Brisbane Lions star Lachie Neale has failed in his attempt to overturn a one-game ban for striking Hawthorn’s Jack Ginnivan at the AFL tribunal and will miss Saturday’s grand final against the Fremantle Dockers.
Neale’s “gut-punch” on Ginnivan means the former Brisbane co-captain has played his last game for the Lions, as the team seeks a second premiership three-peat in club history.
The appeal, held remotely with Neale watching from Queensland, took more than two hours, with deliberations going for close to two and a half hours.
Neale’s counsel, Adrian Anderson, argued that the dual-Brownlow-winner’s case was not a strike, rather a bump or body-check. He said if it was ruled a strike, that it was of “negligible impact” and if the Tribunal disagreed then there were “exceptional and compelling circumstances” to justify a ban being overturned.
Loading Twitter content
Neale gave evidence that he had watched Ginnivan come together with Brisbane’s Eric Hipwood, ending up lying on the tall forward and giving him several jumper punches.
He said he went over to “express his disappointment”, and collided with him shoulder-first.
But the Tribunal did not accept his version of events.
AFL counsel, Andrew Woods KC, told the Tribunal that Neale was running away from the direction of the ball to confront Ginnivan.
“Neale is running … he has time to decide what he is going to do,” Woods said.
“It’s not a football act. It’s a forceful arm, you really see this with respect to the vision, that swinging towards the opposition player.”
Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC, told Anderson the incident was “well off the ball, not in play” and not a strike that happened during a grapple of scuffle.
Anderson argued that Neale’s long and honoured career (320 games) without suspension was worthy of making an exception to the ban.
“The primary (argument for exceptional and compelling circumstances) is he is one of the best and one of the fairest to have ever played the game,” he says.
However, the Tribunal disagreed.
“Having carefully reviewed the evidence and listened to Neale’s explanation, we find that this was a forceful blow, delivered with a swinging arm and an open hand,” Gleeson said delivering the verdict.
“When played at normal speed, it appears clear to us that this was, to use the common vernacular, a strike to the guts. We are comfortably satisfied that this is what occurred.“
Gleeson said that after consideration, the panel did not feel there were exceptional circumstances to overturn the ban.
“The purpose of the [gut-punch] guideline is to stamp out this very sort of conduct. Neale ignored it, and he knew the consequences,’ he said.
“Even Neale’s outstanding record does not render a one-match suspension for that act inappropriate or unreasonable.”
Look back at how Tuesday night’s proceedings unfolded in our live blog.
That’s where we will leave it
And THAT, after six hours on the blog, and close to five hours of a hearing, is that.
That one incident, off-the-ball, hardly necessary, has now blown up grand final week and ended Lachie Neale’s playing time with Brisbane, unless there is another chapter to come.
If Brisbane tries to appeal, it would most likely be on Thursday (after the Lions have arrived in Melbourne for grand final week).
If they go the court route, then the stress will only be beginning.
Whatever happens, this is NOT the way Brisbane wanted their fourth straight grand final week to go.
But there is still an actual grand final to be played and won. And we will be there on the blog for ABC on Saturday afternoon.
Please join us then.
But in the meantime, can I thank EVERYONE who has joined us on this crazy Tribunal blog, especially if you were one of the 492 commenters (so far).
My name is Andrew McGarry, and I wish you all a very good night.
The difference between Lachie Neale’s case and Scott Pendlebury’s
Andrew wonderful coverage so thank you! Not a Lions or Freo supporter but I feel incredibly sorry for Lachie Neale that his suspension has been upheld. Please explain how this is any different to what Scott Pendlebury did, if looking at both incidents Pendlebury’s was much worse in the contact sence. His opponent was clearly in a bad way yet the same Chairman Jeff Gleeson KC downgraded his one match suspension. A reminder of Pendlebury’s charges, Charge: Rough conduct (careless conduct, medium impact, high contact) for a bump.
– Mel
Mel,
The basic difference between Lachie Neale’s case and Scott Pendlebury’s is that Pendlebury’s case was labelled careless conduct, rather than intentional.
They effectively said that the impact came from Pendlebury’s carelessness, whereas they rejected any suggestion that Neale had done anything other than intentionally hit Ginnivan “in the guts.
During the hearing, Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC pointed out to Neale’s counsel that there had never been a finding of exceptional and compelling circumstances in a case of an intentional strike.
