The matter is summarized and explained nicely and concisely in the judgment of Judge Deutsch:
"And to be precise. Our judgment does not interfere with the game referee's decision to order the resumption of the game. We assume that the decision was made within the jurisdiction of the match referee. The fact that Sakhnin should have obeyed the referee's order does not, as stated, detract from Hapoel Be'er Sheva's causal contribution to the non-holding of the game" (my emphasis - G.H.).
- In summary, the conclusion whether, or not, responsibility should be attributed to Hapoel Be'er Sheva for the failure to hold the game, inter alia, for the purpose of applying the provisions of section 12T(3) of the Championship Regulations, is a legal conclusion that the referee's report is not supposed to determine, and in any case in the case before me does not determine in practice.
Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court that Hapoel Be'er Sheva is responsible for not holding the game, in addition to the responsibility of Bnei Sakhnin, does not constitute a "deviation" from the referee's report, and in my opinion it is consistent with this report, since it is based on the findings of the report. Hence, it is not possible to attribute to the Supreme Court an action that was done without authority.
- In light of what has been stated and reasoned above, I reject Hapoel Be'er Sheva's argument regarding exceeding authority.
Are the rulings of the Association's judicial institutions contrary to the rules of natural justice?
- As stated, another claim of Hapoel Be'er Sheva in the statement of claim is also related to the judge's report, which is that when the judicial institutions ruled contrary to the judge's report, not only did they exceed their authority, but they violated Hapoel Be'er Sheva's right to a fair trial.
- As explained at length above, I do not believe that the judicial institutions ruled contrary to the judge's report, but rather adopted what was stated in it from a factual point of view, and even accepted the conclusion regarding the responsibility of the Sakhnin people. However, as explained above, the judicial institutions were of the opinion that in addition to the responsibility of Bnei Sakhnin, there was also responsibility for Hapoel Be'er Sheva, a conclusion that was not ruled out in the referee's report and is even consistent with his findings.
- It should be noted that from the minutes attached to the pleadings, the responsibility attributed to Hapoel Be'er Sheva, in addition to the responsibility of Bnei Sakhnin, was explicitly claimed and discussed, and in fact was at the heart of the discussion in the judicial institutions.
- In light of the above, I do not believe that there is a violation of the rules of natural justice in general, and of a procedural, or substantive right, of Hapoel Be'er Sheva in particular, and hence this argument should be rejected.
The failure to convict Bnei Sakhnin of the offense of refusing to play a game prevented Hapoel Be'er Sheva from a fair trial?
- As stated above, another claim by Hapoel Be'er Sheva is that due to a mistake, Bnei Sakhnin was not convicted of the offense of refusing to play a game. From here, Hapoel Be'er Sheva argues that if Bnei Sakhnin had been convicted of this offense, it might have had an impact on Hapoel Be'er Sheva's case as well.
Another argument in this regard is that the erroneous acquittal created an imbalance between the penalties incurred by the teams.