Lachie Neale has succeeded in his bid to overturn a one-game striking suspension at the AFL Appeals Board and is free to play in the grand final.
Neale lost on Tuesday with the AFL Tribunal upholding his ban for striking Hawthorn’s Jack Ginnivan.
In a hearing that took nearly two hours, the panel of chair Richard Loveridge, Steven Jurica and Wayne Henwood took less than half an hour to return with their verdict.
Neale’s defence team chose not to challenge the decision of the Tribunal to uphold the grading of intentional conduct, medium impact and body contact, which resulted in the one-match ban.
The case turned on the question of the “exceptional and compelling circumstances” clause in the rules, which allows the Tribunal discretion to not apply a ban, and whether the Tribunal considered Neale’s record of 320 games without suspension and two Brownlow Medal best-and-fairests in reaching their decision.
Neale’s counsel Adrian Anderson said the exceptional circumstances should have been reached because of Neale’s amazing record, the fact that Ginnivan had not been injured in what he said was a “pretty minor” incident, and the fact that the consequences of the decision were that Neale would miss a grand final.
“We find that the Tribunal did err in having regard to whether the conduct was intentional,” Loveridge said in the Appeal Board reasons.
“We accept the position of Neale in his written submissions that the intentional aspect was an element of the charge which had already been established.
“The relevant inquiry was whether, despite the charge having been established, there was exceptional and compelling circumstances.
“In this case, that was Neale’s record.
“We find that Neale’s record is exemplary, and that he should be afforded the benefit of the provision.
“In conclusion, we allow the appeal.”
Neale was fined $10,000 and he will be able to play in Saturday’s grand final.
Both teams released their line-ups for the decider, with no changes for either Brisbane or Fremantle.
Look back at how all the proceedings and team news unfolded in the live blog.
What do you think: should Lachie Neale be suspended?
That’s where we will leave it
After an unbelieveable few days, and several hours of argument and deliberations over two hearings, Lachie Neale is free to play.
There were times during those two hearings where it didn’t look like it was going to happen – particularly after the Tribunal decision on Tuesday.
But in the end, the Appeal Board have given weight to Neale’s “exemplary” career record and said it was enough to trigger exceptional and compelling circumstances to overturn the ban.
What does it mean? We won’t really know until late Saturday afternoon, when we have worked out how this has all affected (or not) Neale and the Lions.
But it sets up an unforgettable contest, wiht both teams at full strength – Brisbane going for a second three-peat and Fremantle looking for their breakthrough flag in club history.
We will be back on the blog for that, so please join us then.
In the meantime, I’m Andrew McGarry saying thank you once again for joining us, and wishing you a very good night.
More reactions to the verdict
Typical there was never any chance he would not play afl stitch up again. Where rules are interpreted to suit a desired outcome. They have ruined a sport for the sake of entertainment. Not happy
– Gary
Steve: AFL bowing down to the broadcasters . Absolute joke.
Winter: OMG🌞🥂🏆✨️ That is FANTASTIC!!!! Was a really compelling argument – because it had weight. Too big a price to pay for the action. A fine, or one regular week, but not a Grand Final. BRILLIANT! Now we get to see the best team on the day.👏👏👏
Nic: What an absolute disgrace to the game and what message it sends strike someone intentionally, off the ball but your an “exceptional” player so it doesn’t matter really. So similar players next year now have a precedence for off ball strikes – hope he does his calf 5 mins into the first qtr
Darcy: What an absolute joke. What message does that send you can thump someone and get away with it. Good one AFL
Lachie Neale Fan: My socks just got blown off with this great decision! Happy for Lachie Neale!
End of AFL: This is the last straw. I’m switching off the AFL. They are dead to me.
Dockers, Lions name GF teams
The teams are in for Saturday’s grand final!
And there are no changes.
With Lachie Neale selected, there is no room for Noah Answerth or Bruce “Bruuuuuuuuuce” Neville, who are both named as emergencies.
Fremantle opted against bringing back Brennan Cox, and have stuck with Oscar McDonald in the backline.
McDonald has been in the weekly team ever since the Western Derby in round 20, taking part in all three finals for the Dockers.
What the AFL Appeal Board said
In regard to whether ‘exceptional and compelling circumstances’ provision can apply to Neale’s benefit.
We find that the Tribunal did err in having regard to whether the conduct was intentional.
We accept the position of Neale in his written submissions that the intentional aspect was an element of the charge which had already been established.
The relevant inquiry was whether, despite the charge having been established, there was exceptional and compelling circumstances.
In this case, that was Neale’s record.
We find that Neale’s record is exemplary, and that he should be afforded the benefit of the provision.
In conclusion, we allow the appeal.
We order that Neale instead be fined $10,000.
A huge moment in grand final week
There is no other way to describe this other than a huge win for the Brisbane Lions.
To have their two-time Brownlow Medallist able to take his place in the grand final will be a very big factor in deciding Saturday’s game.
A Brisbane team with Lachie Neale is – on paper at least – a better team than one without him.
The one caveat…
This happened with Andrew Dunkley for Sydney in 1996, although it took a court injunction for him to get there.
The stress of the whole process clearly weighed on the Sydney full-back and he was not able to produce his normal performance on the biggest stage.
Not saying that this will happen to Neale, but you can’t argue that he and his team have had to expend a lot of mental energy on this case, energy that would have been better focused on the actual game.
The bottom line for the Appeal Board decision
The Appeal Board – Richard Loveridge, Steven Jurica and Wayne Henwood – found that the Tribunal had erred in not giving sufficient weight to Lachie Neale’s “exemplary record” of 320 games without suspension, not to mention his two wins in the Brownlow Medal (the AFL’s best and fairest).
