Flawed reasons for a just outcome: Why Neale playing in the grand final is the right thing

Lachie Neale did not deserve to miss the grand final for his less-than-forceful gut punch on Jack Ginnivan. The final outcome, which must rank among the most stunning and contentious in the annals of AFL judicial hearings, was just.

Fremantle fans will not agree, and conspiracy theorists will enjoy speculating about the tendency for high-profile players to be cleared for grand finals, as though the overturning of the original verdict was preordained.

This is a case of questionable reasoning by the appeals tribunal that, nonetheless, has arrived at a fair outcome. Neale’s minor swinging punch on Ginnivan – call it a jog-by – was not an action that warranted the player missing the grand final.

A flawed argument – based on improvisational application of elastic AFL rules – can, and did, arrive at the fair outcome.

The appeals board, comprised of three ex-player/lawyers and headed by Richard Loveridge, invoked the rule that allows for exceptional circumstances, in this case Neale’s record of zero suspensions over 320 games; the panel argued that the AFL tribunal, which upheld the match review officer’s original decision to suspend Neale for one match, had not given Neale’s record sufficient weight.

Downgrading the ban to a $10,000 fine was an unusual call, too. The player’s advocate, Adrian Anderson, had floated the notion that the suspension be served next year (when Neale will be a Collingwood player, we think).

Those with memories of past grand final judicial cases will note that good players who are on the borderline of suspension are usually acquitted, one way or another.

Andrew Dunkley had his three-match ban for belting James Hird (who sported a cut eye in his joint Brownlow Medal victory with Michael Voss) postponed three decades ago and won the chance to man Wayne Carey in the grand final. This was a flat out travesty – Dunkley should not have played via a court injunction.

Another critical Swan, Barry Hall, had his match review verdict for a punch to Matt Maguire’s midriff – much more of a gut-wrenching blow than Neale’s – in 2005 via the convenient argument that the punch had been “in play”, rather than off the ball. Hall was seen as lucky, and “big Bazza” did not have an unblemished record to fall back on.

Carlton’s Aaron Hamill had his two-match suspension for kneeing Bomber Dean Wallis in that extraordinary 1999 preliminary final overturned via the appeals board. The biomechanics expert witness had worked his magic.

Richmond skipper Trent Cotchin’s high bump on Dylan Shiel was given the all-clear by the match review panel (of three members then) in a judgment that players would have little hope of gaining in today’s more concussion-conscious times. Shiel was off for the remainder of the game. As with Hall, there was considerable sentiment around the team the skipper represented, and who were about to break lengthy premiership droughts.

The players who were not cleared in grand final week, such as Jason McCartney (1999) and Anthony Rocca (2003), were too far over the line to get leniency.

The original verdict of the MRO and upholding of the ban by the AFL tribunal were instances in which those bodies followed the rules that the league has outlined. The AFL, at the direction of football boss and immediate ex-Lions CEO Greg Swann, had instituted crackdown on punches to the body, such as Neale’s.

The practical test – would you want someone to miss a grand final for that? – was conducted, and answered in the affirmative by the MRO (which consults the AFL bosses) and then the tribunal.

The issue, thus, was not that the MRO or tribunal erred. They applied the rules at their disposal.

The underlying wrinkle was that the match review system leaves little room for shades of grey in the grading of offences.

Neale’s advocate, Adrian Anderson, contended that there must be exceptions to the grading grid, the ex-AFL football boss so ironically having been the architect of the grading system back in the 2000s.

Neale’s was deemed “medium force” and intentional, when the force was not at the level that deserved suspension, in round 15, let alone a grand final.

The appeals panel took a different stance. In effect, they viewed it with fresh eyes, as if it was a de novo case. The difference they found to the tribunal seems to derive from a view that Neale did not deserve to miss the grand final. A reason and rule were invoked to that end.

I had thought on Monday that Neale would be cleared by dint of his record, believing that the tribunal would not so strictly apply Swann’s handiwork and would find an exception for lucky Lachie.

He was cleared, eventually. The footy gods smiled on the Lions, at least until Saturday.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.