Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:53pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:53pm

AFL closes submissions

Andrew Woods KC concludes his submissions, there are no questions from the panel.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:43pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:43pm

AFL says Neale’s defence focusing on “minutiae”

Andrew Woods KC is – in legal terms – laying a solid bump on Lachie Neale’s legal team.

“It’s really hard to see and support the argument that they didn’t take it into account,” he says.

He says Mr Anderson has been trawling through “minutiae”.

“The bottom line is this is a sporting tribunal, it takes into account everything that it needs to.

“Mr Anderson wants you to dissect the reasons the way you might dissect a Court of Appeal reasons.” 

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:38pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:38pm

“Simple fact” that next match for ban after prelim is the grand final

Andrew Woods KC continues.

“The simple fact is that every suspension costs the next match. For a player suspended in the preliminary final, the next match is the grand final,” Woods says.

He goes on to say Lachie Neale was asked at the Tribunal about the rules, and that he knew of the rule that he was playing in a prelim final, he knew that if he gut-punched someone he would miss a week, and that that would mean he would miss the grand final.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:33pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:33pm

AFL rejects the safety clause argument

Andrew Woods KC goes on to say that it is implicit that the grand final would be taken into account for this case.

Woods points to Anderson’s comment that he wasn’t asking for Neale to be treated differently because of the grand final.

“He can’t have it both ways,” Woods KC says.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:26pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:26pm

Arguments are relevant – but will they convince the Appeal Board?

Geez
A lot of BS arguments being brought up by Anderson.

What your thoughts Andrew?

– Neville

Neville,

I’m not a lawyer (although a former long-time courts reporter), and I’m not on the panel.

However, if you ask me, the arguments tonight are stronger than at the Tribunal. The detailed reasons from the Tribunal did not mention the grand final as a relevant factor in deciding the exceptional and compelling circumstances.

it may or may not convince the panel. We will see.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:19pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:19pm

Three reasons should have been taken into account, says Anderson

Anderson says that it was important that three things should have been taken into account:

“1) Because your record is incredible, 2), Ginnivan wasn’t hurt it was pretty minor and 3) to miss the grand final combined with the other two (reasons) means that it is unreasonable or inappropriate to apply the suspension,” he says. 

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:12pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:12pm

Following the rules is important, but rules allow opportunity to avoid ban

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.

“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.

“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.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:00pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 5:00pm

Anderson brings up AFL position that Tribunal should “put grand final out of mind”

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.

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.”

Anderson says that in the case of Brigginshaw, the judgement pointed to the need to be aware of the consequences of a penalty.

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.

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”.

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.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:51pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:51pm

How much a grand final meant contributes to exceptional circumstances

Anderson goes to the reasons why missing the grand final should have been weighed higher in the decision of the Tribunal.

“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.

“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.

“Nat Fyfe also said he would give back his Brownlow for the opportunity to play in another grand final.

“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.

“For a player to also miss  out on the opportunity to win two Brownlows and three premierships.”
 

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:41pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:41pm

Neale’s “extraordinary” record not deemed enough to overturn the ban

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.

Anderson moves to Neale’s record, of 320 games without suspension, two Brownlow medals and club best and fairests.

“His record is described as “extraordinary” … what they did not do was say it was appropriate to overturn the one-match suspension.”

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:38pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:38pm

Exceptional circumstances introduced as a “safety valve” for Tribunals

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.

He says it was realised that fixed penalties can sometimes produce an outlier or something that is not appropriate for the actual incident.

Anderson says it was a “safety valve” for Tribunals to avoid this kind of result, where Neale is set to miss the grand final.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:24pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:24pm

Appeal Board chair leaves the vision out of the hearing

Richard Loveridge says he decides not to take the vision in the hearing.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:23pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:23pm

“Pretty amazing” that vision ever came to light, AFL says

Andrew Woods KC for the AFL says they rely on the definitions in the rules on “reasonable diligence”.

“It is pretty amazing that it (the vision) was even discovered, quite frankly,” he says.

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:19pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:19pm

Brisbane Lions “do not understand” why vision was not available for Tribunal

Adrian Anderson is going through the issues for acceptance or not of the vision.

Anderson says the vision is from a Champion Data trial being conducted at the MCG.

“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.

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. 

Thu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:13pmThu 24 Sep 2026 at 4:13pm

AFL continues to argue for inclusion of vision

Andrew Woods KC goes on to look at the rules for appeals.

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.

Of course, the AFL is not saying the Tribunal would have reached a different decision, but they argue that it should not be ignored.