The parties' arguments and the proceedings in the case
Hapoel Be'er Sheva's Claims
- On December 29, 2024, the claim before me was filed. As part of the lawsuit, Hapoel Be'er Sheva is requesting that the court order the cancellation of the decisions of the Football Association's judicial institutions, and hence order the cancellation of the deduction of a point from Hapoel Be'er Sheva's balance sheet and the determination of a technical 3:0 victory in its favor. Alternatively, Hapoel Be'er Sheva demanded a rematch.
The petition for these remedies is based, in the outset, on the following arguments:
- The Association's refereeing institutions exceeded their authority by ruling contrary to the referee's report:
In fact, this is Hapoel Be'er Sheva's main argument in its statement of claim, as well as in the oral hearing.
In this regard, Hapoel Be'er Sheva argues that the main question in these proceedings is the reason for the non-holding of the game, and in particular whether the game did not take place "due to a riot by Be'er Sheva fans and/or a riot by Bnei Sakhnin fans, or due to the refusal of Bnei Sakhnin to hold the game?" (Paragraph 66 of the statement of claim).
Hapoel Be'er Sheva continues to claim that the decisive evidence for the purpose of answering the said question is the match referee's report, as stipulated in the International Gaming Constitution, in section 13(b) of the Disciplinary Code as well as in Regulations 9f(3) and 9f(4) of the Championship Regulations.
- In this context, Hapoel Be'er Sheva claims that the match referee's report shows that although the outburst of Beersheba fans deserves all condemnation, if Bnei Sakhnin had obeyed the referee's instructions, the game would have taken place. Thus, according to Hapoel Be'er Sheva, the match observer's report also shows.
From here, Hapoel Be'er Sheva argues, when the referee's report indicates that the sole responsibility for not holding the game lies with Bnei Sakhnin, and when the Association's refereeing institutions reached conclusions that clearly contradict the match referee's version of events, they exceeded their authority.