The “completely inadequate” vision of Lachie Neale’s strike could prove his saving grace at Thursday night’s Appeals Board, as the dual Brownlow Medallist prepares to keep his fading 2026 Grand Final hopes alive.

Neale’s unsuccessful appeal at the Tribunal on Tuesday night — which lasted nearly five hours — leaves him officially racing the clock to be made available to play Fremantle and the chance to become a three-time premiership player.

Get the expert take on AFL Grand Final Day with FOX FOOTY’s pre-match, half-time and post-match coverage, plus full and mini replays available from 6PM AEST on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.

WHAT’S GAMBLING REALLY COSTING YOU? Set a deposit limit. For Free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.

Brisbane has four possible grounds at the AFL Appeals Board, but should their contesting fail, the Lions could follow the path of Sydney who days before 1996 Grand Final obtained a Supreme Court injunction allowing Andrew Dunkley to play.

Below is a transcript of AFL 360’s Garry Lyon and Gerard Whateley debating Neale’s failed Tribunal appeal on Wednesday night, and where his hopes could lie ahead of Thursday evening’s hearing.

‘LIKE AN INTERROGATION’: Lion’s fiery defence after Neale’s statement on failed Tribunal heating

GRAND FINAL TEAM TIPS: Early Freo selection hint as brutal call looms; who may replace suspended Neale

FEATURE: Three years ago, this Lion was ‘finished’. What came next made him a shock modern-day great

Lachie Neale speaks on Grand Final ban | 04:11

Garry Lyon: “Firstly, there’s a lot of emotion. I look back on my first comments, and I can’t definitively say it was a clenched fist — but it was a strike to the stomach, it was off the ball and intentional. It was pre-meditated, so all these things have worked against him. From a home-and-away point of view, we wouldn’t be arguing it. He, like the other nine cases that have gone forward, I just think it’s a week.

“Now, we’re into the argument of whether the penalty fits the crime; which my colleague (Tim Watson) argued really eloquently and strongly for. That’s where I thought the AFL would find a way, either via a downgrade to low impact, or via the compelling circumstances — that’s where I thought it would’ve landed, and I would’ve been satisfied with that. But, it hasn’t, so now we find ourselves in this very emotive situation where a man’s going to miss a Grand Final for what doesn’t appear to be the severest of acts. It was a really poor decision, and he’s got himself to blame at this stage.”

Gerard Whateley: “I had a lot thrown at me today (on radio): Karma, stupidity, sportsmanship, ‘think of the children’, and choose your own precedent. But, I’m more of an evidence guy. So, how can you sustain a charge when the alleged strike is not captured and if you can’t conclusively see contact, then how can you so certainly determine its nature; which was described as a forceful blow delivered with a swinging arm and an open hand. It’s not a gut punch — that’s the determination of the Tribunal, so just show me that. There was 1,641 words in the judgement that was handed down, and there was 26 that go to the crux of it: ‘It is the case that there is no single frame of the vision that clearly shows Neale’s hand or lower arm making contact with Ginnivan’s abdomen’. You need evidence to sustain a charge, not extrapolation, assumption or the arbitrary measure that ‘there’s enough there’ to justify medium for a suspension, rather than low as a fine.

“And, there was a piece of evidence that was completely ignored. All of Neale’s testimony was disregarded. He spoke of the flopping signal to Ginnivan, and said Ginnivan grinned, got up and trotted away. That stood both unchallenged, and completely unaddressed. I wonder, if the vision had been adequate — and we can surely all agree it is completely inadequate — for a professional sport and such a judgement that carries magnitude, that the vision might very well have shown Ginnivan grinning, getting up and trotting off. As likely as it was an open hand (Strike), it might also have shown the banter between the two players. This was weighted one way, completely disregarding the other, without the actual evidence.”

GL: How did they arrive at the week then?

Neale suspension UPHELD | 01:21

GW: Yeah. They extrapolated, and supposed, and used comfortably satisfied. They relied on the vision so much to be comfortably satisfied. I don’t think the appeal will be successful; I think there’s such a determination to suspend Neale.

GL: When you say determination, from where?

GW: I just think it seems like the AFL has absolutely zeroed in that this must be a suspension. There’s three others (strikes) this year that were graded as low. It’s choose your own precedent!

GL: But then you take that to the grading. When it’s being graded, the consistency is there — nine times players have been found in this same position (this year), and nine times they’ve got a week, and we haven’t heard a word about it.

GW: Yep, but if they used the other three and graded it as low, we wouldn’t have heard a word about it either … You can have whichever precedent you like. To listen to Jeff Gleeson (last night), it was like this was an egregious action. If you’d closed your eyes and listened to his wording, you would’ve thought: ‘This is a king hit from the previous era!’ It’s gone totally out of whack to what this actually was, which was a moment that left a player completely untouched (and) gets back up. The evidence is that he was grinning, and trotted away. The magnitude that has been put around this is out of proportion to what actually happened. There’s clearly errors of law, and there’s no reasonable Tribunal that could use the vision in such a way. I suspect that’s a high bar though tomorrow night, given the resolute determination to see him suspended from a grand final.

GL: I think he’s put himself in the most vulnerable position by pre-meditating, and any way you cut it, swinging an arm and striking him in a manner that was always going to draw attention — whether he fell to the ground or not, unwillingly or otherwise. It was totally avoidable, and now he finds himself in this situation where I thought he would’ve been downgraded and got himself off. He hasn’t, and now he’s found himself in this terrible situation. Maybe you’re right, maybe they’re baying for his suspension and missing the grand final other than pure football; which I wouldn’t take any notice of them. You think there’s no chance he can get off?

GW: I think there’s a chance, but it looks like a stacked deck for me. 320 games, two Brownlow Medals — fairest and best — two premierships, and he couldn’t be afforded? How you can come to the definitive view that this is a forceful strike with an open hand…

GL: It was pretty forceful, it was swinging.

GW: I just don’t think the evidence is there. Speaking to a couple of advocates that have been in the system for 30 years, they go: ‘How do you end up with a verdict without the actual evidence?’