Therefore, in terms of the authority to determine a replay, I accept the position of Judge Shimoni, in this case, who held:
"In other words, the disciplinary regulations do not bind our hands in determining the result to 'fixed in the association's bylaws' where we find it appropriate to decide on a replay."
- From here, we must discuss the second, substantive level, whether it is appropriate to rule a replay in the circumstances of the events that occurred on September 1, 2024.
I am of the opinion that on this issue, there is room to discuss the second level, which deals with the question of whether it is appropriate to rule a replay in the circumstances before us, together with the third level, which deals with the scope of the court's discretion to intervene in this matter.
In my opinion, the result of the combined hearing on the second and third levels in the case before me is as follows.
On the one hand, when there has been no hearing on the issue of replay in the Supreme Court, there is no room for the court to hear this clear professional issue as a first instance. However, and on the other hand, it is appropriate to return the matter to the Association's Supreme Court, which will decide whether, under the existing circumstances, it is appropriate to determine and hold a replay.
I will explain this result.
- At the outset, I will clarify that, as stated above, even though both teams were convicted of offenses punishable by a 0:0 result without points, the court had the authority to consider another alternative.
There is no dispute that in the case before me the alternative of a replay was not examined, and there is no decision by the Supreme Court on the issue, whether it is appropriate in these circumstances to hold a replay instead of a result of 0:0 without points. In fact, not only is there no decision on the issue of the alternative, but the Supreme Court has no discussion on the matter.
- Indeed, as I noted above, in the Disciplinary Court, Judge Shimoni in his judgment states that there is a possibility of holding a replay, but, in his opinion, in the circumstances of this case, it would not be appropriate to do so, inter alia, because this contradicts the sense of justice. However, Judge Landau does not express his position regarding the possibility of a rematch, and Judge Lubin believes that a technical victory should be given to Hapoel Be'er Sheva. In other words, there is no decision by the disciplinary court on the issue of whether it was appropriate to schedule a replay in this case.
As stated, with regard to the judgment of the Association's Supreme Court, the term "replay" is not mentioned in this judgment at all, and in any case there is no discussion, or decision, on this issue.
- In these circumstances, when no hearing was held on the issue of the replay in the Supreme Court and there is no decision by the Disciplinary Court, I am of the opinion that, on the one hand, there is no room for the court to decide on this issue, which is an issue that is at the core of the Association's judicial institutions, and will certainly not be decided as a first instance. However, on the other hand, I am of the opinion that there are good enough reasons to instruct the Supreme Court to complete the discussion on this issue, and to explain both sides of the equation.
- As I have detailed at length above, the court's grounds for intervention in the judgments and decisions of the judicial institutions are limited, and it is clear that the court will not replace the discretion of the judicial institutions with its own discretion and will not constitute an appeals court against the Association's judicial institution.
The issue of determining a replay in the case before me is complex, and includes fundamental elements of punishment, warning, fairness, the spirit of the game, and more, as well as technical elements involved in determining a replay, in light of the time that has passed.