Kevin Bartlett was among the first within the Richmond and football fraternity to notice that Noah Balta had received the same match ban of four games as GWS player Josh Fahey, who performed a nude and lewd re-enactment with a blow-up doll in the notorious wacky Wednesday party last year.
Fahey’s suspension was warranted, and the AFL took a relatively tough stance. But the Giant’s offensive sketch was hardly in the same league as Balta’s real-life assault that could have caused serious injury.
Noah Balta has been sentenced to a three-month curfew.Credit: Nine
Unlike the Fahey case, Balta’s footage also has been in full public view for premiers and pundits to judge.
The magistrate in the Albury Local Court has effectively doubled Balta’s suspension, by imposing the unforseen condition of a 10pm to 6am curfew on the Richmond player. Having wisely chosen not to appeal the verdict, Balta is facing the loss of at least a further four matches.
Whether intentional or incidental, the magistrate, Melissa Humphreys, has exposed and embarrassed the AFL, in particular, for failing to read the play in terms of community sentiment on the Balta case.
The AFL will be relieved that there’s no appeal, and it is also clearly in Richmond’s interests to avoid further drama and brand damage by fighting them on the benches.
Balta? He’s wise to pay the (lawyers’) money and run, follow the magistrate’s orders to stay off the booze for three months and obey the curfew that the magistrate insisted on despite his lawyer’s protestations.
The curfew was an innovative method of punishing Balta without putting him in jail, which was never a probable outcome.
Community service wouldn’t cut it given what the footage of the incident exposed, and a stretch inside prison likely would have invited an appeal by Balta, with Richmond’s full-throated support.
He can’t play night games, which removes him from Thursday night’s match and from the Dreamtime game on May 23.
Noah Balta will be out of key clashes for Richmond.Credit: Getty Images
He can’t play interstate – even the 4.15pm game v the Giants in Sydney appears out of bounds – and that will cost him the visit to play West Coast in late July.
Should the AFL hand the Tigers night slots in the floating fixture from rounds 16-18, the suspension will lengthen further.
There are, of course, parallel hearings in the Balta case.
First is the actual court hearing in Albury (the attack took place at the Mulwala Waterski Club), the second is the court of public opinion and the third is the AFL arena, in which the Tigers and the league have been largely aligned.
The AFL had not seen the footage when it accepted Richmond’s suggested suspension of four bona fide matches, (plus two pre-season games). Had the league viewed the film of Balta’s attack before that judgment, who knows? If the AFL ban had been the only games lost, it would have been at least a fortnight light.
Balta’s sentence by the court means he is subject to double, if not triple, jeopardy, considering that he’s also settled out of court with the victim, paying $45,000 plus whatever he incurred in legal costs.
Few, outside those with black and yellow streaks, will think Balta hard done by, though. Many working stiffs – virtually anyone with corporate, community or public-facing employment – would face the sack if they were convicted of an unprovoked assault.
But football is a different universe, as we know.
The AFL holds more responsibility for the public fallout than Richmond, despite the Tigers losing skin – and unexpectedly winning against the Suns – by deciding to play Balta three days before sentencing.
Clubs, in this column’s regrettably vast experience of covering misdeeds by footballers, will almost always bat for their offending (good) player. They want to win games, more than friends. Coaches’ careers are on the line.
They are usually more forgiving, alas, when the victim is external to the club, unless the damage is excessive.
So, it is the AFL that must enforce the standards in a Balta situation, more so than the Tigers, who were always going to stand by their man and offer up the punishment they felt would be palatable to the league.
The Balta case is another reminder that, much as we have been conditioned to think of the AFL as akin to a government with judicial powers, it is only a sporting organisation with a high profile. It is not a legal body.
The court of public opinion, unsurprisingly, is the forum that has been most combative.
