These words are appropriate for the case before me. Thus, even if the Supreme Court erred in the manner in which the condition was applied (and as stated, in my opinion, there was no error in its judgment), the Supreme Court fulfilled the function that was assigned to it by virtue of the law, and fulfilled the function that it was assigned to fulfill, so that there is no deviation from its authority.
- In light of the above, Hapoel's arguments regarding the operation of the condition are rejected.
Conviction of Hapoel for Fan Riot
- Hapoel claims in the statement of claim that its conviction is based on the "erroneous" factual determination that the game was canceled because of Hapoel fans, while according to Hapoel the game was not canceled because of the behavior of its fans, but in light of forward-looking intelligence information relating to the fans of both teams.
It is clear that this is a clear appellate claim, and not only is it a clear appellate claim, but an appellate argument relating to a factual determination of the Football Association's judicial institutions, a claim of the kind that even a regular appellate court does not tend to intervene in.
- In my opinion, there is no dispute that these are not arguments that can be interfered with within the framework of the grounds for the court's intervention in the Supreme Court's ruling, and the court is not supposed to decide on behalf of the Association's judicial institutions, whether the game was canceled because of the behavior of Hapoel Tel Aviv fans or because of future intelligence information. This is a decision that is at the core of the Supreme Court's authority, and the court will not intervene in it, when the legislature has determined that the judgment is final and cannot be appealed.
This is enough to reject these claims of Hapoel.
- In any event, it should be noted that in my opinion, the conviction of the worker for this offense is well-founded, and it would be better if the worker did not raise this argument, and I will elaborate briefly.
In this regard, it should be remembered that the person acting in the framework of the statement of claim in this proceeding, admits in paragraph 126 of the statement of claim, as follows: