In our case, the defendant did not prescribe provisions in its bylaws regarding a disciplinary hearing, and on the face of it, it appears that there is a basis for the plaintiff's claim that when the defendant discussed it in our case and imposed penalties on him, it did so without authority.
However, even if we assume that the defendant, who discussed the plaintiff's case in the framework of the general meeting, as alleged, did so by virtue of residual or natural authority (although this is inconsistent with the provision of section 10 of the Sports Law quoted above), in my opinion there was a serious flaw in the discussion of the matter, and in any case also in the decision. This is because the said hearing was conducted without the presence of the plaintiff and in any case violated the rules of natural justice, since he was prevented from making his voice heard in the proceeding, defending himself against the accusations directed against him, and claiming his innocence, or regarding the punishment that should be imposed on him, where he would be found guilty of violating the disciplinary rules. The aforementioned defect carries particular weight, when, as the plaintiff explained, the punishment imposed on him significantly impairs his performance as a coach in the sport of jiu-jitsu, and also implies a possible violation of his freedom of occupation. In my opinion, this defect invalidates the proceeding that was taken in the plaintiff's case, and in any event, also the decision made in his case and the punishment imposed on him, and they should be declared null and void.
It should be said, in the margins, that the body of discretion exercised by the defendant will also be questioned, when the words published by the plaintiff in the framework of the post as described above, do not appear to be of special severity, and do not, on the face of it, constitute defamation of the defendant. At most, a generation expressing an opinion that is expected to be in the legitimate arena and does not justify on the face of it, disciplinary punishment, and certainly not such a heavy punishment. I am also of the opinion that in view of the procedural arrangement between the parties, the plaintiff's punishment for the remarks that were initially attributed to him towards security guards in a competition in which he participated has already been exhausted, and within the framework of it, the plaintiff could not be punished again for the same behavior per se.