Lachie Neale is sensationally out of the grand final after the AFL tribunal upheld his one-match ban for striking and gave the veteran Lion a stinging rebuke for the off-the-ball incident.
Not even Neale’s exemplary record of avoiding suspension in 320 AFL matches for Brisbane and former club Fremantle saved him from losing his shot at the Lions’ hat-trick of premierships.
The tribunal was highly critical of Neale, who they accused of giving “inconsistent” evidence about his clash with Hawthorn’s Jack Ginnivan. Brisbane desperately tried to have the impact downgraded from medium to low, allowing Neale to be fined instead and to be able to face Fremantle at the MCG on Saturday.
“It is relevant that this strike occurred nowhere near the ball, was not affected in or around the play, and because Ginnivan did not see Neale coming from behind or the side until the very last moment, he had no expectation of being struck until it was too late to meaningfully defend himself,” said tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson, KC.
In a compelling case that tested the AFL’s crackdown on “gut punches” and whether a player such as Neale should be granted leniency after 15 AFL seasons without a suspension, the 33-year-old copped the full wrath of the tribunal.
“Neale jogged towards Ginnivan and formed the immediate intention to swing his arm forcefully at Ginnivan, and that is what he did,” Gleeson said.
“We have listened carefully to Neale’s evidence.
“But we find that it was inconsistent in key respects with what we saw on the video, and to that extent, we do not accept it.
“There is no doubt in our minds that this should be graded as medium impact.
“While Ginnivan was not injured and did not appear to suffer any significant pain or discomfort, the blow was forceful and knocked him off his feet.
“He immediately doubled over in a manner more consistent with a more-than-negligible blow having landed.”
Brisbane had tried to argue that Neale’s strike on Ginnivan wasn’t a “classic punch in the guts”. Neale relied heavily on his argument that his conduct constituted a “body check” instead of a strike on Ginnivan.
While the Lions prepared an argument that it was a case of low impact instead of medium, they were equally prepared to rely on Neale’s good record to constitute “the exemplary and compelling circumstances” allowing him to have his one-match ban waived.
“It’s relevant there’s a grand final on the line,” said Neale’s advocate, Adrian Anderson.
“This is potentially the most important match of Lachie Neale’s career. It could be a defining moment in the career if he’s to miss a historic opportunity to play in a three-peat grand final.”
Anderson continued: “If you’ve had 15 years of being a great example for young players and not getting suspended and playing the game like Lachie Neale does, it’s something deserving some credit for him if he does have a lapse, even if it’s an intentional minor lapse.
“He one of the best and one of the fairest players to have played the game.”
But the AFL was adamant that Neale should be penalised for an incident “a long way off the ball”.
The AFL’s counsel, Andrew Woods, KC, strongly argued that it was an intentional act.
“You take into account the medical report … it does confirm that he [Ginnivan] required immediate on-field assessment by a doctor,” Woods said.
“It was off the ball. It was a long way off the ball.
“Ginnivan wasn’t expecting it. He couldn’t expect it … he wasn’t braced, and he took the full impact.”
Anderson, however, said Neale’s action was a “body check”.
“We respectfully submit that when you have a careful [examination of the footage and Neale’s testimony] … this was not a strike with the left arm.
“It was a body check, primarily with the body and shoulder.
“It’s not a classic punch in the guts.
“At the very most, the contact [on Ginnivan] from that left arm is negligible, or such a level to classify it as low impact.
“There is not a frame of this vision where you see a fist in Ginnivan’s torso.“
Neale was asked if he knew what was at stake when he targeted Ginnivan. Specifically, he was asked if he knew that by committing a reportable offence during the game, he risked missing a grand final.
“I don’t think I’ve ever thought about that during a game of football, about the consequences of a report. I’ve just tried to play as fairly as possible and stick up for my teammates,” Neale said.
Neale explained that he clashed with Ginnivan because he was unhappy with the Hawk’s treatment of Eric Hipwood seconds earlier.
“For me, I was very close to the incident between Jack [Ginnivan] and Eric Hipwood … where it seemed that Jack … gave him some jumper punches,” said Neale.
“I didn’t feel that that looked great.
“I went to show my disappointment in that action, and ran past Jack and body check, bump him and felt that my shoulder made contact with his body and shoulder first.
Neale faced questions whether Ginnivan would have known he was approaching.
“You can see him [Ginnivan] look a step or two before I make impact,” Neale said.
The Lion confirmed that it was an off-the-ball clash. “No, the ball is not in the area,” Neale said.
Neale said he spoke to Ginnivan ahead of the tribunal.
“I spoke to Jack this morning on the phone,” Neale said.
“He [Ginnivan] said it felt more like a bump [or a] body check [rather] than a strike.
“He said my body force made him go to ground.”
When Neale was running away from the incident, the veteran Lion explained why he gestured with a diving motion.
“I felt that Jack might have taken a dive to get a free kick, and that was why I was indicating a diving action,” Neale said.
“He [Ginnivan] had a bit of a smile on his face, but didn’t say anything.”