Zimpapers Logo

Sports Reporter
THE controversial third penalty converted by Namibia in the CHAN first round, second leg shoot-out against Zimbabwe at the National Sports Stadium should have been disallowed and the Warriors have every reason to feel robbed.

The Herald highlighted the issue in its Monday edition arguing that the way Namibian forward Dynamo Fredricks feinted before converting the spot-kick was outlawed ahead of the 2010 FIFA World Cup finals.

Fredricks stopped at the end of his run-up, feinted to dupe the goalkeeper, who went the other side, and rolled the ball to the other side.

The ’keeper, Herbert Rusawu, protested to the Swazi referee that he had been beaten by an illegal strike and his skipper Denis Dauda also joined in the protest.

However, the referee waved away the protests and allowed the penalty to stand instead of disallowing the effort in a situation where the law also empowered him not to give the offending player a second chance.

This means that, in reality, Namibia scored four penalties during that shoot-out.

ZIFA vice president Omega Sibanda yesterday revealed that they had not lodged any protest over the disputed penalty or claims that Namibia used players who were still contracted to clubs in Botswana and South Africa.

“I want to make it clear that we haven’t lodged any protest with CAF because we were advised by our colleagues in Botswana and South Africa that the players were properly cleared to be registered by their home associations which made them eligible to play in the CHAN games,” said Sibanda.

“We enquired with our colleagues in Botswana and South Africa on Monday and were told the correct story that the players had been duly cleared and were eligible to play for Namibia and I don’t know where these reports that we had filed a protest are coming from.

“Even that penalty, which was controversial, we didn’t file a protest because it’s unlikely that the referee’s decision can be changed because he got it wrong, he can only be punished.”

The International Football Association Board, who are the ultimate authorities when it comes to the laws governing world football, told The Herald that while they could not comment on the performance of any referee, they could only provide guidance on how the laws should be interpreted.

“As you know from our previous correspondence, The IFAB does not comment on the correctness or otherwise of referee decisions as that is not our role or responsibility,” IFAB technical director David Elleray told The Herald.

“However, we are always happy to provide guidance as to the interpretation and application of the Laws of the Game.

“In this respect in the Laws of the Game 2017 /18, Law 14 states that it is an offence if the kicker ‘feints to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting during the run up is permitted) . . .” This Law is applicable in Kicks From the Penalty Mark (KFPM) (Law 10).

“The guidance is that once the kicker has arrived at the ball the run-up is completed and if the kicker then feints to kick then this is an offence punishable by a caution (YC — Yellow Card) and an Indirect Free kick (for a penalty in normal time) and the kick being declared ‘missed’ in Kicks from the Penalty Mark.

“This is regardless of the outcome of the kick (until the changes for 2016 /17 if the penalty was ‘illegally’ scored then it was retaken, but the philosophy now is that the player knows he/she cannot feint at the end of the run so if he/she does so they forfeit the kick and get a YC.”

When Fredricks stopped, just after reaching the ball, and feinted his move on Sunday, he committed an offence and his spot-kick should have been disallowed.