As stated, the game that is the subject of these proceedings is a game that can determine both the fate of the championship and the fate of the relegation, and hence, in principle, it is appropriate, correct and desirable that it be decided on the grass.
- I will note that the Football Association's refereeing institutions have recognized that the importance and essence of the game at hand is a consideration for determining a rematch.
See, for example, the recent decision in the Bnei Sakhnin case above:
"On the other side of the scale, which supports the existence of a replay, there is the fact (in addition to the existence of the exceptional circumstances described above) the fact that this is a cup game, so that the significance of a technical loss is particularly acute, since it thus leads to the end of the appellant's career in the State Cup factory. As far as possible, it is preferable to decide on the pitch in this matter." (my emphasis - G.H.)
Hence, if the essence of elimination from the State Cup is "particularly acute", then it is clear that the national championship, as well as relegation to a lower league, are doubly acute.
- Another reason that can serve as a justification for determining a rematch is the variation in the rulings of the judges of the Association's judicial institutions, both with regard to reasoning and with regard to the result, so that some of the judges reached the conclusion that the proper result should be a technical victory for Hapoel Be'er Sheva.
- It is also worth clarifying that both teams are interested in a rematch, with Hapoel Be'er Sheva petitioning for this remedy as an alternative remedy in the lawsuit, while Bnei Sakhnin explicitly agreed to this in the hearing before me.
- I would like to clarify, emphasize and clarify, that in the face of this important interest, that the fate of the championship and the fate of the relegation will be decided on the playing field and not in a legal discussion, there is an equally important interest, of preserving the integrity of the players and fans, and of preventing shameful, bad and especially dangerous acts, as happened at Turner Stadium on September 1, 2024.
In these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the existence of a replay may indeed lead to a situation in which the sinner is rewarded, as Judge Shimoni noted in his judgment.
- As I noted above, the balance between the aforesaid interests, as well as other interests, with regard to the determination, or negation of the existence of a replay, was not made in the Association's Supreme Court, and as I explained above, in my opinion, it is appropriate and important that it be done now.
I further explained that in my opinion, this court is not the court that is supposed to, or is authorized, to make this balance, the essence of which is a balance that is at the core of the expertise of the Supreme Court of the Football Association.