Balta verdict a lesson from real court to AFL about off-field incidents

Source : ABC NEWS

If you ever cover an AFL tribunal hearing, you’ll quickly realise they can get comical. 

There are real-life lawyers involved who sometimes utter legal jargon the players involved quite clearly cannot understand. 

Players get grilled like they are on trial for murder. It is all very serious and hilarious at exactly the same time. 

Evidence gets submitted from both the AFL side looking to impose a sanction and the team usually attempting to get a suspension overturned.

All followed by laughably lengthy periods of deliberation that seem to rival anything you might see in a crime documentary. 

Even before a case gets to the tribunal, numerous incidents over a weekend of action are highly scrutinised. The league places player safety above most things, particularly when it comes to incidents where the head is involved, and rightly so. 

The AFL seemingly likes the idea of the tribunal being akin to a real-life court case — only, it is not. 

This week, as Richmond’s Noah Balta learned of his fate for a parking-lot assault of a man, the footballer, his club, and the AFL got taught a lesson about real-life court cases and how they are adjudicated.

Balta pleaded guilty and was sentenced to an 18-month community corrections order that will require him to adhere to a curfew at his home address in Melbourne between 10pm and 6am until July 22, 2025. He was also handed a $3,000 fine.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Richmond coach Adem Yze indicated Balta’s legal team briefly deliberated appealing the court’s sentencing decision before deciding against it. The AFL has indicated it will take no further action against Balta.

Previously, the Tigers handed Balta a six-match ban that was really four because it took into account two pre-season matches in an era where pre-season matches mean literally nothing, a sanction that was endorsed by the AFL. 

It would be interesting to see how long the tribunal would have deliberated had Balta done what he did in that car park to a rival player during a match at the MCG. The smart money is on a sanction of more than four home-and-away matches.

Then, last week, there was the heavily-criticised decision to allow Richmond to trot out Balta against the Gold Coast Suns, literally three days before he was to be sentenced for an assault charge that carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail. 

There was a disturbing lack of leadership from the AFL when it came to Balta’s return. League CEO Andrew Dillion said he was “comfortable” with Richmond’s decision to allow him to play against the Gold Coast.

Clubs are in the business of winning and losing, above all else. Even in Richmond’s current case, where stacking up losses to acquire a better draft position isn’t the worst outcome, having Balta, a player handed a seven-year contract last year, on the park sooner rather than later matters most. 

When it comes to questionable conduct of one of the league’s best players, the amount of rope given is seemingly infinite.

Loading…

Leave a club to its own vices, and it will almost always go for a shorter punishment that allows the player to return and contribute to winning. This is where the AFL should step in.

Yze described Balta as being “disappointed, flat, emotional” after the court’s verdict and said Richmond did not anticipate a 10pm curfew being set upon Balta, which will see him miss a large chunk of Richmond’s matches played between now and July 22. 

The club appears shocked by the suggestion that Balta serve any more than four matches for an act of violence that was not only a terrible look, but had the potential to result in tragic circumstances had the victim suffered more severe injuries.

Yze said the club considered appealing the sentencing decision, which is further evidence of how out-of-touch the league and those within it can be at times. For a league that obsesses over optics, this appeal would have been a horrendous look.

Optics are such a point of emphasis for the AFL that Geelong’s Bailey Smith was handed fines totalling $3,175 for firstly shoving a football into an opponent’s face and then sticking up his middle finger at fans for the second week running in what the league termed an “obscene reference”.

That fine beat the $3,000 handed by magistrate Humphrey to Balta for his assault charge.

The AFL likes to portray itself as the sport industry’s leader on any issues impacting the community, whether that is health, domestic violence or racism, but too often, strongly-worded statements about off-field incidents involving players aren’t followed by equally weighty actions. 

Handling the Balta case with kiddie gloves is another example.

The impact of this case went well beyond the field, and it was evidenced by Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan’s criticism of the AFL’s decision to allow Balta to play prior to his sentencing. 

After Balta’s triumphant return for the Tigers, his former coach Damien Hardwick, now in charge of the opposing Suns, criticised Ms Allan for “putting her nose in somebody else’s business”. 

Hardwick, as Ms Allan stated on Wednesday, is well-entitled to his opinion, but this was another example of those within the AFL sphere being relatively tone-deaf when it comes to matters outside the playing field. 

As round seven of the AFL season approaches, no doubt there will be at least one incident on the field that is heavily scrutinised and put through the famed ‘matrix’ of the match review officer, Michael Christian, before he hands down his verdict. 

Does the AFL take this tribunal process too seriously? Is it too concerned about on-field actions that are bad, optics wise? 

Potentially, but it is something worth doing when health and safety is on the line and when kids can be influenced so easily by the league’s mega stars. 

It is time it started acting just as seriously when it comes to matters off the field.