Lachie Neale tribunal hearing: One match ban upheld after marathon tribunal hearing

“The matters you raise are significant and carry weight, but from my recollection there has never been an exceptional or compelling circumstance that has been applied for an intentional act,” Gleeson says.

“When you’ve got an off-the-ball intentional strike, no matter how good a career, why is it nonetheless inappropriate to get a week’s suspension when Neale knew that was the guideline?”

The Macquarie Dictionary is broken out as Anderson makes his final argument.

“We submit that Mr Neale’s record in the game demands respect and is exceptional and unusual,” he says.

“We have provided some particulars of Lachie Neale’s history and achievements, 320 matches over 15 seasons without suspension.

“There are only two players in history who have played more than 300 games, won two Brownlow medals and without getting suspended; the other is Robert Harvey.

“Even putting aside these figures, out of all the AFL/VFL players only 114 have played more than 300 games and 72 of those have been suspended, which is 63 per cent at an average of 4.9 weeks of suspension.

“Neale is one of only 25 players in the history of the game to have over 320 games with no suspensions.”

“I’m not saying he should be treated differently because it’s a grand final,” he says.

“All I’m saying is the requirement of being comfortably satisfied should be taken into account given the punishment on the line and the vision.

“We submit the evidence submitted does not rise to the level to show this was a strike or that the impact was medium.”

The Tribunal chairman argues Neale’s strike (if it is deemed a strike) is exactly the action these rules were brought in to prevent.

“This is well off the ball, not in play,” Jeff Gleeson says.

“More tellingly, this is not a strike that happens in the course of a grapple or a scuffle.”

“We submit that this is not an intentional punch to the guts,” Anderson rebuts.

“This incident is distinguishable from those cases because Ginnivan has time to brace and the impact primarily comes from the body.

“I reiterate the way Ginnivan’s body moves is consistent with Neale’s claim that contact came from the body, not the arm.

“Ginnivan makes no attempt to keep his feet and accentuates the contact, and the medical report is clear he gets up straight away, which is another indication towards low impact.”

“If it is not negligible, it should be classified as low impact,” he says.

“You can see Jack’s left arm is blocking Neale’s arm, making contact with the torso; this is not in the examples we see in body punches that result in one week,” Mr Anderson says.

“We submit that Lachie Neale is 100 per cent correct when initial contact took place with his chest and shoulder.

The tribunal questions Mr Anderson over whether Ginnivan seems to double over, consistent with getting a punch in the guts.

“I say two things, one is that he has significant contact from Neale’s shoulder and chest to his back,” he says.

“The second point is that Neale is pushing him forward and that’s what’s causing (Ginnivan) to move in that way.

“The third is the diving motion he makes to accentuate contact to receive a free kick.

“Fourthly, there’s no suggestion he is winded, as is consistent with a blow to the abdomen.”

“While it does look like at first look it is a punch to the guts but on careful rewatch it is not and that the primary impact is from Lachie Neale’s shoulder or chest,” he says.

“The force from the arm is insufficient to register or, at the very least, is negligible.

“I challenge you to find one frame where Neale’s arm is buried in Ginnivan’s abdomen.”

“It’s clear from the vision that this is a strike, not a bump or body check,” Mr Woods says.

“Mr Neale’s arm moves in a manner that is consistent with a strike.

“If the immediate outcome of an act is obvious, then that act is deemed as intentional.

“The fact an act of striking occured off the play or off the ball is usually consitent with a strike being intentional.”

“It’s a forceful arm that swings straight into his opponent.

“This is a potential to cause injury by a strike of this kind.

“It also risks missing the target and hitting the face. It’s the potential (for injury) not the result.”

“All of them I’ve been hit in the stomach or the jaw during retaliatory strikes,” he says.

He replies yes when asked if he is commonly tagged.

“I can’t remember if I challenged them but I don’t think so because they were all fines.”

You agree the ball was not anywhere near you at the time?

“No, the ball was not in the area,” Neale replies.

You accept you didn’t slow down as you got to him?

“No, I didn’t slow down, but I don’t think we’re going at any great speed either.”

Having watched that vision, do you stand by the claim you wrapped your arm around him?

“I don’t really want to body check and bump, and it was not my intention to strike him.”

“I think he looks over and sees me one or two steps before he makes contact.

“I accept he does go to ground after contact.”

Mr Woods asks if Neale is aware of the rules over striking.

“I’m aware of those rules, but I didn’t want to go into that incident wanting to strike him,” he said.

“In that very moment, I’m just thinking about the game, not what final I’m in.

“I don’t think I’ve ever thought about the consequences of a report in a game of football that is not front of mind.”