It’s one of the most important Tribunal appeals in years, as Brisbane tries to free superstar Lachie Neale from suspension so he can play in the 2026 AFL Grand Final.
Live updates below!
Watch all the build-up to the 2026 AFL Grand Final, with expert analysis and full Grand Final day coverage plus exclusive commentary on the replay, on Fox Footy via Kayo | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
WHAT’S GAMBLING REALLY COSTING YOU? Set a deposit limit. For Free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.
Lions midfielder Neale was handed a one-match ban for striking Hawthorn’s Jack Ginnivan in the first quarter of their epic preliminary final at the MCG.
After a scuffle between Ginnivan and a Brisbane opponent, Neale ran over to the Hawks small forward and struck him in the gut, sending him to the ground. The off-ball incident was graded as intentional with medium impact and body contact.
If Neale’s suspension is upheld, he will have played his final game in Brisbane colours, ahead of an expected free agency move to Collingwood.
He will also miss the chance to win a third consecutive premiership.
Follow the Lachie Neale Tribunal hearing in our live blog below!
If you can’t see the blog, tap here.
LIVE UPDATES
Adrian Anderson representing Brisbane argued the incident was not a strike, and said if it is a strike it is low impact, and if the Tribunal disagrees on those matters there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that warrant a lower-level penalty.
The AFL was represented by Andrew Woods in front of a Tribunal made up of chair Jeff Gleeson and jurors Darren Gaspar and Scott Stevens.
The AFL flagged Brisbane would be discussing a post-match conversation between Lachie Neale and Jack Ginnivan about the incident, and said it would not object to that conversation being discussed, but would make submissions about the weight of the conversation.
Hawthorn’s medical report said Ginnivan was assessed on the field but required no further assessment.
“A rather forlorn comment at the end of the report: can’t miss training or games as we don’t have any,” Woods said.
Anderson slowly took the Tribunal through Neale’s career achievements.
“I was very close to the incident between Jack and Eric Hipwood, where it seemed like Jack was on top of Eric and gave him a couple of jumper punches,” Neale said.
“I didn’t feel like that looked great so I went to show my disappointment in that action and ran past him to body check, bump him, and felt that my shoulder made contact with his body and shoulder first, and my arm wraps around Jack but didn’t feel like I was striking him at all.
“It was more of a bump or body check. I just didn’t like what had happened to Eric.”
He explained his hand movements after the incident as: “I was indicating that Jack might have taken a bit of a dive to get a free kick.
“He (Jack) had a bit of a smile on his face but he didn’t say anything.”
Lions ‘shocked’ by Neale’s 1 game ban | 02:32
Neale said Ginnivan lifted his left arm as he first made shoulder-to-chest contact, and said he would’ve clenched his fist if he wanted to punch Ginnivan in the gut, but he did not clench his first.
“My body definitely made contact first (before his arm). It’s almost like the start of a tackle,” he said.
Neale said his right arm and chest then pushed Ginnivan to the ground.
“I spoke to Jack this morning on the phone,” Neale said.
“He said he felt like it was more of a bump, a body check, than a strike essentially. The force of my body contacting his was what he said made him go to ground.”
Neale rejected the AFL’s suggestion his swinging arm was the first thing to make contact with Ginnivan, and rejected the suggestion he swung his arm back so he could strike Ginnivan.
“I don’t think that was my intention to strike him, I think it was to wrap him up and hit him with my body to let him know I wasn’t happy with what had happened beforehand,” Neale said.
Neale claimed Ginnivan braced for the contact with the AFL saying “it doesn’t show that at all in the vision”.
He added: “I don’t think I’ve ever thought about, in a game of football, the consequences of a report. I’ve just played and tried to play as fairly as possible and stick up for my teammates.”
Neale clarified he felt he might’ve made “very light” contact with Ginnivan’s torso.
It was raised that Neale has previously been fined three times, including for striking, but he explained they were all about “retaliation”.
“This is a very clear strike when one looks at the vision,” Woods said for the AFL.
