- Noah Balta copped fine and 18-month community corrections order
- Sanction also means he is be set to miss several AFL matches
The recent sentencing of Richmond’s Noah Balta has sparked debate in the AFL community, with prominent footy experts suggesting that the club’s controversial reaction to his assault might have contributed to the severity of his punishment.
Declaring that a ‘lesson has been learned’ and vowing to ‘improve myself’, Balta was sentenced on Tuesday for assaulting a man in regional NSW on December 30 last year.
The 25-year-old was fined $3000, given an 18-month community corrections order and assigned a shock three-month curfew that restricts him to his home address between 10pm and 6am.
The punishment came just days after his first AFL appearance of the season on Saturday night in the Tigers’ upset win over Gold Coast, following the Tigers’ decision to ban him for four matches after he entered a guilty plea.
Balta was facing a maximum five-year jail term, and the weakness of Richmond’s ban was highlighted by the prosecution during his court case.
Richmond and Balta won’t try to appeal the punishment so he will miss matches, starting with this Thursday night’s clash with Melbourne at the MCG.
Noah Balta has been hit with a surprising three-month curfew that rules him out from playing in several upcoming matches for the Tigers
Balta will also have to sit out the Dreamtime match against Essendon on May 23, and a twilight match against GWS at Engie Stadium on May 31 because he wouldn’t be able to get back from Sydney in time for his curfew.
AFL broadcaster Gerard Whateley said that ‘widespread condemnation’ of Richmond for allowing Balta to play against Gold Coast before his sentencing was a ‘terrible backdrop’.
‘The unknowable is, was this the full suite of penalties all along? Or did the curfew, which was completely unexpected, come as a result of the magnitude of the case?’ Whateley said on Fox Footy’s AFL 360.
‘It had built up, there was a public expectation around meeting a certain standard. Has that became part of it?
‘It was very much front of mind and there was a demand for a severe penalty because of the football decision [Balta returning against Gold Coast] that was taken.
‘Had the football decision not been taken, it would’ve been a much quieter couple of weeks in the build-up to sentencing. I just think it was a poor backdrop where you couldn’t see the wood for the trees.
‘Football was never the major contemplation here, it was to get through sentencing.’
Footy pundits on Nine made similar remarks following the verdict on Tuesday.
Prominent AFL experts believe Richmond’s move to play Balta against the Gold Coast while he was awaiting sentencing didn’t help their cause
Balta had been handed a four-match suspension by the club, with the weakness of the ban getting highlighted by the prosecution during his court case
‘The magistrate said “there’s no exceptions here”,’ said Tom Morris.
‘She’s not going to listen to Richmond’s argument or Noah Balta’s argument.
‘In my mind, Richmond didn’t help themselves by playing Noah Balta at the AFL level.’
AFL legend James Hird said he believes the magistrate imposed a ‘bigger punishment’ because everyone was saying ‘poor Noah’.
Veteran journalist Caroline Wilson also believes that the Magistrate made a statement with her ruling, and that the Tigers probably shouldn’t have played Balta before the sentencing.
‘(The sanctions) wouldn’t have been worse, but it could well have been better,’ she said on Seven’s The Agenda Setters.
‘The AFL are adamant that Melissa Humphreys, the magistrate, would have done this anyway. I just don’t believe that. How can they say that? How can they know? Richmond, to some degree, some people felt they were flaunting Noah Balta.
‘(They had an) an unbelievable upset win over the Gold Coast, and Noah Balta was one of their best players and there are hugs with the coach after the game.’
