Verdict is in: Brisbane star Lachie Neale learns fate over strike in AFL Appeals Board

Brisbane star midfielder Lachie Neale is free to play in Saturday's Grand Final against Fremantle after the AFL Appeals Board overturned the Tribunal's decision to uphold his one-match suspension.

Instead, Neale has been handed a $10,000 fine.

Neale was penalised for his strike on Hawthorn's Jack Ginnivan during the Lions' thrilling nine-point Preliminary Final win, which set up a fourth consecutive decider.

After more than four hours at the Tribunal earlier in the week, the panel maintained the two-time Brownlow Medallist was guilty of striking Ginnivan.

Once the verdict was realised, the Lions immediately confirmed they would appeal the one-game ban.

WHAT AND HOW IT HAPPENED

18:29: The live blog has now concluded.

18:25: The Appeals Board said it thought the Tribunal made an error in not taking into account Neale's exemplary record when considering the ECC request. That was the main decider in overturning the Tribunal's decision.

18:22: The board has announced its decision on the appeal: The ECC claim has been allowed. The Appeals Board has instead decided Neale should be fined $10,000.

17:55: The board is now going to deliberate.

17:54: Mr Woods has finished his submissions. Notably quicker than Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson, however, has some more points to make. He argued that Mr Woods has taken his comments on treating Neale differently out of context and in fact he said the opposite that the Tribunal should follow the rules as written.

Mr Anderson said the AFL argued the fact the Grand Final was not relevant in the decision.

Mr Loveridge has asked Mr Anderson if he has any new points.

Mr Anderson said yes Neale was aware of the rules, but like Neale said in the Tribunal, in the heat of play he is not thinking of the rules.

17:49: Mr Woods said the fact the act was intentional and not careless was one of seven points in the Tribunal's decision to uphold the suspension and deny the ECC claim.

17:45: Mr Woods said the Tribunal stated that they would consider an intentional offence, it just compared Neale's case with the two other ECC cases.

Mr Woods said it is beggar's belief that there is an argument made by Mr Anderson that the intentional aspect shouldn't be taken into account

17:38: Mr Woods has used the transcript from Tuesday to argue that Neale knew striking would cause a one week suspension, he knew he was playing in a Preliminary Final, and that a suspension would mean he would miss the Grand Final.

17:33: Mr Woods has said during Tuesday's Tribunal meeting, Mr Anderson asked for Neale not to be treated differently because it is a Grand Final. On Thursday, Mr Woods argues, Mr Anderson is now focusing on how this case is different because it is a Grand Final.

Mr Woods said Neale can't have it both ways.

17:29: Mr Woods has argued that the fact there has only been two other examples of successful ECC claims, it is entirely relevant that they were graded as careless but Neale's was different and graded as intentional.

17:26: Mr Woods has begun his argument.

Mr Woods said the Tribunal did take the importance of the Grand Final into consideration with Neale's ECC claims, but that the tribunal did so twice.

17:21: Mr Anderson is now showing footage of Scott Pendelbury's suspension in 2024 for his strike which was waived due to ECC.

Mr Loveridge has asked Mr Anderson to get to the point quick.

Mr Anderson has argued that Pendlebury's successful ECC claim was deserved, and so should Neale's because they are both legends of the game with near-impeccable records.

Mr Anderson said the fact Neale's act was intentional was given too much weight by the Tribunal.

17:17: Mr Anderson has argued that Neale receiving a $10,000 fine or missing Round 1 next year is more of a fair punishment.

17:15: Mr Anderson argued that the fact that the ECC claim was denied due to the fact it was intentional was wrong.

Mr Anderson said each ECC case needs to be assessed on its own basis.

He argued that ECC allows for a response for provocation, which would be intentional. So why not this one?

Mr Anderson said the fact the other two ECC cases were not intentional should not matter in Neale's ECC case.

17:10: Mr Anderson is now onto the second part of the appeal...

17:05: Mr Anderson said the Tribunal used the fact it was the Grand Final coming up when asking Neale about if he was aware of the situation and the gravity of the consequences due to his actions. Therefore he believes the relevance of the Grand Final should be taken into account for ECC as he prepares to play in a three-peat and premiership.

Mr Anderson said Neale should not be treated differently.

16:53: Mr Loveridge has asked if Mr Anderson accepts that the suspension in a Preliminary Final should be treated the same as if it was made in the home-and-away season.

Mr Anderson said no.

Mr Loveridge said he believes the two should follow the same process. He then asks if Mr Anderson believes the Appeals Board should take greater weighting for ECC claims in finals.

16:50: Mr Loveridge has challenged Mr Anderson on whether he is asking the Appeals Board to not consider any of the negative elements into the suspension such as his previous fines or distance from the ball the incident took place.

Mr Anderson said he is not, he said the fact Ginnivan was not injured, what the suspension would mean in terms of missing a Grand Final means it should have been considered more in the Tribunal's verdict.

Mr Anderson said the Appeals Board must look beyond just Neale's record due to the gravity of what his one-match suspension will mean he will miss. And whether that is fair for the incident itself.

16:43: Mr Anderson has referenced Bob Skilton and Nat Fyfe in terms of their claims they would trade their Brownlows for a Grand Final and premiership.

16:43: Mr Anderson said the Tribunal considered the importance of missing the Grand Final through suspension when handing down the ban, but not when the Tribunal denied the ECC claim.

Mr Anderson is putting an emphasis on the Tribunal's use of the word "extraordinary" when describing Neale.

16:37: Mr Anderson said there is no reference that an intentional act can deny an ECC request.

He said ECC is not defined within the AFL's rules.

Mr Anderson said there is no reference as to whether how big the suspended game is (being the Grand Final) can be factored into a ECC claim. He believes it is relevant for consideration for ECC and there is no rule that outlines that it isn't.

16:31: Mr Anderson said this ECC provisions were brought in to help fix player punishments that are too strong for the football crime committed.

16:28: Mr Anderson said the punishment of missing a Grand Final is an unfair punishment for the action of a man with Neale's football and suspension history.

Mr Anderson said the fact Neale's exceptional and compelling circumstances (ECC) claim was denied by the Tribunal mainly due to the fact other ECC cases were for careless acts not intentional acts is unfair given there has only been two previous ECC cases to work off.

16:25: AFL Appeals Board chair Richard Loveridge has said the board will not view the newfound footage.

16:22: Mr Woods said in regards to reasonable diligence in discovering new evidence, it was pretty incredible that the footage was found at all.

16:18: Mr Anderson said Neale is not challenging the intentional or striking element in this appeal. therefore the footage of the strike is not relevant.

They are challenging the Tribunal's reasoning behind the denial of exceptional and compelling circumstances claim.

16:16: Brisbane counsel Mr Adrian Anderson has said the club does not understand why the video evidence was not available during the Tribunal hearing as it is owned by the AFL through its contractor Champion Data.

Mr Anderson said he would have thought in such an important hearing ahead of the Grand Final, the AFL would have found it for the Tribunal hearing.

He also said it was handed to Brisbane in the afternoon, not in the morning.

16:11: Under regulations, the Appeals Board has to permit the use of fresh evidence. And will have to permit the use of the new found footage during this appeal.

16:08: AFL counsel Mr Andrew Woods has said the new footage is more clear than previous footage (not hard) from a contractor for the league. He said it came to light on Wednesday morning and was sent to Brisbane.

Welcome back to Zero Hanger's live blog of the Lachie Neale suspension case. This time we have moved onto the AFL Appeals Board, with the premise of previously unseen footage of the incident promising to be a tasty treat.