MITCHELL JOHNSON: Lachie Neale ban not a good look for the AFL as shadow now hangs over grand final

Lachie Neale should be playing in Saturday’s grand final.

That is not because he is a star, because he had played 320 games without being suspended or because the match happens to be the biggest of the year.

He should be playing because his punishment does not fit the act.

I understand that rules must be followed. Players cannot decide which ones apply to them, and the AFL has every right to protect its players and remove unnecessary off-the-ball strikes from the game.

But rules must also be good for the sport. When a relatively minor whack to the body costs a player a grand final, it is reasonable to question whether the game has gone too far.

Australian football is a contact sport. Players bump, tackle, wrestle and niggle each other. There are confrontations away from the ball, and teammates stand up for each other. That has been part of the game forever.

Neale’s action against Jack Ginnivan was probably unnecessary, but it was hardly one of the game’s most violent acts. He did not strike Ginnivan in the head or leave him injured. Ginnivan continued playing. Give Neale a fine and move on.

What also seems to have been forgotten is what led to Neale’s response.

In the grainy footage, Ginnivan appeared to be on top of Brisbane’s Eric Hipwood, delivering what Neale described as a couple of jumper punches. Neale did not like how it looked, so he went across to stand up for his teammate and let Ginnivan know about it.

That does not give Neale permission to strike an opponent, but it provides important context. It also raises another question: why was Ginnivan not suspended for the rough conduct that started the confrontation?

If the AFL is determined to remove unnecessary off-the-ball actions from the game, surely it must examine the instigator as closely as the player who responds.

Instead, Neale’s act was graded as intentional conduct with medium impact, bringing an automatic one-match suspension. Ginnivan escaped suspension, while Neale could miss a grand final over a body shot that would barely be remembered if not for the punishment attached to it.

That is where the consistency of the system must be questioned. Is the AFL protecting the game, or simply nitpicking?

The AFL has made protecting players’ heads its highest priority, and rightly so. Yet earlier in the same preliminary final, Jai Newcombe made heavy contact with Neale. The side-on vision showed contact around Neale’s chin before the back of his head hit the ground.

I am not suggesting these incidents are identical or should automatically receive the same punishment. However, when a player’s head hits the turf and the league’s concussion response is questioned, while a later body shot brings a grand final suspension, supporters are entitled to ask where the consistency is.

They can also question why Neale’s record counted for so little.

Charlie Cameron previously had a one-match suspension downgraded to a fine under the AFL’s exceptional and compelling circumstances provision, with his long, clean disciplinary record considered. Scott Pendlebury has also benefited from that provision.

Yet Neale’s 320 games without suspension were apparently not enough.

A clean record should count for something. When a player has competed within the spirit and rules of the game for that long, surely he has earned some consideration.

The fact that the next game is a grand final should not change whether Neale is guilty. The incident should be judged the same way in round five.

But the consequence matters when deciding whether the punishment is proportionate. Missing a grand final is not simply missing another match. It may be a player’s final opportunity to compete for a premiership.

Removing someone from that occasion for a minor body strike is more damaging to the game than the incident itself.

The decision also creates a terrible perception. I do not believe the AFL has deliberately decided it wants Fremantle to win, but when rules are applied inconsistently, and Brisbane lose one of their best players, people will naturally question the process.

That is not good for the AFL or the grand final.

I experienced something similar during an Adelaide Test against England. Ben Stokes was batting on debut when we accidentally collided shoulders. We were both following the ball and only saw each other at the last moment, bracing for the contact.

Because of the contact and how it looked on television, we were reported and faced an ICC hearing. We both explained that the collision was accidental, and the match referee found us not guilty. I was thankful our team manager clearly presented the circumstances surrounding the incident and ensured the full context was understood. That showed why judgment and context matter.

Neale’s swinging arm was intentional and different from my collision with Stokes. I am not trying to pretend otherwise. My concern is with systems that rely on subjective interpretations but then produce rigid punishments.

Who makes these decisions, how consistently are they made and is there still room for common sense?

Sport needs rules. It also needs people capable of recognising when the rule produces an outcome that is worse for the game than the offence itself.

Neale deserved a fine at most. He did not deserve to lose a grand final.