Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:12pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:12pm<\/p>\n
Following the rules is important, but rules allow opportunity to avoid ban<\/p>\n
Anderson returns to his argument at the Tribunal where he said he was not saying the rules should be followed just because it was a grand final on the line.<\/p>\n
“The important thing about the rules, is that the rules provide for the opportunity to avoid a one-match penalty in exceptional and compelling circumstances,” he says.<\/p>\n
“It was there and it was open for the Tribunal to find,” he says adding that if he didn’t take it as far as he could at the Tribunal should not be disadvantaging his client.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:00pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:00pm<\/p>\n
Anderson brings up AFL position that Tribunal should “put grand final out of mind”<\/p>\n
Anderson is questioned by Appeal Board chair Richard Loveridge whether it’s not clear that the grand final was taken into account re exceptional and compelling circumstances.<\/p>\n
Anderson goes to the AFL’s argument, that “you should simply put the grand final out of your mind and treat it like it’s round 1 … it should be irrevelant.”<\/p>\n
Anderson says that in the case of Brigginshaw, the judgement pointed to the need to be aware of the consequences of a penalty.<\/p>\n
Now we have just had a reference to a Minister for Immigration case – the High Court vs Yusuf. We’re going all over the shop here.<\/p>\n
The High Court ruling found “if a Tribunal fails to make findings with respect to a relevant matter, it is to be assumed that the Tribunal has not regarded the matter as material”.<\/p>\n
Anderson is saying the Tribunal made clear it had taken the grand final into account in coming to the grading of intentional conduct, but not for exceptional and compelling circumstances.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:51pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:51pm<\/p>\n
How much a grand final meant contributes to exceptional circumstances<\/p>\n
Anderson goes to the reasons why missing the grand final should have been weighed higher in the decision of the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
“The members of the panel would be abundantly aware what it means for a player to have the opportunity to play in and win a grand final.<\/p>\n
“You may remember Bobby Skilton’s statement that he would have given his three Brownlows back in a heartbeat for the chance to play in a grand final,” Anderson says.<\/p>\n
“Nat Fyfe also said he would give back his Brownlow for the opportunity to play in another grand final.<\/p>\n
“In Lachie Neale’s case this is the possibility for something historic, for a player in this competition for a chance of a three-peat.<\/p>\n
“For a player to also miss\u00a0 out on the opportunity to win two Brownlows and three premierships.”
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:41pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:41pm<\/p>\n
Neale’s “extraordinary” record not deemed enough to overturn the ban<\/p>\n
Anderson moves to the decision of the Tribunal’s focus on the exceptional and compelling circumstances, pointing out a series of factors that went for and against.<\/p>\n
Anderson moves to Neale’s record, of 320 games without suspension, two Brownlow medals and club best and fairests.<\/p>\n
“His record is described as “extraordinary” … what they did not do was say it was appropriate to overturn the one-match suspension.”<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:38pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:38pm<\/p>\n
Exceptional circumstances introduced as a “safety valve” for Tribunals<\/p>\n
Adrian Anderson says the introduction of the “exceptional and compelling circumstances” clause was introduced when the AFL brought in a table of fixed sanctions for various offences.<\/p>\n
He says it was realised that fixed penalties can sometimes produce an outlier or something that is not appropriate for the actual incident.<\/p>\n
Anderson says it was a “safety valve” for Tribunals to avoid this kind of result, where Neale is set to miss the grand final.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:34pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:34pm<\/p>\n
Tribunal made errors of law, according to Neale’s counsel<\/p>\n
Anderson continues.<\/p>\n
“(We say) the Tribunal made an error of law by not taking into account that (the ban) prevented (Neale) from playing in a grand final,” he says.<\/p>\n
“This is not only a circumstance but a highly material circumstance – this is something thagt should have been taken into account.”<\/p>\n
He goes onto say a second error of law was made.<\/p>\n
“This involved intentional conduct and that other cases where this provision had been applied” had not involved intentional conduct.<\/p>\n
“It’s the role of the Tribunal to assess irrespective of intent, and undue (weight) was given to the (intentional nature).”\u00a0<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:24pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:24pm<\/p>\n
Appeal Board chair leaves the vision out of the hearing<\/p>\n
Richard Loveridge says he decides not to take the vision in the hearing.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:23pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:23pm<\/p>\n
“Pretty amazing” that vision ever came to light, AFL says<\/p>\n
Andrew Woods KC for the AFL says they rely on the definitions in the rules on “reasonable diligence”.<\/p>\n
“It is pretty amazing that it (the vision) was even discovered, quite frankly,” he says.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:19pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:19pm<\/p>\n