“While the bodies do come together after this forceful swing of the arm … it doesn’t become a bump or anything like that.”
He added: “It’s not a football act, because it’s not contesting the ball or protecting space. It’s a forceful arm and you really do see this in the regular speed of the vision, that swings straight into his opponent player.”
Daicos claims historic first Brownlow | 02:20
Woods took the Tribunal through the rules around intentional strikes including pointing out “strong consideration will be given to the distance the incident occurs from the ball and the expectation of contact from the victim player.
“It’s plainly not just negligible (contact). Ginnivan’s driven back into the ground; he stays down, albeit not for long.
“It was off the ball – it was a long way off the ball.
“Ginnivan wasn’t expecting it; he couldn’t have been expecting it. There might’ve been a momentary realisation beforehand but it’s only a split second and doesn’t really change the fact that he wasn’t in position to properly brace of expect what was gonna happen.
“The potential to cause injury, certainly I wouldn’t say it’s the same as a strike to the face with the closed fist … it might be less significant like a winding or a rib bruise. It’s a potential that counts here rather than the results.”
Tribunal chair Gleeson pointed out the new guidelines around intentional strikes such as gut punches were “grounded on policy considerations and general deterrence considerations” and argued “that would have more relevance here than the potential for injuries”.
“It’s evident it was introduced trying to deter what was seen to be a problem, and a growing problem in the game,” Gleeson said.
Anderson for the Lions said “while at first blush looking at the vision, it does look like there’s a punch to the guts, a careful and close analysis of the vision and consideration of what Lachie Neale says leads to the conclusion that it is not”.
“I challenge my friend to point to one single frame that shows Lachie Neale’s fist in Ginnivan’s abdomen,” Anderson said.
Tribunal chair Gleeson questioned how the Lions could explain Ginnivan doubling over after the contact “in a way that might be said to be consistent with having been, as you delicately put it, being punched in the guts”.
Anderson pointed to the “significant contact from Neale’s shoulder and body check”, the push in the back from Neale and the “diving motion seeking to accentuate the contact”.
Anderson also argued the fact the guideline around gut punch charges like Neale’s talks about them being “usually” graded medium means they do not always have to be graded as such.
“If you say it’s a strike, we say, at most, contact from the left arm is negligible or at such a level where it’s either negligible or low impact,” he said.
Anderson added “it’s relevant that there’s a Grand Final on the line” and raised a High Court case about how “reasonable satisfaction” can be defined.
“This is potentially the most important match of Lachie Neale’s career. It could be a defining moment in his career if he’s to miss a historic opportunity to play in a threepeat Grand Final,” he said.
“And I’m not saying he should be treated differently, quite the contrary … all I’m saying is the requirement of being comfortably satisfied when there is such a consequence on the line is something that needs to be taken into account when you look at that vision.”
A total of 114 players had played 300-plus V/AFL games, that 72 of them had been suspended at some point in their career, and that only 25 had played 320+ games without suspension like Neale has, according to Anderson.
He said that meant Neale’s record “clearly” fulfilled the exceptional and compelling circumstances clause, but Tribunal chair Gleeson noted the argument had never been successful for an intentional act.
“If a player makes a mistake … the whole idea is that you’re entitled to a lapse, if you’ve had 15 years being one of the best and fairest players to have ever played the game. You’re entitled to some credit,” Anderson replied.
Anderson raised Adam Cooney successfully reducing a suspension by virtue of his record including a Brownlow, to which Gleeson pointed to Ollie Wines failing to use the exceptional and compelling circumstances clause for last year’s bump on Cooper Lord.
The AFL said “it should not be relevant” that Neale would be missing a Grand Final if suspended, and pointed out the stats raised by Brisbane meant 37% of 300-game players hadn’t been suspended, making it less exceptional.
Gleeson said it was more relevant to compare Neale to the total of all players in V/AFL history, and in that context “while Mr Neale might not be a unicorn, he’s something pretty close to it”.