In retrospect, that was the key to tonight’s hearing. There still hasn’t been a case where those special circumstances were found to overturn an intentional hit.
Again, varying views on that result
Appeal incoming. Absolutely ludicrous.
– Ludicrous
Claire: Poor Lachie Neale …… boohoo ….. it is very clear what he did …… he should have got more than 1-match
Stephen: A significant outcome for such an insignificant incident
Geoff: What a joke! There is so much pushing and shoving and stand over tactics in the game and nothing is done. Ginnivan does a nice little act and this is what happens.
Mr Gibbo: The guy is an idiot if he thinks he can do that in a semi.
The hearing has ended
The hearing has ended, the screens have all disappeared.
There was no indication from Lachie Neale’s counsel, Adrian Anderson, whether there was an intended appeal.
Neale himself was composed, but obviously the decision will come as a blow.
This means that the dual Brownlow-winner has in all likelihood played his last game for the Brisbane Lions.
He will not have the chance to go for a third-straight premiership.
The Lions will take on the Dockers in Saturday’s grand final without him.
Lachie Neale fails in his appeal and will miss the grand final
Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC reads out the verdict.
“We have no problem saying that this was an intentional strike and that it was medium impact.
“There is no single frame that shows him contacting Ginnivan.
“But Ginnivan doubles over not consistent with being bodychecked.
“We place little emphasis on Neale’s evidence of Ginnivan’s words (that it was a bump or body-check).
“We find this was a forceful blow.
“It was to use the vernacular a “strike to the guts”.
“There is no doubt it should be graded as medium impact.
“It is relevant that this took place off the play.
“We are mindful of the considerable consequences to Mr Neale.
“This brings us to the more difficult issue of whether there are exceptional and compelling circumstances.
“It was forcefully put on behalf of Neale that he should not be suspended.”
Gleeson says the Tribunal have come to the conclusion that this should not occur.
“The purpose of the guidelines are to eliminate this act (intentional striking).”
Lachie Neale will remain suspended and will miss the grand final.
The Tribunal is back with a verdict
I think we are about to be back on the screens, with Jeff Gleeson KC and the other panel members, the legal teams and Lachie Neale himself.
We’re about to find out the result.
A reminder of what we are talking about
Andrew you are making this very boring wait, very entertaining. Can we be reminded of what Neale did? Do you have a clip?
– Nelly
Loading Twitter content
There’s no court room
Is the tribunal area similar to that of a court room. Is it just the lawyers and a bunch of journalists?
– Tom
Tom,
This entire hearing is being held remotely. The Tribunal, the lawyers and panel members are all in different places. lachie Neale is (while the hearing is going) in a room in Brisbane.
Now we are in deliberations, the panel members and the Tribunal chair are discussing the case in a streaming side-room, so to speak.
Stats a guide only for Brownlow
Fair enough. What do you think about the umpires assessing the stats before voting for the brownlow this year?
– peter
Peter,
I think it’s a nuanced issue. On one hand, I think having some assistance can be a good thing for umpires in deciding a very important award.
The concern is if the stats become the whole thing and umpires start second-guessing their genuine assessment of who the best players are simply because someone’s numbers are higher.
UPDATE: We have broken through the 400 comment mark, people. Thank you to everyone who is taking part tonight, or just frantically refreshing your phone/tablet/whatever. I really appreciate you taking the time to be involved.
I can’t possibly reply to everyone, but I’m trying.
Protecting the head a priority for AFL (and all sports)
Should we be more concerned about the incessant gambling, alcohol and fast food sponsors the AFL supports, hits off the ball that result in no penalty or lack of HIA checks when it comes to enrolling our kids in junior football?
– This Is Serious Mum
This is Serious Mum,
While this case has serious implications for one player’s career, it is not necessarily going to be precedent-setting.
If you ask ME what the biggest concern is, I would say (as the father of a sports-mad kid now pushing adulthood), that the absolute number one issue in AFL is concussion and head protection.
HIA checks are vitally important, and just as important is that they are non-pressurised HIA checks. Whether it is junior footy, club footy, state leagues or AFL, it is crucial that we can depend on the checks being done properly, and that team benefits or potential problems have nothing to do with the outcome.
It’s not the result of the game that’s important when it comes to safety of players.
Majority decision is ok for the Tribunal
Is the tribunal similar to that of a jury, in so far as the decision has to be unanimous? What happens if it is a hung tribunal? Is it a mistrial?
