AFTER four days of heavy scrutiny bordering on hysteria, the reaction was relatively low key and mostly supportive - Barry Hall had gotten his right whack for his very wrong whack.

Andrew Demetriou, chief executive of the image-conscious AFL, said the seven-week ban was sufficient to "send a message to the whole community that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable".

Collingwood coach Michael Malthouse was a dissenter. He compared the suspension unfavourably with some other tough bans issued in recent years, including the six weeks handed to Magpie midfielder Ben Johnson for a head-high bump last season.

Swans' defender Tadhg Kennelly wrote on his internet blog that Hall had "lost a bit of respect from within the club". Just how much will be determined when Hall fronts the club's leadership group in the next few days.

Hall's reported $600,000 per-season contract is guaranteed- rather than performance-based. So, with the club not planning to issue a fine, it will be his peers who decide if there is any penalty other than the tribunal ban.

Usually the punishment for un-Bloodslike behaviour is not monetary but extra training sessions or something else that requires more than just the flourishing of a bulging wallet. For the contrite Hall, just having to explain himself to teammates whose respect he has worked hard to gain will be a heavy price.

From the Swans' hierarchy yesterday the major emotion was relief. Largely because the media frenzy created by the graphic video of Hall's left hook will now die down, but also because that massive reaction - or any other outside influences - had not prompted the tribunal to impose an even heavier penalty.

For that the Swans have their counsel Terry Forrest, QC, to thank. Forrest did not have a loophole in the tribunal rules such as the one he expertly exploited to ensure Hall could play in the 2005 grand final.

This time he earned his money by convincing tribunal chairman John Hassett to recommend that the jury give Hall a 25 per cent discount for his guilty plea. If they did - the jury does not disclose how penalties are reached - Hall's ban was reduced from nine weeks to seven, much closer to the estimated six weeks the Swans say the big forward will take to recover from a broken wrist.

While a seven-week ban seemed about in line with the offence, one lingering doubt yesterday was whether, with the weight of evidence so compelling Hall had no choice but to throw himself on the mercy of the tribunal, merely acknowledging the obvious fact he had smacked Brent Staker in the face entitled him to a reduced penalty.

The tribunal's counsel, Jeff Gleeson, made a point that echoed the doubts some of us harbour about whether the guilty plea was entered out of genuine remorse or merely because Hall had been caught red-handed. Gleeson suggested Hall would still be standing with hands out pleading his innocence - as he had moments after the blow landed - if a camera had not been trained on the punch.

But if it is human nature to first look for an exit clause before shouldering the burden of blame, then the sincerity of Hall's apology should not be discarded. Hall had worked hard on his transition from Big Bad Barry to Big Brother Barry.

While the hanging judges might have wanted more, seven weeks is a long time in the grandstand to deal with that humiliating loss of identity.