In response to Maccabi appeal on Derby decision: The IFA High Court ruled one-point deduction and a three home-match ban with spectators
This morning the Israel Football Association High Court published their verdict on the incidents at the recent Tel Aviv derby, after Maccabi Tel Aviv had appealed an IFA lower disciplinary court ruling that would see Maccabi Tel Aviv deducted two points and order the closure of Bloomfield Stadium terraces 10-11 and 4-5 for four upcoming home matches. The higher court have now decided to partially grant the Maccabi appeal and reduce the actual deduction to one point with a further two being applied only if the club are found guilty of responsibility for offences that lead to a match being abandoned. The high court further reversed the decision to close terraces 10-11 and 4-5 and in its place imposed a three home-match ban with spectators.
According to the high court ruling: "There is no logic in closing four terraces for every match in such a way as would result in closure for visiting fans as well. If the closing of terraces is to be sanctioned, it should be applied to just two of the terraces for each of the club's home games. The prosecutor confirmed to us that that was in fact his original intention".
In addition to the penalties, the high court also reached different conclusions than the lower disciplinary court regarding the matter of the attack of a supporter on midfielder Eran Zahavi: "A Hapoel Tel Aviv supporter invaded the pitch and attacked a player. The lower court ruled that Zahavi "didn't hesitate to stand up to him and fight back". As we already announced at the end of our discussions on Nov. 18th, such an interpretation is unacceptable in our eyes. It implies somehow that the player was a full participant in the confrontation with the supporter, when in fact Mr Zahavi simply took measures to defend himself against a heinous attack by this same supporter. The further implication is that under such circumstances a player is required to turn and flee. We believe this interpretation to be erroneous".
"The decision as to how people may defend themselves from attack – either by fleeing or by engaging the attacker in whatever way required for self-defence – is the sole province of the person under attack, and is their constitutional right. Fleeing the scene has implications for the degree of self-esteem of the person under attack which that person is under no obligation to agree to. A player defending himself from attack cannot be defined as "participating in the fight" according to the disciplinary regulations. There is no room for alternative interpretations. We are not distinguishing here between the 'letter' and the 'spirit' of the law. There is only one law, and that is the correct one, arising from both the written word and its purpose ".
On another matter, the club have been informed that due to the request of holder of the broadcasting rights, Maccabi Tel Aviv's matchweek 13 Israeli Premier League fixture against Hapoel Petach Tikva has been postponed to Sunday Dec.14th at 8.55pm.
