritized short-term security concerns over the integrity of the result.
III. From Organizational Sanctions to the Imperative of Federal Recourse
The erratic resumption of play just before the final whistle confirmed the impotence of the current organizational regime. Unable to formalize an organic and definitive abandonment, CAF is forced to retreat to Articles 146 and 147 of its Disciplinary Code. However, while these tools allow for the punishment of "unsportsmanlike conduct" through federal fines, they are merely bandages on an open wound, incapable of restoring the compromised sporting equity.
Faced with what must be termed a denial of sporting justice, the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) cannot remain a passive observer. It must exercise its legal right of appeal to move the dispute from the emotional sphere to a structured administrative procedure. The imperative here is normative: to demand a rigorous investigation into the procedural integrity of those final moments, transforming a legitimate sense of grievance into a sovereign and irrefutable legal action.
CAF now finds itself before a mirror: to demand absolute discipline, it must first guarantee the infallibility of its officials. Such precedents must be handled with a rigor that leaves no room for arbitrariness, enshrining the excellence and normative alignment we expect. The 2025 final serves as a catalyst. Without a deep overhaul to codify "coordinated disobedience," technical compliance will remain a hostage to the balance of power on the pitch.