In this regard, I will preface by emphasizing that both the Championship Regulations and the Disciplinary Regulations recognize a situation in which two teams are responsible for not holding the game. In these circumstances, it seems that in order to prove that the judicial institutions deviated from the referee's report unlawfully, it is not enough to show that the referee's report places the responsibility on Bnei Sakhnin, but it must be shown that the judge's report states that there is no responsibility for Hapoel Be'er Sheva.
- Before discussing these questions, I believe that it is appropriate to "take off the table" the issue of Bnei Sakhnin's responsibility for not holding the game, and hence the argument for broad implications on this issue.
In my opinion and opinion, the referee's instruction to the teams and players that they must go up to the pitch and play football is a binding provision, and its violation by the teams, or the players, establishes a conviction for the offense of refusing to play a game, whatever the circumstances.
As I will show below, this is also the clear position of the Association's judicial institutions in the proceedings that are the subject of the hearing.
Bnei Sakhnin's responsibility for not holding the game
- A review of the match referee's report reveals that it instructed Bnei Sakhnin to hold the game, and they refused to do so.
Thus, the match referee states in the report:
"... And we made it clear to them the decision of the police and our side, the refereeing team, that as far as we are concerned, as soon as the approval is given from the commander of the force, the game can be held..."
And thus, in accordance with the judge's report, Benny Sakhnin responds:
"In response, Sakhnin representatives said "that the players are not able to play, they are afraid, who guarantees them security, where was the police before"..."
The spirit of the matter is the same later in the report.
- Against this background, all six judges who discussed the matter ruled that Bnei Sakhnin was not allowed to refuse the referee's order to go up to play, and hence, in principle, she should be convicted of the offense of not playing a game.
See in the Disciplinary Court, Judge Shimoni: "... And the sons of Sakhnin should not be exempted... and from "doing self-judgment" in deciding not to go up to the grass"; See the clear words in paragraph 10.3 of the judgment of Judge Landau, and in paragraph 27 of the judgment of Judge Lubin.