As for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it was ratified in Israel in 1991. It obliges ratifying states to take appropriate "legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from physical or mental violence of all kinds, ... Negligent treatment, exploitation or abuse... while he is under the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person in charge of his care" (p. 230 of the official Hebrew translation). The Convention is not a law, but its status as a contractual norm in international law is reflected in the way it is interpreted, and an attempt must be made to give domestic law an interpretation that is consistent with the provisions of the Convention (see: Criminal Appeal 9937/01 Horev v. State of Israel, IsrSC 58(6) 738, 750 (2004)). It is therefore clear that when the judge comes to interpret the question of the "reasonableness" of an athlete's continued activity under the supervision of a coach who is depressed by him, he will do so in the spirit of the Convention. And his spirit is clear: "It must be determined that corporal punishment against children, or humiliation and degradation of their dignity as a method of education on the part of their parents, is totally unacceptable, and it is a remnant of a social-educational outlook that has become obsolete," it was said in the Anonymous case (paragraph 29). There, the court focused on corporal punishment of children by their parents. In our case, the conclusion regarding the prohibition of humiliation and degradation of the minors' dignity is appropriate, when this time it is in the hands of those who are in charge of an important pillar of their education, and not necessarily their parents.
- To a large extent, it should be noted that the very perception of the club is that there is room for hurling disgrace at the ears of minors and humiliating them at the hands of others. The athletes who are educated at the club are minors. No one would have imagined that an educator at a school who is required to "instruct", "provoke" or "criticize" (the role of the coach, as defined by the club in response), would do so by shouting or shouting derogatory names. No one would have imagined that a driving instructor who wanted to criticize his student "for professional dysfunction" (again, one of the coach's duties, the club's definition) would curse him, or yell at him Regularly To the ears of the other students. Nor would anyone think that his own children, who come to some kind of professional framework, should be educated in this way and receive such treatment. And if this is the case in any other context, then there is no justification for the dignity of the minors to be neglected only on the sports field. If such behavior by the coach is "a day-to-day affair in the sport of football and in all sports, and is an integral part of the professional aspect of these sports," one should stop.
- The club argues that despite all of the above, reprimands and harsh words hurled at minors by a coach is a "day-to-day" thing, that the judge should not rule that there is wrongdoing, and certainly grounds for releasing the minor from the burden of his coach. In the sense of "a decree that the public cannot abide by," it seems. However, a problematic reality will not dictate the setting of norms. The fact that the club accepts coach Ruda as an inevitable matter will lead the court to say loud and clear: This will not be the case. As noted, social and legal developments have led to a change in the perception regarding the proper treatment of minors over the years, from property, or perhaps a punching bag, to a person with rights and dignity.
- It is also worth emphasizing that the fact (which the club itself insists) that this was done does not mean that there should be difficulty in meeting the challenge involved in educating athletes other than by humiliating them. What is needed is an understanding of the proper treatment of minors, and a positive attitude towards the coach's training of minors, an approach that studies show can only benefit minors (see: Ben Shahar and Roni Lidor, "The Positive Attitude of Coaches to Training Young Athletes: Theoretical and Practical Aspects", Is it just sports? 197). The Difficulty, it appears, not in the absence of the possibility of the proper training method, but in three ways: the lack of sufficient access by coaches to positive training methods (and unfortunately the coach in our case was not exposed to them, according to his testimony); Lack of awareness (and as demonstrated by the approach of the coach here, who believes that calling his pupils "Golem" is not a derogatory term at all), and a lack of motivation to change the way he behaves. In this last matter, as long as the club is protective and even strengthening, prefers to employ the "shouting coach" (the explanation of the club's CEO, we will mention) and back him up, and neither the club nor the coach is exposed to any kind of sanction, there will be difficulty in solving the problem. A coach who sees fit to act in this way (and of course many do not) will not be subject to an external force that will dissuade him from unbridled behavior, hurling derogatory epithets at minors, cursing them, and humiliating them in front of their friends. On the other hand, the sooner there is a sanction, the shorter the path to change behavior. Even the particular coach in the process before us can certainly change his ways (even if it is too late for Ran). As is well evident from the course of his testimony, this is a wise man endowed with self-control, who, when he knew that he was subject to a legal proceeding that revolved around his conduct, was wise to act pleasantly and calmly. It is and it can only be assumed that other coaches who also use their tongues when talking to minors, will certainly be able to change their erroneous behavior to the extent that it does not receive the support of the club, and to the extent that the coaches and the club know that it has consequences, and here - the immediate and unconditional release of minors from the clubs that invested in their training.
