The same is true of the Supreme Court, see the clear and unequivocal words of Judge Zarnakin:
"In my opinion, despite the subjective fears of the Bnei Sakhnin players about getting on the field, against the background of the violent behavior of Hapoel Be'er Sheva fans, the team should have obeyed the referee's order and allowed the game to take place.
In this regard, the minority judge in the trial court was correct when he ruled that Benny should be convicted
Sakhnin due to its refusal to go on the field." (my emphasis - G.H.)
See also paragraph 5 of the decision of Judge Deutsch.
See also the position of the Hadasi judge:
"Hence, the moment when the match referee, who has the discretion in the matter, decided on the existence of the game, and the Sakhnin team refused to uphold his decision, the trial court should have convicted her of an offense under section 20C of the Disciplinary Regulations, which dealt with 'refusal to hold a game or refusal to continue the game contrary to the order of the match referee' (emphasis in the original - G.H.).
- Thus, all the judges who discussed the events before me, not only did not deviate from the referee's report, but adopted it and determined that when the referee ordered the game to take place and Bnei Sakhnin refused to hold it, it was responsible for the offense of refusing to hold a game.
- I will note that there is no dispute that Bnei Sakhnin was not convicted of this offense. However, a review of the judgment of the Disciplinary Court reveals that this is an error, and not a substantive determination. When, as stated, all the judges were united in their opinion that Bnei Sakhnin was forbidden to refuse the referee's orders and should have gone up to play. I will also note that there is also no determination that Bnei Sakhnin is acquitted of this offense.
- The Supreme Court was aware of this error in the judgment of the Disciplinary Court, and even clearly determined, as quoted above, that it was appropriate to convict the sons of Sakhnin of the said offense. However, only in light of the fact that no appeal was filed against the implicit acquittal of the sons of Sakhnin from this offense, did the Supreme Court do not do so.
- In light of the above, the clear conclusion is that Bnei Sakhnin was prohibited from refusing the referee's instructions to go up to the pitch, and when she did so, she is responsible and guilty of an offense by virtue of section 20C, which deals with refusal to play a game. The fact that for technical reasons she was not formally convicted of this offense does not detract from either the responsibility of the Sakhnin people or the guilt of the Sakhnin people.
- In light of this clear determination, it is clear that the concern about the broad implications of the Supreme Court's ruling, as claimed in the lawsuit and in the oral hearing, is false. Not only does the Supreme Court's ruling not permit the "self-judgment" of refusing the game referee's orders, but it unequivocally states that such self-judgment is prohibited in any case. Moreover, Bnei Sakhnin was also punished for this refusal to hold the game, since if the court was of the opinion that Bnei Sakhnin was not responsible for not holding the game, the result of imposing the responsibility on Hapoel Be'er Sheva was a technical victory for Bnei Sakhnin, and not a result of 0:0 without points.
I will also note that in light of this determination, it is clear that there is also no contradiction between this ruling and past rulings, which determined that the instructions of the match referee must be obeyed, whatever the subjective feelings of the teams, or players, may be.
- In any event, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am of the opinion that this ruling of the Supreme Court is not only lawfully based on the report of the match referee, but it is also proper and correct.
A team, or players, who refuse to obey the referee's instructions to go to the pitch, commit an offense of refusal to play a game, whatever the circumstances of the refusal.
- Against the background of this determination regarding the responsibility of Bnei Sakhnin for not holding the game, it is necessary to examine Hapoel Be'er Sheva's claim that the association's institutions exceeded their authority, when they determined that there is also responsibility on the part of Hapoel Be'er Sheva for not holding the game, even though this was not determined in the referee's report.
The referee's report and Hapoel Be'er Sheva's responsibility for not holding the game
- As mentioned, I determined above that Bnei Sakhnin is responsible for not holding the game, and the first question that arises is whether this directly stems from the fact that Hapoel Be'er Sheva is not responsible? The answer given by the championship regulations is clear and unequivocal - no.
The Championship Regulations explicitly recognize the situation in which both teams are responsible for not holding the game, and even prescribe a special punitive sanction for this case. Thus, sections 12T(3) and (4) of the Championship Regulations stipulate that when both teams are convicted of offenses resulting in non-observance of the game, "both teams will lose the match points and the result of the game will be 0:0".
- In other words, the Championship Regulations not only recognize that there may be a situation in which two teams will be responsible for not holding the game, but also prescribe a special sanction for this situation.
It is clear from this that the conclusion of the Association's refereeing institutions, that Bnei Sakhnin is responsible for not holding the game, does not automatically teach that Hapoel Be'er Sheva is not responsible for not holding the game.
- In light of the conclusion that the fact that Bnei Sakhnin is responsible for not holding the game does not automatically negate Hapoel Be'er Sheva's responsibility for not holding the game, it is necessary to examine independently, against the background of all the circumstances, Hapoel Be'er Sheva's responsibility for not holding the game.
The examination of Hapoel Be'er Sheva's liability by this court is examined on two levels.