AFL Grand Final 2026: Lachie Neale tribunal, two arguments that could save Brisbane Lions star from ban

The biggest controversy involving Lachie Neale this year has arrived.

If the uninspiring vision doesn’t see the AFL Tribunal throw out the charge altogether – and it finds Neale did in fact strike Jack Ginnivan – the Lion’s hopes of appearing in the AFL Grand Final hinge on two arguments.

Watch all the build-up to the 2026 AFL Grand Final, with expert analysis and full Grand Final day coverage plus exclusive commentary on the replay, on Fox Footy via Kayo | 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.

The first argument involves three charges: Harvey Thomas in Round One, Jai Newcombe in Round 17 and Harley Reid in Round 20.

It’s been a rarity to see intentional strikes graded ‘low’ impact in 2026, mainly due to this provision added at the start of the year: ‘Intentional strikes to a player’s body or head will usually be graded as medium impact at a minimum’.

That has been part of a push led by Greg Swann to rid the game of the off-the-ball gut punch, which has been successful and well-received, much like everything else Swann has done since joining AFL House.

'Why are we in a rush to suspend!' | 02:58

The three charges above are the only intentional body strikes graded low impact this year. For the Lions to be successful in their first argument, they must convince the Tribunal that Neale’s strike is at worst equal and at best lesser than those cases.

A win on that front would see the charge downgraded from medium impact to low, which would result in a fine rather than suspension.

The second avenue: Exceptional and compelling circumstances.

This line from the Tribunal guidelines is key: “A Player with an exemplary record may argue that their good record constitutes exceptional and compelling circumstances.”

Neale has played 320 games and, pending this result, has never been suspended.

It’s important to note this is not a ‘good bloke’ clause … at least, not anymore.

Ironically enough, it was the Lions who ensured off-field character can no longer be used as exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Charlie Cameron in 2024 had a one-match ban downgraded to a fine, in part due to character assessments off the field.

As the league often does when someone exposes stupid loopholes that should’ve been shut before they were ever exposed, they closed it ahead of the following season.

Neale may miss final after strike | 00:08

Gold Coast great Scott Pendlebury had his one-match ban downgraded to a fine due in part to his record.

The quirk here is Pendlebury was fighting a ‘careless’ conduct charge, rather than ‘intentional’.

That detail was notably referenced by Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson in explaining the Tribunal’s reasons: “This record is of itself a compelling circumstance, but we also take into account this was a careless act and certainly not at the high end of the careless range.

“Pendlebury moved in such a way so as to reduce the force of the impact … it did not cause injury, and it was very much an in-play incident.”

How this argument works for an intentional act, we’ll find out on Tuesday night.

Of course, all of this is even assuming the Tribunal doesn’t throw out the charge entirely based on how grainy the footage is.

Ultimately, though, all anyone can do ahead of a Tribunal hearing is make an educated guess.

Barring an appeal, only one thing is for certain on Tuesday: For the final Tuesday this season, I will enjoy pretending I have any form of relevance in the AFL media.

David Zita is a reporter for Fox Sports News’ AFL Tonight and Fox Footy. He’ll cover the Lachie Neale tribunal case for foxfooty.com.au on Tuesday night.