To be precise: this does not mean that it is forbidden to express criticism. Of course, the role of a coach is to impart professional ability, in all its layers. Of course, it is the job of a coach to ensure proper discipline of his players. However, it is certainly possible to do so without humiliation and humiliation. If a coach needs to shout tactical instructions to his trainees while they are scattered on the field, certainly during a game, he will do so. If he needs to humiliate any of his players as a "punishment" for failing to pass, or covering an opposing player, or kicking instead of hitting: he should refrain from doing so. His players, who are thirsty for professional knowledge, will listen even when things come in a pleasant way, with pertinent comments, and if they have not listened, the coach and the club have the tools to cope even without humiliating the minor. Swearing, screaming, humiliation and lashing out will not buy the underage athletes and the club anything, they are useless, and can be eradicated, once awareness, motivation and desire exist.
- The effectiveness of the tool created by the legislature, of unconditional release in exceptional circumstances, which the club vigorously opposes, also demonstrates why we are not engaged here in a naïve discussion as to the proper way to treat underage athletes, when the reality (in the club's view) is different. Indeed, sometimes the hand will fail to save. "It would be too simplistic to think that talking about ethics and values in sports can bring about change," the studies also reveal (see: Is it just sports? 185). A report by the State Comptroller, in-depth discussions in the Knesset's important Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the world as usual. However, in the case before us, there is a clear opening for change. The sports associations are anxious, and understandably, that at the end of an extensive investment in the development and training of minors, they will be able to leave unconditionally and without delay, without the significant time limits set out in the Sports Law today. However, now the sports associations will know that the introduction of a faulty training method, one that a minor athlete has been affected by and as a result of which he can no longer continue, may well result in the immediate unconditional release of the minor. One can only hope that when that simple judicial sanction is in place, things will be internalized, and thus the clubs will be able to continue to nurture the minor athletes pleasantly, for the benefit of both the clubs and the athletes.
- It is also worth noting that the fact that the club is the one who backed and backs the coach clearly demonstrates that the difficulty before us is not personal, of the coach, but rather a systemic difficulty. The role of the referee is to tell the club: the methods of conduct must be changed, otherwise he will know that the same sanction that the referee can impose, in the form of unconditional release and without delay from the club, will be activated. And there is more to be said For the Association (Litigant here): It is also her role to ensure the welfare of the youth. Making do with the fact that the coaches will learn a chapter on "coaching children" is not enough. The association is very powerful and influential. She is the regulator. She is the one who is responsible for imparting the rules of Godfair play" of FIFA. It has the power, and even the authority, to demonstrate a much more proactive approach that will promote the eradication of inappropriate training practices of minors in clubs under its supervision, and is presumed to do so.
"Reasons that do not depend on him"?
- As stated, a judge authorized to do so may release the minor athlete from his association if his continued activity in the association is "unreasonable or impossible. For reasons that are not dependent on himor his continued activity as aforesaid may cause him real damage." It was clarified why it was "unlikely" that Ran would continue to play for the club where his coach begged him (and even if this had been examined from the perspective of the actual damage involved, which does not require a discussion of the issue of "reasons that are not dependent on him", the conclusion would have been the same). However, the club argued at the time of the completion of the hearing, without elaborating: it was up to it, and this was sufficient to bring about the rejection of the appeal.
- It was not clear why the club directed its claim. One option: Sharan He that he stopped his training, as emphasized in the hearing. Indeed, Ran stopped and went to train alone, at the end of the season and after the club decided to keep the coach with the boys' team. However, this has no implications. The unlikelihood of continuing activity is the result of the coach's conduct towards him, and this is the coach who will coach next year as well. Now, it must be said, it is the club that made the aforementioned conduct possible.
