GWS presented at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday to challenge the one-match suspensions handed down to captain Toby Greene and forward Jesse Hogan.

The Giants - who will already be without veteran duo Sam Taylor and Stephen Coniglio - are desperate to have Greene and Hogan for Thursday's Anzac Day clash with Brisbane, in the hope they will bounce back from last weekend's loss to Carlton.

Coleman Medal leader Hogan is up first on the docket, with the club successfully challenging his striking ban on Blues defender Lewis Young.

The incident was graded as intentional, due to being off the ball, with low impact and high contact resulting in a one-match ban but was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the impact was negligible, not low, constituting no one-match suspension, with the dynamic forward free to face the Lions.

Following Hogan's appeal is skipper Greene, whose collision with Carlton small Jordan Boyd has been likened to Essendon's Peter Wright's bump on Harry Cunningham, albeit Boyd was not injured.

The incident was graded as careless, with medium impact and high contact, resulting in a one-match ban which was upheld.

The GWS skipper ultimately left the ground, the Tribunal has generally ruled against players who opt to jump, with any subsequent contact being penalised, regardless of the injury to the opposing player.

Greene, unlike Hogan, will miss the clash with Brisbane on Thursday.

West Coast's Tom Barrass is also heading to the Tribunal for his one-match suspension, with his hearing to take place on Wednesday at 1:00 pm (AEST).

Follow the Jesse Hogan and Toby Greene Tribunal appeals here...

Greene fails to clear suspension

Here is the Tribunal's summation:

Jeff Gleeson (chair): "The charge is pressed on two alternatives, the rough conduct high bumps provision and the general rough conduct provision.

"(Greene) admits this was a bump, bumping Mr. Boyd. He caused contact that is at least low impact to be made with Mr Boyd's head or neck.

"The next question is whether Mr. Greene was contesting the ball and whether it was not unreasonable to contest the ball in that way.

"I have given an instruction to the panel to the effect that if a player has ceased to attempt to mark prior to impact and is bracing for impact in circumstances such as this, that player is not contesting the ball.

"That only leaves Mr Greene (having) ceased to attempt to mark prior to impact... his evidence is that this is what he was doing.

"Prior to impact, Mr. Greene had abandoned his attempt to mark the ball and turn his body to brace for impact.

"It follows that the charge of rough conduct is made under the high bumps provision, noting again Mr Greene admitted this was such, a high bump, and there is no need to consider the general rough conduct provision for the charge is upheld."

Here's how the hearing unfolded...

20:22: Toby Greene's suspension is upheld, meaning he'll miss the clash with Brisbane on Thursday.

20:02: The Tribunal is now deliberating, on the outcome.

19:55: Jeff Gleeson (chair) instructs the panel on the interpretation of the bump (4.13 of the AFL guidelines).

19:42: The Tribunal are deliberating - not on the outcome.

19:35: D'Arville (Giants): "If the finding is Greene was unreasonable, that would have the consequence that Greene should've pulled out of this contest altogether."

D'Arville (Giants) says the differences between the Wright and Greene cases are that:

1) Harry Cunningham didn't know Wright was coming; Boyd knew Greene was.

2) Wright made no effort to take the mark; Greene's evidence says he did.

3) Wright also was later to the contest the Greene was.

D'Arville (Giants) says that Wright also pleaded guilty to the charge and provided no evidence.

Whereas Greene "provides clear evidence that is consistent with the vision."

19:20: D'Arville (Giants): "The Tribunal cannot operate on the basis that there is only one way of taking a mark or that there is only one way of protecting oneself.

Contesting reasonableness, "Mr. Greene gave consistent evidence about the way he was planning to take the mark.

"Can't be a one-size-fits-all method for taking marks."

19:08: Woods (AFL) is now referencing Peter Wright's bump, saying he was "marginally late" to the contest, tucking their arm in and making forceful contact with a player running back with the flight.

"They're not precisely the same incident but there a real similarities between them.

"(Wright) should have taken more care, which is the ultimate submission I make about Mr. Greene."

19:05: Woods (AFL): "The problem I speak with his action is that Boyd was right in front of him. He had an unobstructed view of Boyd and he could see or should have seen where he was coming.

"I'd say if the arms were outstretched, they would indicate that there was a real desire to take the mark.

"There's a real chance as well that it could've reduced the force of impact (if Greene's arms were outstretched as opposed to tucked)."

19:00: Woods (AFL) says he'll be questioning whether the conduct was reasonable and in effect, careless.

Woods says the crossing of Greene's arms during the marking contest isn't a legitimate play at the ball, instead should have had his arms out.

Woods says Greene wouldn't have turned his body either if he was legitimately contesting the mark.

