The Honorable Judge Prof. Deutsch notes that section 12T(1) is not a penalty clause and is applied when there is fault for a factual result - failure to play a game, which was proven in this case. Prof. Deutsch further notes that a technical loss does not constitute a "double punishment".
The Honorable Judge Prof. Vaki notes that he seriously considered the possibility of holding a rematch in order to preserve the purity of the sporting competition, but at the same time determined that the systemic and moral aspect prevails here. Hence, this judge ruled that this is an exceptional case in which the principle of deciding on the pitch is retreated from the obligation to maintain the integrity and safety of sporting events and to deter serious violent incidents.
The Honorable Presiding Judge, Dr. Zarnakin, noted that he too had considered the existence of a replay, and even ruled that the court was authorized to determine this even though the game did not take place at the fault of a team, when it was not a punishment that existed to be imposed, but rather a provision of discretion.
The Honorable Presiding Judge also notes that if this were not a case of unbridled rioting, and in the burdensome past of the conduct of Hapoel fans, there would have been room to suffice with the penalties imposed and to schedule a rematch.
- As I noted in the background, in light of the date on which the lawsuit was filed and in light of the circumstances created in light of the emergency situation as a result of Operation Lion's Roar, it is not possible to discuss the issue of the replay on its merits, and in any case it is not possible to rule on a replay in practice at this time.
- However, I would like to clarify that I agree with the position of the Honorable Presiding Judge as well as the position of the Honorable Judge Prof. Vaki, that the way to go in such cases is to rule on a replay and not a technical loss. It should be remembered that as the Supreme Court correctly noted, the aspiration is that the soccer match be decided on the pitch and not in the court, for more on this matter see the detailed judgment in the matter of Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 76264-12-24 Hapoel Be'er Sheva Football Club v. Israel Football Association [published in the Nevo database] (March 30, 2025).
The Disciplinary Regulations and the Championship Regulations stipulate a plethora of sanctions and penalties that can be imposed on the teams that have been convicted, so that it is possible to give a significant and deterrent punishment to the team without determining a technical loss. Thus we can also learn from the penalties imposed on the worker in the case before me, which are significant and deterrent penalties. Hence, it is possible to use the punishment request offered by the regulations instead of determining a technical loss.
- In this regard, it is worth noting another sporting defect that exists in determining a technical loss as a punitive measure against the team whose fault the game did not take place, namely, that the technical loss not only constitutes a penalty for the losing team, but also constitutes a prize for the team that wins a technical victory.
- Thus, in fact, the team that did not play (even if it was not through its own fault) receives a significant reward in the form of 3 points and a goal difference of 3:0 without actually doing anything to be worthy of this award.
It should be noted that even if the contributory fault of Maccabi and its fans for not holding the game is zero, then, in terms of the rules of justice and fairness, the mere fact that the Hapoel fans rioted does not give a prize in the form of 3 league points and a 3:0 victory in favor of Maccabi.
- Moreover, not only is a technical loss to Hapoel a prize for Maccabi, but it may also be a "punishment" for teams competing with Maccabi at the top or bottom, teams that clearly have no guilt or responsibility for not holding the big derby. It should be noted that such a prize in the form of a 3-0 victory, without Maccabi winning on the grass, can determine the fate of the championship, the team that will play from a European factory, or relegation.
- In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the determination of a technical loss, and in fact also a technical victory, should be done only in rare and exceptional cases, and the king's way should be a significant punishment within the framework of the penalties by virtue of the relevant regulations, but the determination of a replay is to determine the outcome of the game.
Conclusion
- In light of the aforesaid and detailed above, the claim is dismissed.
- With regard to costs, in principle, when a party's claims in a legal proceeding are rejected, it must pay the costs of the proceeding to the other party, with the default being a judgment of real costs.
Therefore, in the case before me, when pleadings were filed on behalf of the defendants and a lengthy hearing was held, it is appropriate to award expenses for the worker's obligation.