AFL grand final: Appeal board make shock call on Lachie Neale’s status for grand final

“The context in which missing the grand final was raised was not in regard to exceptional and compelling circumstance was in regard to whether it was a strike,” he says.

“The argument for compelling and exceptional circumstances was Neale’s record and no injury to Neale.

“Nothing in the provision makes the identity of the next match relevant.

“For every suspension, the punishment comes in the next match.”

“Essentially, there are two points made on Mr Neale’s behalf; the first is that the Tribunal do not take the grand final into account,” he says.

“There’s just one problem with that, and that is they did twice, and it would be arbitrary to start suggesting one game is more than another.”

“The second point is that the intentional aspect should not have been taken into account when considering exceptional and compelling circumstances.

“It was an entirely appropriate thing to do.”

Pendlebury gut-punched Neale in their clash earlier this year but was not given a suspension.

“Just because a player has an intentional act of marginal impact, of course the provision should have applied here, and it should rightfully have applied to Mr Neale,” he said.

“The Appeal Board now has the opportunity to apply the provision as it was intended to apply.”

Now Mr Anderson says exceptional and compelling circumstances can apply in the case of intentional actions.

“There is nothing to suggest this rule should not apply just because an element of the offence is intentional,” he says.

“A careless act with high impact is also worth just one match.

“In considering whether the sanction was inappropriate or unreasonable, it is relevant.

“Nowhere does it say that this rule should not apply for intentional offences because that’s not the way it’s intended to operate.

“It needs to be a proportional sentence.”

“I’m not saying you can’t apply the rules in a grand final, but those same rules allow you to avoid a suspension in exceptional and compelling circumstances,” Anderson says.

“Mr Woods says the submission about the grand final and the AFL position is that it is not relevant and it should be treated as round one.

“The tribunal was therefore led erroneously into not applying it in consideration of exceptional and compelling circumstances.“

“It would be unreal to suggest they would not have it in their contemplation regardless of whether it’s listed in the reason or not.

“I thought there is one way to look at it, which is assessing whether the offence has been committed; you assess it in the way you do a home and away game.”

Mr Anderson does not dispute that point but said in the matter concerning exceptional and compelling circumstances it is relevant.

The grand final would have had a material impact on that decision.

Anderson again makes reference to the importance of a grand final.

“Nat Fyfe said he would trade in his 2019 Brownlow just to play in another grand final,” he referenced.

They failed to take into account the effect of the grand final in the mix of their decision-making.

“There is no language used to indicate that matters of the significance or character of an impending game should not be taken into account,” Mr Anderson says.

Therefore, it’s not inappropriate or unreasonable that it could not be part of the exceptional and compelling circumstances.

The Macquarie Dictionary is brought out again for definitions of both those terms.

He says the tribunal made alluding references to the significance of the grand final but was not listed in the arguments for or against exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Mr Anderson says the Tribunal made an error of law over their failure to take into account, in applying the exceptional circumstances, the fact that the game is the grand final, which is relevant.

He argues the sanction should be a maximum fine of $10,000 or be moved to round one 2027.

He also says the punishment produces a disproportionate outcome which exceptional and compelling circumstances can be used as a remedial method in favour of players.

The head of the Appeals Board said he wishes to review the evidence as it was presented at the Tribunal.

He also said the new footage would not be relevant given the strike itself is not being challenged.