They found that this WAS enough to trigger the exceptional and compelling circumstances clause in the rules.
Lachie Neale’s ban is overturned and he is able to play in the grand final!
Lachie Neale says “thank you, Mr Chairman”.
The Brisbane star has escaped his ban. he will be able to take his place at the MCG on Saturday against Fremantle.
We are back with a decision
That was quick!
We are back on the screens again, and we are up for a decision.
They’ve disappeared again, but it must be imminent.
here we go.
Richard Loveridge is reading out the decision.
One ground of appeal with two parts.
Ground a) we do not find that the Tribunal failed to take into account the consequence of their decision that Lachie Neale would miss the grand final
We do not find there was an error of law relating to this ground of the appeal.
Exceptional and compelling circumstances that the Tribunal erred.
Mr neale’s record is exemplary and that he should be afforded the benefit of the provision.
Defence argued not to include the vision
Where is the new vision!
– GimmeVideo
GimmeVideo,
The argument from Adrian Anderson that it would have been better if the new vision was available for the Tribunal pales a bit when he did not argue for its inclusion today.
It leads to the question of whether the Lions and Neale believed that the new vision made things worse, not better.,
Hard to go past intent and off-the-ball nature of the incident
Lions fan through and through here. I’d like it to be different, but I can’t see the board overturning the tribunal decision. And unfortunately, Neale is the one responsible for being in this position. It was a second of bad judgement, but a player with his experience should have controlled himself. He’s let himself and the team down.
– Tracey
Tracey,
I find it hard to disagree. Regardless of the result, Lachie Neale must no doubt regret running in to confront Jack Ginnivan off the ball.
If he fails to win today, then his decision-making in the heat of a prelim final will not only ruin his hopes of a three-peat but also damaged his team’s hopes on Saturday.
Let’s see what they come back with.
Barry Hall’s record not in doubt
We’ve already been going for 10 minutes, that means the record is not in doubt.
Sydney’s Barry Hall was allowed to play in a grand final for a similar gut-punch offence when the panel came back in four minutes in 2005.
The difference there was the panel ruled it was in-play, not off the ball. And as we know, the Neale defence is not challenging that side of the rulings.
How long is a piece of string?
Do you think we will be having to lock in for another 4 hours of deliberation? I think the language used by the KC in the first hearing seemed quite final. I think I’d be surprised if 1) it was a long deliberation
2) it was overturned– Minutes or hours?
Minutes or hours,
I’m not sure how long it will be – I don’t think we’ll be going as long as Tuesday, but who knows?
The lack of questions for Andrew Woods KC’s submissions for the AFL compared to the raft of queries for Adrian Anderson’s for Neale could point in one direction. Let’s wait and see.
No injury queries for Neale this time around
We are also waiting for team news for the grand final … remember that game?
Last year, the big question on selection day was whether the Lions would take a big chance on naming Lachie Neale, who was dealing with a calf injury.
In the end, they named him as a sub – and the move paid off, as he came into the game at half-time, had 17 touches, four inside 50s and seven clearances, plus a booming goal from the 50m arc in the third quarter that set Brisbane on course for victory.
This year we don’t have anything quite as interesting as that – at least on the injury front. There has been no “race against time” for anyone who played in the prelims.
The closest things we have are Brisbane’s Noah Answerth and Fremantle’s Brennan Cox, who have each missed finals through injury.
Answerth has missed the last two games for the Lions with an ankle injury, and was due to undergo a test today.
Cox, who has not played any of the finals, was withdrawn from Peel Thunder’s WAFL-winning grand final side after the Dockers’ win over Sydney. He made it through Fremantle’s open training session yesterday – will the Dockers make the move to bring him in?
Your thoughts on the hearing
Peter: It’s crunch time!
Ashley Samels: OMG who cares if a footballer, who is clearly shown in video footage striking another player, missing the Grand final because of his own stupidity. Surely you have better things to report? If he miraculously gets away with it, then THATS NEWS.
Paul H: It’s a game. He thumped another player on the field. He’s out.
Mark: Slightly off-topic for the appeal, but could the defence have invited Ginnivan to describe the impact rather than assuming it was medium impact?
The Appeal Board retires for deliberations
The Appeal Board now retires to consider its decision.
AFL closes submissions
Andrew Woods KC concludes his submissions, there are no questions from the panel.
AFL says Neale’s defence focusing on “minutiae”
Andrew Woods KC is – in legal terms – laying a solid bump on Lachie Neale’s legal team.
“It’s really hard to see and support the argument that they didn’t take it into account,” he says.
He says Mr Anderson has been trawling through “minutiae”.
“The bottom line is this is a sporting tribunal, it takes into account everything that it needs to.
“Mr Anderson wants you to dissect the reasons the way you might dissect a Court of Appeal reasons.”
“Simple fact” that next match for ban after prelim is the grand final
Andrew Woods KC continues.
“The simple fact is that every suspension costs the next match. For a player suspended in the preliminary final, the next match is the grand final,” Woods says.
He goes on to say Lachie Neale was asked at the Tribunal about the rules, and that he knew of the rule that he was playing in a prelim final, he knew that if he gut-punched someone he would miss a week, and that that would mean he would miss the grand final.
AFL rejects the safety clause argument
Andrew Woods KC goes on to say that it is implicit that the grand final would be taken into account for this case.
Woods points to Anderson’s comment that he wasn’t asking for Neale to be treated differently because of the grand final.
“He can’t have it both ways,” Woods KC says.
Discussion about this post