– Jacqueline
Jacqueline,
You can have majority decisions, which raises the prospect of one yes, one no and one undecided. It’s like the movie 12 angry men for footy.
Not the end of the world if Neale is out
Is it fair to say that if Neale does get suspended, that Brisbane should still be very good come Saturday? As a lions fan, I feel like there is enough depth there to cover him, and if they want to be a dominant club in the next couple years, they need to prove that they can win this with or without Lachie Neale.
– Nat
Nat,
I’m not saying it’s game over if Lachie Neale is out. I think he will make quite a difference, but the Lions are two-time premiers for a reason, and they have a range of weapons across the ground.
It’s unarguable though that they’re not as good a team without him against a very strong Freo side.
Court option no guarantee for Lions
Assuming Neale’s suspension is upheld, which in my view it absolutely should be, can he take it to the high court and run out the clock?
– Stephen
Stephen,
IF (I stress if) the Lions lose tonight’s case, then they could take the case to the Supreme Court of Victoria, as the Swans did with Andrew Dunkley in 1996.
They wouldn’t be trying to run out the clock, rather they would be seeking an injunction against the decision, stating (no doubt) that Neale would not have natural justice regarding another hearing this week.
In the Dunkley case, the injunction was granted, he played the game (and lost) – and then was given a three-match ban the following week.
Cases DO go longer than this
Fair play to you keeping the updates coming still after a long case. This the longest deliberation you’ve experienced?
– Nick
Nick,
I don’t have any experience of Tribunal cases going longer than this, but in a former life as a newspaper courts reporter, I once covered a murder trial where deliberations went for more than a week.
I’m not expecting that we’re going to have that problem here.
More than just a (Tribunal) game
Can we just stick to deloberation updates Ando?
– peter
Peter,
With respect, not really. We are up above 220 comments so far this evening, and while there are some that are not publishable or not the thing, we are waiting for a result that may be minutes or hours away.
I think it’s fair to answer as many people’s questions as I can, while keeping everyone across updates from the main event.
UPDATE: We STILL haven’t heard back from the Tribunal panel, and we are beginning to nudge toward an hour and a half.
EDIT: We are now up to about 257 comments, which is more than our footy record on ABC Sport (the Brayden Maynard Tribunal hearing)
Is it about the law, or the vibe?
It’s not just a GF, and Lachie’s last game for the Lions. It’s the opportunity to lead and participate in a potential 3rd GF legacy. Lachie is a huge part of why this team has been so successful. Blurred vision and pretty minor incident with no harm done. Let him play!
– Winter
Winter,
In one sense I can’t argue with your points. There is a historic “defining moment” in Lachie Neale’s career on the line.
However. He didn’t have to run towards Ginnivan (and away from the ball). He didn’t have to make contact – he could have yelled something pithy on his way by.
He didn’t have to knock him over. I don’t see why a leader / veteran of a team in the second-most consequential game of the season (trying to get to the most consequential game of the season) would bring on an incident like this?
It’s not a fantastic outcome either way, IMHO.
We’re on a (Tribunal) journey
We’re on the Eurostar from London to Paris waiting for news on Lachie!
– Trish
Trish,
When did your train leave the station? I see the Eurostar is supposed to take a bit over 2hrs 15. We’ve well passed that in overall time, and we’re close to halfway with deliberations.
Get ready for a Kylie HT on Saturday
What song do you think Kylie will open with? I hope it’s do the locomotion.
– Riley Casu
Riley,
I’m not sure, there is plenty of bangers in Kylie’s catalogue.
I would be surprised if Padam Padam doesn’t get a run, though…
This decision will be important for the grand final result
So while we wait, what is your prediction for flag (Lachie Neale or otherwise)?
– Rachael
Rachael,
I don’t think I’m surprising any one when I say that the result of tonight is important for Saturday’s result.
A Lions team without Lachie Neale is not the same as a Lions team with Lachie Neale.
I would potentially give the edge to Fremantle if he is ruled out. If he plays, I think it’s a 50/50 chance. I’d lean Brisbane on experience only.
However, I was at the MCG in 2004, when a Brisbane team playing in their fourth straight grand final ran out of legs against a team in Port Adelaide going for their first. Who knows?
Deliberations are a mystery
I’m in the 8:10 screening of the Odyssey. Will we have a verdict by the end of my show?
– Mick from Beaumaris
Mick,
If we don’t we’re all in trouble.
dan