And a second possibility that the club was aiming at, as it emerges from the discussion: Sharan did not turn on his own initiative to other parties in the club in order to resolve the difficulties in advance. In this regard, it should be said that since the behavior towards the athlete is the same as the situation in our case, he should not be charged with a kind of "contributory fault" by not contacting others in the club to inform them of his difficulties. Moreover, Ran made it clear that if he made up his mind, it would reach his coach's ears, and Ran "wouldn't see grass." Indeed, the coach explained how he is well involved in everything that is done with the psychologist and any other problem that arises, so it is clear that the ability to make claims about the coach discreetly is non-existent. In any case, she believed that if Ran had only contacted the club's executives in advance, his situation would have been proven to be barren: the club demonstrated very well that even when Ran's claims were widely spread, the club found it difficult to find anything wrong with the coach's conduct. On the contrary, the club only explained how this was proper behavior and which was really necessary (in his opinion) from the need to coach, and the director of the youth department saw fit to add in response to the claims of Ran's father, that he himself used to yell at his players. In other words, according to the club: there is nothing wrong with this. If this is the club's reaction, and it should be regretted, then Ran should not be blamed for not initiating a preliminary move to contact the club in an attempt to deal with the coach's conduct towards him and the other minors who play with him.
- The conclusion: It is unlikely that Ran will continue to train at the club. The humiliations he suffered, the conduct he experienced, and the club's sweeping backing for this way of behavior, when combined with the profound impact that this humiliation has proven on Ran's life, make his continued sporting activity at the club unlikely. He should not be forced to return to the club. He should be released and allowed to move to any club he wishes.
Conclusion
- Ran is a brave boy. With determination, he continued to play, he continued to train, he did everything in his power to deal with the constant feeling of humiliation he experienced in his training. He did not begin to behave in a problematic manner in order to get the club to give up his services, as others did, so he described, but continued to train and play in all seriousness, in the hope (which was proven wrong) that the coach would be replaced at the end of the season and thus win a change of atmosphere. Now he is throwing his hopes into the judicial system. In this regard, it is an exception, as evidenced by the lack of rulings. He is endowed with the personality required to stand up and make his voice heard. He has received parental support and the support of an exceptionally dedicated educator and educational staff. Even so, if his father had not been a lawyer, he explained, he would not have been able to bring his case to judicial clarification, and like his friends, he would have been required to remain silent and continue to hope for the best. Therefore, Ran will be here for his friends in his situation.
- The result of the decision is clear: a minor affected Depth Because our coach in the association is defiant of him, it is unreasonable to demand that he continue to train at the association. It should be emphasized: Of course, each case and its circumstances, and it should be carefully examined whether from the point of view of the particular athlete, it is the humiliating training methods that have created the situation in which it is no longer reasonable for him to demand that he continue training at the club. However, when the judge finds that the circumstances have existed, as was clearly found in our case, the minor athlete will be released unconditionally and without delay, even if this entails the downsizing of the Association's investment in the athlete. It should be noted that it is hoped that there will be no need for future appeals, and that a sports association that backs and even encourages the poor attitude of coaches towards the young athletes whose professional education they are entrusted with, will know how to change its approach.
- The appellant, Ran Arad, is therefore released from the club. The club - and in this regard it did well - did not insist that in the event that the appeal was accepted, the release would be suspended for the stipulated period of 30 days In section 12 to the Sports Law (and indeed - there is no point in this). Hence, as well as taking into account that this is a decision on an appeal that itself is not subject to appeal, the release is immediate. In any case, the appellant is in the hands of the appellant to take the exam, to train, or to join any other association. The aforesaid does not detract from other arguments relating to the agreement entered into between the parties, which is not the subject of the appeal.
- As for the expenses that each party sought to impose on the other in accordance with the outcome of the appeal: once the appellant has won his judgment, and even if he is represented by his father that he is even his guardian, Asher He invested a lot in rescuing his son from the strait, for he is certainly still entitled to a lawyer's fee. וזאת Parallel to the Principle In Regulation 516 to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984. This, not on the high side, when the club knew how to streamline the course of the discussion. Therefore, respondents 1-2 will bear jointly and separately the fees of the appellant's attorney, in the sum of Includes of 15,000 ILS.
Granted today, August 14, 2018, in the absence of the parties.