Lachie Neale will get the chance to farewell Brisbane as a three-time premiership player after winning a sensational last-ditch appeal ahead of Saturday’s AFL grand final against Fremantle.
The dual Brownlow medallist was initially rubbed out of the decider after the tribunal upheld his one-match ban for striking Hawthorn’s Jack Ginnivan in last weekend’s preliminary final.
But the Lions took the case to the AFL appeals board on Thursday night and Richard Loveridge, Stephen Jurica and Wayne Henwood found they successfully argued Neale’s case deserved exceptional and compelling treatment.
Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today
He will instead be fined $10,000 and is now free to face his former side.
Neale and the club did not challenge the tribunal’s finding that it was an intentional strike, only that the tribunal made an error of law in not considering the grand final as “an important factor” and whether intentional versus careless was relevant to debating whether there were exceptional and compelling circumstances.
Adrian Anderson, acting for Brisbane, said Neale should be hit with a $10,000 fine, or a number the appeals board decides, or that the one-match ban should be served in Round 1, 2027 — without mentioning that he is set to depart the club and join Collingwood.
The appeals board did not find there was an error of law by the tribunal in considering the importance of the grand final but said the tribunal members “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,” Loveridge said.
“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.”
Lachie Neale dodges question after sensational appeal
Neale thanked the appeals board before departing the conference and again when he spoke to reporters outside the Lions’ Pullman team hotel.
“Obviously very happy with the appeals board’s decision. Looking forward to playing in the grand final,” he said.
“After this and after a couple of questions all the attention is off me and we get ready to play.”
Neale said he “wasn’t really hopeful or very doubtful either way”.
“I didn’t know, I’ve never been in this situation so I wasn’t sure how it would play out,” he said.
“Pretty nerve-wracking. Pretty foreign territory so wasn’t really sure what to do with myself, been trying to keep busy so coming down here and training has been nice.”
He denied he now had “a bigger point to prove”.
“I just want to play my part and win on Saturday. Difficult challenge against Freo,” he said.
Asked what it means to get “one more game” for Brisbane in the grand final, Neale smiled and said: “Who says it’s my last?”
Neale also said his availability had not impacted the group but he hoped it would now lift their spirits.
“To be honest it hasn’t been brought up too much within the group. We’ve been business as usual, even training today felt really normal,” he said.
“It hasn’t really changed our preparations in terms of the team and the club. Everyone’s worked hard behind the scenes. Maybe a pep in their step but it’s certainly gave me a pep in my step.”
How the appeals board hearing played out
AFL counsel Andrew Woods KC sought to have “much sharper vision of the incident” submitted, where new evidence is not typically permitted to be used in an appeal, but he also acknowledged the tribunal found Neale guilty with inferior footage.
Anderson said the club could “not understand” why the footage was not available in time for Tuesday night’s tribunal hearing.
He said “it would have been immensely preferable” for the Lions to have had the “opportunity to view and address this vision at the tribunal hearing”.
The AFL’s bid to submit the vision was knocked back, with Anderson beginning his argument against “the failure by the tribunal” to ignore the option of applying the exceptional and compelling circumstances provision.
Anderson also argued “undue emphasis” was placed on the AFL’s case that the provision had only been previously applied where players were found guilty of careless acts.
Anderson said it was also noteworthy that the “language of the provision makes no reference” to intentional versus careless offences.
The tribunal’s reasons then came under scrutiny.
“There is consciousness of the relevance of the grand final and reference to it in the deliberation about whether or not it was an intentional strike with medium impact,” Anderson said, noting the tribunal “carefully set out 14 factors it considered” and accepted “there are matters trending both ways”.
He said the tribunal described Neale’s record as “extraordinary and I think the fair interpretations of the reasons is the tribunal does find there are exceptional and compelling circumstances”.
“The tribunal rightfully took into account Neale’s exceptional record of something close to a unicorn but did not, was not influenced to use that factor to render it inappropriate, unreasonable to apply the one-match suspension,” Anderson said.
“The significance of this consequence of missing a grand final and why it needed to be weighed into the mix will not be lost on any of the three members of the appeal board tonight. You will all be abundantly aware of the opportunity playing in a grand final means for an AFL footballer. I don’t need to harp on the point.
“We all know the famous Bobby Skilton (story) that he’d give his three Brownlows in a heartbeat to win a grand final. More recently Nat Fyfe said he would trade his Brownlow for the opportunity to play in another grand final.
“It’s a historic opportunity for Neale to play in this match.”
Appeals board chair Richard Loveridge asked whether Anderson argued it was “not for us to consider any negative points”.
“The fact that he had some prior fines, just like Scott Pendlebury did, just like Charlie Cameron did, that was fine to take that into account. To take into account that it was some distance from the ball, that was fine,” Anderson replied.
“But we say what they should have taken into account — just dealing with the grand final now — was something else in favour. They failed to take into account a crucial matter.
“What we’re saying is when you weigh the matters against Neale … when you weigh his incredible record and that Ginnivan’s not injured and you have regard to the fact the consequence of applying this suspension is that Neale misses this grand final, that ought to have been considered in the mix. It was a very finely balanced decision.
“If they had have included in the factors in favour of Neale that in this case he would miss a grand final, that’s something that is part of the exceptional and compelling circumstances. It doesn’t often arise that you’re talking the ability to participate in a grand final. It’s unusual and demands attention as a matter alongside his record.”
Loveridge jumped in to say the reasons “would appear to make it clear that the tribunal were aware of the significance of the grand final and clearly it was the consequence of the decision.
“It’d nearly be unreal to say that they would not have it in their contemplation, notwithstanding that it’s not in the list (of reasons),” the appeals chair said.
Anderson honed in on the tribunal’s mention that it must still apply the rules, saying the exceptional and compelling circumstances provision is part of the rules.
“Perhaps I’m partly at fault here. I could have more squarely raised this question of a grand final more explicitly,” he said.
“But what I would say to you is it was there and it was open for the tribunal to find it, and perhaps that I didn’t make it as clear as I should have, it should not disadvantage Neale.
“At the end of the day it is unreasonable … regardless that (the strike) was intentional. There’s no such mention (of intentional versus careless in the exceptional and compelling circumstances rule) because that’s not the way it’s ever intended to operate and not the way it should operate.
“The whole purpose of this provision is to say, OK, you can make a mistake because Neale as one of the greatest and fairest players ever, you deserve a little bit of leniency here.
“This rule exists precisely for someone like Neale, who deserves the right to play in this grand final.
“It needs to be a proportional sentence.”
Late in Anderson’s submissions, Loveridge urged him to “promptly deal with the point” he was making.
Woods had also at one point interjected, noting it was unusual to comment during the club’s submissions but feeling compelled to mention he was “lost” on Anderson’s arguments.
“It’s not making a lot of sense to me, I must say,” he said.
Woods later began his response by saying he would endeavour to stay within the recommended 45-minute time frame — a clear shot at Anderson.
He also said he did not agree with Anderson’s suggestion that the AFL counsel may have also failed to impart the importance of the grand final on the tribunal.
He said it was “pretty brave” for Anderson to claim the tribunal did not consider the grand final.
Woods repeated his argument from Tuesday night’s tribunal hearing that Neale knew he would be playing in the grand final if Brisbane defeated Hawthorn and therefore knew the consequences of an intentional strike.
The appeals board retired to deliberate at 5.56pm and returned at 6.20pm.