Brisbane Lions “do not understand” why vision was not available for Tribunal<\/p>\n
Adrian Anderson is going through the issues for acceptance or not of the vision.<\/p>\n
Anderson says the vision is from a Champion Data trial being conducted at the MCG.<\/p>\n
“We don’t think that just because the vision has come to light does not mean it could not have been taken by reasonable diligence,” he says.<\/p>\n
He goes on to say that it would have been much better if it had been available to the Lions and Neale in time for the Tribunal.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:13pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:13pm<\/p>\n
AFL continues to argue for inclusion of vision<\/p>\n
Andrew Woods KC goes on to look at the rules for appeals.<\/p>\n
No new evidence should be entered unless… a) the evidence could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence, or b) the evidence is of sufficient probative value that, considered with other evidence which was befvore the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached a different decision.<\/p>\n
Of course, the AFL is not saying the Tribunal would have reached a different decision, but they argue that it should not be ignored.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:06pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:06pm<\/p>\n
The principals are here<\/p>\n
Richard Loveridge gets things started.<\/p>\n
AFL counsel is Andrew Woods KC, Lachie Neale’s counsel is Adrian Anderson.<\/p>\n
Lachie Neale is sitting in a room in Melbourne, wearing a burnt ochre (or similar) Lions polo, no suit jacket and tie today.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:03pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:03pm<\/p>\n
We are waiting for everyone to appear on screen<\/p>\n
We can’t be far away, but we are just waiting for everyone to appear.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 3:59pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 3:59pm<\/p>\n
The Appeal Board is different to the Tribunal<\/p>\n
Hi Andrew, if all three members of the Appeals Board sat on the Tribunal on Tuesday, why would they ever choose to overrule it? <\/p>\n
Also, is a Supreme Court Injunction at all a relevant option for Brisbane tomorrow if this is upheld?<\/p>\n
– Luke Calamardo<\/p>\n
Luke,<\/p>\n
None of the people on today’s panel took part in Tuesday’s Tribunal hearing.<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 3:56pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 3:56pm<\/p>\n
Court the last option<\/p>\n
If Lachie Neale\u2019s appeal fails is there any other options or is this the last avenue available? If so do you think the Lions will persue it?<\/p>\n
– DC<\/p>\n
DC,<\/p>\n
Hypothetically speaking, if Lachie Neale loses today, the last “nuclear option” is going to the Supreme Court of Victoria to seek an injunction to stop the ban taking effect until after the game.<\/p>\n
That would be dramatic, costly, stressful and not guaranteed to work. Sydney did it in 1996 for Andrew Dunkley. He got to play, but the week’s events took a toll. The Swans lost, and Dunkley received a three-game ban the following week.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 3:54pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 3:54pm<\/p>\n
How are AFL Tribunal and Appeal Board hearings decided?<\/p>\n
While there are three people hearing the case – the Appeal Board chair and two panel members – does this mean that you need agreement of all three to reach a verdict?<\/p>\n
The general instructions for Tribunal and Appeal Board hearings includes this paragraph:<\/p>\n
Although the Tribunal\u2019s verdict does not have to be unanimous,
\nthe Tribunal should endeavour to be unanimous – that is all Tribunal
\nmembers agreed. However if the Tribunal cannot all agree, their
\nverdict can be by a majority of the Tribunal. That is where two
\nTribunal members are agreed.<\/p>\n
IMPORTANT POINT: While everyone (including this blogger) were eyeing the length of time taken for deliberations the other night, Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC apologised for the time taken, mentioning specifically the need to produce extended written reasons after agreeing on the case.<\/p>\n
So, if it takes a while again today, then maybe it doesn’t automatically mean fiery disagreements over the outcome, but just a need to get everything right.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:12pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:12pm Following the rules is important, but rules…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":903451,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[560],"tags":[638,27712,64,63,55,639,17652,651,10992,11288,6854,14260,8401,25875,4127,97575,588,85,8630,10020],"class_list":["post-903450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-afl","tag-afl","tag-appeal-board","tag-au","tag-australia","tag-australian-football-league","tag-australianfootballleague","tag-ban","tag-brisbane","tag-fremantle","tag-grand-final","tag-hawthorn","tag-hearing","tag-jack-ginnivan","tag-lachie-neale","tag-lions","tag-selection","tag-sport","tag-sports","tag-striking","tag-teams"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/903450","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=903450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/903450\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/903451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=903450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=903450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=903450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Andrew](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/lcimg-301479af-2cf3-4d5d-ad09-94c4ed0c1bf4.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n