18:59: The Giants aren't contesting impact in this case.

18:57: Gleeson (chair): "What is it about Boyd getting his hands getting to the ball first, that meant you stop going for the mark?"

Greene: "I'm wholly exposed, my face and chest. I'm in a vulnerable position... so I brace to protect myself."

18:51: Woods (AFL) begins cross-examining Greene.

Woods is suggesting it's "important for (Greene) to be in a position to protect Boyd to know where his body is."

Greene denies the notion that he had eyes on Boyd, instead only on the football.

Woods (AFL) suggests that if Greene was making a genuine marking attempt, he wouldn't have crossed his arms completely, instead be stretched out for the ball.

Greene "completely disagrees".

18:48: Greene asked to give evidence. Questions coming from D'Arville (GWS counsel).

"The whole time I thought I was going to mark the football.

"If I go in with an open chest, I open myself up to impact. Hence turning my body to protect myself.

"It wasn't until right until the end, fractions of a second, that was when I turned and braced.

"Realising his hands would get there before mine, that's when I turned my body."

18:45: The AFL will reference Peter Wright's charge on Harry Cunningham as part of its case.

18:43: GWS argues this was not unreasonable conduct with Greene contesting the ball.

18:40: The second hearing of the night begins.

Hogan, Giants successfully challenge striking charge

Here is the Tribunal's summation:

Jeff Gleeson (chair): "We find that there the impact does not reach the level of low impact.

"Mr Hogan gave impressively candid evidence, including acknowledging that he did swing with force to try and push Mr Young.

"Mr Hogan gave evidence that his palm only brushed Mr Young's face and the video evidence is consistent with that.

"Mr.Young does not rub his face or even touch it after the contact.

"We're not satisfied there was anything more than negligible impact here.

"The charge is dismissed."

Here is how the hearing unfolded...

18:31: Jesse Hogan has been cleared to play against Brisbane on Thursday.

18:22: Once again, the Tribunal is deliberating.

18:20: Jeff Gleeson (chair) returns to instruct his fellow panel members, regarding the specific provisions of the guidelines in light of the debate surrounding guidelines 4.3a and 4.2b.

"The offence of striking requires more than negligible impact. The potential to cause injury cannot result in negligible impact being upgraded to a higher level of impact."

17:55: The Tribunal is now deliberating.

17:53: The debate continued over the guidelines.

One section of the guidelines says the MRO can upgrade impact from negligible based on the potential to cause injury.

Another notes a strike requires more than negligible impact to be a reportable offence.

17:50: D'Arville (Giants) continues to say that Young's response was "exaggerated".

17:46: D'Arville (Giants) says Hogan, like Young, was engaging in the usual pushing and shoving part of the game, with the forward admitting to creating separation.

17:40: D'Arville (Giants) says the vision is consistent with Hogan's evidence that "I didn't think I hit him, it might've been a slight bit of palm."

17:35: A current squabble over which guidelines will prevail: 4.3a and 4.2b.

4.2b - "Firstly, consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular,
any injury sustained by the Player who was offended against. The absence
of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.
Secondly, the potential to cause injury must be factored into the
determination of Impact, particularly in the following cases:
» Intentional strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist,
raised forearm or elbow"

4.3a - "Where a strike, for example, does not have more than negligible
impact, it is still open to the MRO to charge a Player with Striking under the
Fixed Financial Offences table where it is satisfied."

The MRO can upgrade impact from negligible to low based on the potential to cause injury, but the Giants argue that the above guidelines also indicate that impact must be more than negligible to result in a reportable offence.

17:21: Woods (AFL): Young's reaction, which is caused by force is clearly more than fleeting, glancing" from Hogan's strike.

"It was delivered with some momentum... meaning it was inherently dangerous" pertaining to the potential to cause injury clause, despite no evidence of an injury to Young.

17:17: Woods (AFL) focuses on intent as an issue, suggesting Hogan showed visible frustration toward Young, pulling his jumper, engaging in "argy-bargy" and subsequently "striking" the Carlton defender.

17:13: Andrew Woods (AFL) cross-examines Hogan, walking through the incident ever so slowly.

Woods asks if Hogan was intending to "strike" Young.

17:07: Hogan was asked to give evidence, saying: "As he pushes me, I go to push him... I ricochet off his arm" and believed to have scraped his nose.

Hogan reveals Young said to him: "You'll get a week for that," following the incident.

17:03: Anais d'Arville (Giants): The Giants argue that the evidence does not establish Hogan made contact with Young's face in anything other than a negligible manner and that this was not an intentional strike above the shoulders.

Tribunal: Jeff Gleeson (chair)
AFL Counsel: Andrew Woods
GWS Counsel: Anais d'Arville