site banner
PaperclipPerfector  16hr ago (text post)   656 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 20, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some of you may recall my write-up on the African Cup of Nations final a couple months back. Well, I'm pleased to announce that the crazy AFCON drama is not actually at an end. To recap: Senegal defeated Morocco in a highly contested final. Throughout the tournament, I'd heard black African fans complain that "the Arabs" are bribing the refs to help Morocco and Egypt against sub-Saharan nations, and the ref made himself a big part of the game. In the last minutes of the game, he ruled out a Senegal goal for a very soft foul, then awarded Morocco a penalty for an even softer one (on what would have been the last play before the game breaks to extra time, if a goal is not scored). Senegalese fans started fighting the Moroccans, a delay is announced, the Senegalese players get into an argument on the pitch and storm off into the dressing room. Eventually, their captain runs in, convinces them to come back out, the penalty is set up - and Morocco flubs it in embarrassing fashion. Senegal wins with a smashing goal in extra time, cue massive celebrations (including my family jumping around waving a knockoff Senegalese jersey in the air).

But, it's not over.

59 days after the final, CAF, the body administrating African football/soccer, officially stripped Senegal of the title. Their reasoning is that, by leaving the pitch without the authorization of the referee, Senegal forfeited the match, and therefore Morocco is awarded a 3-0 victory (as is standard for forfeits in football). They also fined Morocco for some of their infringements, like, uh, having their ball boys steal towels and water bottles from the Senegalese goalkeeper.

Senegal, of course, is not taking this lying down. Their government has announced they will appeal the verdict and called for an investigation into CAF corruption. An Senegalese member of the CAF Executive Committee publicly slammed the decision. The Senegalese coach, already sanctioned by CAF due to the scuffle during the final, has reportedly taken the trophy to a military base for safe-keeping.

Now, the appeal itself seems simple: were the rules broken? And it would be simple, anywhere but Africa. Let's take a look: the CAF board cites Senegal as violating Articles 82 and 84 of the CAF rules. See here:

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 [sic] and shall be eliminated for good from the current competition. The same shall apply for the teams previously disqualified by decision of CAF.

ARTICLE 83 A team that shall not be present on the ground, dressed to play at the time fixed for kick-off or at most 15 minutes later, shall forfeit the match. The referee shall register the absence of the team and shall write it in his report. The Organising Committee shall take the final decision in this respect.

ARTICLE 84 The team which contravenes the provisions of articles 82 and 83 shall be eliminated for good from the competition. This team will lose its match by 3-0 unless the opponent has scored a more advantageous result at the time when the match was interrupted, in this case this score will be maintained. The Organising Committee may adopt further measures

Let's think about this. Senegal cannot have violated Article 84. In fact, Article 84 only applies to no-shows, because it clearly states that a team must contravene the provisions of articles 82 and 83. Article 82, if it applies, would state that Senegal is "looser" and eliminated from the competition, but has no provision to award Morocco the 3-0 win in particular. Furthermore, Article 82, unlike 83, does not provide for the final decision of the Organising Committee in the article, it seems to be up to the referee's judgement. And the referee did not disqualify Senegal. He let them play on, and no statement from him revising that is addressed by CAF. Is there precedent for this? Well, in 1976, in the game that won them their first-ever AFCON title, Morocco's players walked off the field in protest at the referee and stopped play for 15 minutes. Their title stood.

I hope for good luck for Senegal in the Court for Arbitration of Sport (the international court in Switzerland which oversees football as well as e.g. the Olympics), both for their sake and for the drama that will result. It's also worth noting that, if Morocco and Senegal both finish second in their groups in the World Cup (likely, both are comfortably the second-best team in their groups), and both win their first knockout game (tougher - Senegal would have an easy one, but Morocco would face Japan or the Netherlands), we will see a very juicy rematch in New York...

They also fined Morocco for some of their infringements, like, uh, having their ball boys steal towels and water bottles from the Senegalese goalkeeper.

This is incorrect: they actually lifted/reduced some of the fines that had previously been imposed on Morocco for their conduct.

It really is an incredibly outward display of corruption.

You're right, should have read that more carefully, the fines were imposed by the disciplinary board and reduced on appeal (lol).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats