AFL appeals board live: ‘Pretty amazing’ twist as fresh Neale vision thrown out

It seems we are slowly moving on from the idea when the tribunal met on Tuesday that no one mentioned the grand final that Lachie Neale could miss.

Anderson has again outlined what the Lions and Neale feel should be taken into account when assessing this case.

1. Neale’s incredible record in the AFL without being hit with a sanction.

2. Jack Ginnivan was not hurt by Neale’s alleged actions.

3. Neale is missing a grand final.

The Lions are still going on about how no one mentioned the word ‘grand final’ when the tribunal hearing took place earlier this week.

“The whole purpose of this provision is to say, ‘OK, you can make a mistake because Mr Neale, as one of the greatest and fairest players ever, you deserve a little bit of leniency here’,” Anderson is arguing.

We have officially just ticked over the one-hour mark of this hearing and all the Brisbane Lions have seemingly argued is that no one thought about Lachie Neale being ruled out of the grand final when this suspension was decided.

I’m guessing the club has come tot his conclusion because the tribunal did not say the words “Lachie Neale will miss the grand final” when they delivered their ruling?

A member of the appeal board has hit back at this suggestion and made clear that in the tribunal transcript it was cited that the ruling was “mindful of the significant consequences for Neale” if the ban was to be upheld.

Anderson has made clear to the appeal board that the grand final was not mentioned, meaning the tribunal must not have taken it into account.

This argument is a bit of a mess.

Lachie Neale has the chance to make history as the first player in the modern era to win two Brownlows and secure a hat-trick of premierships at the one club.

It is for that reason, along with his impeccable suspension record, that Anderson and the Lions feel the one match been is unreasonable.

Anderson has quoted Bobby Skilton’s declaration that he would have given back his three Brownlow medals if it meant he got to play in a grand final match.

“In Neale’s case this is the possibility for something historic, for a player in this competition for a chance of a three-peat,” Anderson has stated.

Appeal chair Loveridge seems to have gotten lost in the lengthy explanation by Anderson and asked for him to clarify what the Lions feel the tribunal should have considered.

While Anderson has seemingly reiterated that the tribunal must not have considered how big missing a grand final is for any player in this position, Loveridge says it would “be unreal” if that were to have unfolded on Tuesday.

Lachie Neale has played over 320 games and not received a suspension.

But that stat was not enough to change the mind of the tribunal on Tuesday – Anderson is working hard to find an explanation as to why that is the case.

“His record is described as ‘extraordinary’,” he says.

Brisbane has argued two errors of law were made during the tribunal hearing.

1. It was not taken into account that Neale would miss the grand final.

2. Sometimes fixed penalties can sometimes produce an anomaly and see players hit with sanctions that are not justified for the actual incident.

The options for an alternative sanction that have been put forward by the Lions”

1. A fine of around $10,000 (or a sum the appeal board believes is fit).

2. A one-game ban to be served in the first round of next season – a move that would make this sanction a possible Collingwood problem, not a Lions problem.

The new vision will not be allowed to be used as evidence at the appeal board.

“We are here to assess the decision of the tribunal, who came to it on the evidence before them and I’d like to stick to that simple principle,” chair Richard Loveridge has ruled.

Adrian Anderson is kicking things off as we continue on with this appeal.

The Lions are basically trying to push forward that Neale should either have a one-match suspension that takes place in the first game of next season or be hit with a $10,000 fine for his actions.

That figure for the fine has also been put forward to be raised (or decreased) dependent on what the board feels would be appropriate.

Anderson has now questioned why the AFL did not make enquiries into obtaining the Champion Data vision earlier given the public knowledge of how grainy the original footage was.

“No-one is permitted to obtain this vision unless they have the permission of the AFL,” he says.

“It would have been immensely preferable as far as the Lions and Mr Neale are concerned ... if they’d had the opportunity to view and address that vision at the tribunal hearing.”

Anderson has clarified with the appeal board that the Lions are not challenging the grading that the incident was intentional conduct, medium impact and body contact.

The AFL’s representative Woods KC believes it is “pretty amazing” the new vision was even able to be obtained.

The AFL has gone through a lengthy explanation as to why the appeal board should not overlook the new footage that has emerged thanks to the Champion Data trial that has been taking place at the MCG.

The Lions have hit back and asked why the new vision was not available when the two bodies met at the tribunal hearing on Tuesday.

“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,” Neale’s counsel Adrian Anderson says.

The AFL is seeking to use new vision which was obtained yesterday as part of its case, according to counsel Andrew Woods KC.

Woods KC has argued “it’s much sharper vision” of the incident involving Neale.

Typically, no new evidence can be introduced to the appeal board unless it was not available at the time of the original tribunal hearing.

The AFL is not arguing that the new vision would have changed the tribunal’s result, only that the clearer footage should not be overlooked in this hearing.

The appeal board looks set to debate whether this vision can be used as evidence or not.