AFL Tribunal Upholds Lachie Neale's Suspension, Rejects Exceptional Circumstances Clause

Finding Lachie Neale guilty was the easy bit for the AFL tribunal.

The hard part was deciding whether to apply the "exceptional and compelling clause".

As tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC noted at the end of a sensational four-and-a-half-hour hearing on last night: "There are matters trending both ways on this issue."

Gleeson and his fellow tribunal members, former AFL players Darren Gaspar and Scott Stevens, decided not to enact the clause.

Neale remains banned from the grand final against Fremantle, although the Lions have until midday today to submit a notice of appeal, which would likely be heard tomorrow.

Why was the suspension upheld?

For many reasons, according to Gleeson.

There was Neale's evidence, which Gleeson rejected as "inconsistent".

Neale insisted he did not strike Hawthorn's Jack Ginnivan during last Saturday night's preliminary final.

"It was more a bump or body-check," the dual Brownlow medallist said.

Neale said Ginnivan "might have taken a bit of a dive to get a free kick".

The tribunal did not buy the argument.

"We have listened carefully to Mr Neale's evidence but we find it was inconsistent in key respects with what we saw on the video," Gleeson said.

"And to that extent we do not accept it."

Neale maintained his shoulder and chest made contact with Ginnivan, but the tribunal found it was "a forceful blow delivered with a swinging arm and an open hand".

The only video footage of the incident was long range and — when enhanced — remained grainy, regardless of how many times it was played frame by painstaking frame.

"It is the case that there is no single frame in the vision that shows Neale's hand or lower arm making contact with Ginnivan's abdomen," Gleeson said.

"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 mindful of the significant consequences for Neale of this finding of intentional strike. But we find the evidence to be cogent."

'He knew the consequences'

That was the guilty part.

Now, for what Gleeson said was "the more difficult issue".

Was using the exceptional and compelling circumstances clause justified to downgrade Neale's penalty from a ban to a fine?

Introduced this year, the clause had been deployed once; to downgrade a one-match ban to Collingwood legend and AFL games record-holder Scott Pendlebury to a fine.

Neale wanted it applied to him.

But, as Gleeson noted, Pendlebury was charged with rough conduct. Specifically, it was graded as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact.

Neale was charged with striking. Specifically, it was graded as intentional conduct, medium impact and body contact.

Gleeson narrowed in on the difference between conduct gradings: Pendlebury was careless but Neale was intentional.

There was also Neale's record, which his barrister — the AFL's former football operations boss Adrian Anderson — compared to Pendlebury's.

Until March, Pendlebury had never fronted the tribunal or been suspended in his 21-year career.

Neale has not previously been banned in a 15-year career that has included two Brownlow Medals, six club champion awards, and co-captaining the Lions to two premierships.

But as AFL counsel Andrew Woods KC pointed out, Neale had previously been found guilty of offences eight times: three of them for striking the body of opponents.

But he had never been suspended.

"This is not the first occasion on which Neale has been found to have struck his opponent," Gleeson said.

The tribunal chair also noted the purpose of the AFL's so-called gut-punch law, also introduced this year. Nine other players have been banned for the offence this season.

"The purpose of the guideline is to stamp out this very sort of conduct. Neale ignored it and he knew the consequences," Gleeson said.

"Being of Neale's outstanding record does not render a one-match suspension for that act inappropriate or unreasonable."