Embarrassing clause set to get the boot

Caf says it's too difficult to explain

THE days of article 14.1, that infamous clause in the Confederation of African Football regulation book, are numbered. Few can forget the countrywide confusion it sparked when it swung South Africans from elation to dejection in one fell swoop.

One minute Bafana Bafana had secured a spot in the Africa Cup of Nations 2012. The next they had not.

Once the dust settled after Bafana's dance of shame, it became crystal clear they were not going to strut their kwasa-kwasa stuff in Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.

Then came the swearing and the cursing and the blame-game.

With South Africa, Niger and Sierra Leone tied on nine points, Caf invoked rule 14.1, which states that in case of equal points between two or more teams after all the group matches, a greater number of points obtained in the matches between the concerned teams will determine the group winner.

This is what confused the bungling Safa bosses and Caf president Issa Hayatou is worried the head-to-head rule will create more uncertainty.

Fifa want to standardise the qualification process so that there is one rule for everybody. In October, Fifa secretary general Jerome Valcke convened a meeting with his counterparts from the six continental federations: Africa, Asia, Conmebol, Concacaf, Oceania and Europe.

He introduced the idea of creating a common approach regarding the rules. But because all these soccer types feel important, there was no consensus.

Some confederations feel their rules are fine as they are. Not so Caf.

It has emerged that Hayatou feels 14.1 is difficult to explain - one assumes especially to some Bantu education-schooled natives of the south.

Hayatou feels his executive should come up with a rule everybody can interpret with ease.

A Caf executive committee member is adamant that rule 14.1 won't be a feature in its current form in future qualification.

"We may have seen the last of it. Hayatou wants the rule changed to something people can easily interpret," said the Caf official.

There is still a case for head-to-head to remain ahead of goal difference as it prevents teams from engaging in the skulduggery that used to result in strange 11-0 victories.

With the Safa suits oblivious to the notion that the first rule of any qualification process has to be to check the regulations, one hopes they have learnt the invaluable lesson: the devil is always in the detail.

By the way, how did rule 14.1 come about? When Zambia played Togo, Swaziland and Chad in the preliminary round of the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, the latter withdrew.

For parity's sake, all points gained against Chad were nullified and six points were taken from the other teams.

Though Zambia topped the group, Togo proceeded to the next stage. Both beat Swaziland but Zambia lost to Togo.

With the Afcon 2012 qualifying campaign, Mauritania threw the proverbial spanner in the works when they withdrew at the last minute, which left one of the groups with five teams.

Had Mauritania withdrawn before the draw was conducted, Caf could have taken one team from the five-nation group and all groups would have ended up with four teams.

The lesson remains: playing for a draw at home will always remain the preserve of the dimwits.

You have to play to win, especially when you play at home.

Botswana and Zambia did. That is why they will make their maiden appearance at Afcon.