LACHIE Neale will miss Saturday's Grand Final against Fremantle after his one-match suspension was upheld at an ultramarathon Tribunal hearing on Tuesday night.

The star Brisbane midfielder argued his hit on Jack Ginnivan was not a strike, but rather a "bump, a body check" where contact with the Hawk was to his shoulder and chest.

He said it was not medium impact, but low, which would have reduced the sanction from a suspension to a fine.

Not only did the Tribunal reject both of those, it also knocked back Neale's plea for 'exceptional and compelling circumstances' pertaining to his clean record through 320 games.

The former Brisbane skipper spoke at length in the hearing, while his counsel, Adrian Anderson, pointed out his exemplary record that had led to two Brownlow Medals and six club best and fairests across 15 seasons.

However, following more than four-and-a-half hours of evidence and deliberation, chairman Jeff Gleeson delivered the bad news for Neale.

"We find this was a forceful blow, delivered with a winging arm and an open hard," Gleeson said.

"When played at normal speed, it appears clear to us that this was, to use the common vernacular, a strike to the guts.

"There is no doubt in our mind this should be graded as medium impact. While Ginnivan was not injured … the blow was forceful and knocked him off his feet.

"We had no doubt this was an intentional strike."

Gleeson also rejected comparisons to Scott Pendlebury and Charlie Cameron, who had used similar provisions to the 'exceptional and compelling circumstances', saying that pair had both caused careless acts, not intentional.

Although Neale had not been suspended previously, Gleeson said it was the fourth time he had been found guilty of a strike to the body and the new crackdown on gut punches was clear.

Neale had been found guilty of eight reportable offences across his career, with all met with sanctions less than a ban.

"Neale delivered an intentional strike off the ball to an unsuspecting opponent. Neale intended to strike him in the guts … and he did strike him in the guts.

"Even Neale's outstanding record does not render a one-match suspension for that act inappropriate or unreasonable."

FULL FINDINGS:

We have no difficulty in finding that this was an intentional strike and that the impact was medium.

The vision shows that Neale jogged towards Ginnivan from a distance of several metres on an angle to the left of and behind Ginnivan.

Neale's evidence is that he did so because he saw Ginnivan on top of Eric Hipwood and it seemed to Neale that Ginnivan had given Hipwood a couple of jumper punches.

Neale's sole motivation for approaching Ginnivan was to respond physically to Ginnivan for this.

The vision then clearly shows Neale draw his left arm back to some extent and swing it forcefully at Ginnivan's body.

It is the case that there is no single frame of the vision that clearly shows Neale's hand or lower arm making contact with Ginnivan's abdomen, but what the vision does clearly show is all entirely consistent with that contact having been made.

Ginnivan immediately doubles over in a manner that is not consistent with him having been chested or body checked, and is only consistent with him having received more than negligible impact to the abdomen.

He goes to ground in a manner that is consistent with having been struck in the abdomen.

We do not accept that he went to ground due to being pushed or assisted by Neale's right hand.

We do not find that Ginnivan’s response is exaggerated. It is immediate and spontaneous.

He doesn't stay on the ground for any prolonged period of time.

He is not acting in a way consistent with trying to attract the attention of the umpire.

He would not logically get back to his feet in the way he did, if his initial crumpling and going to ground was effected or exaggerated for the purpose of milking a free kick.

We place little weight on the hearsay evidence from Neale about Ginnivan having said to him in a phone call today that he felt it was more like a bump or a body check.

No application was made to call evidence to this effect from Ginnivan and there was no opportunity for the hearsay evidence from Neale to be tested in cross examination of Ginnivan.

Neale's evidence was that he did not clench his fist, and there is no video evidence of sufficient clarity to the contrary.

But of course, a strike can occur with an open hand or arm.

Having carefully reviewed the evidence and listened to Neale's explanation, we find that this was a forceful blow, delivered with a swinging arm and an open hand.

When played at normal speed, it appears clear to us that this was, to use the common vernacular, a strike to the guts.

We are comfortably satisfied that this is what occurred.

We find that this is what Neale intended.

He had time to consider his action as he jogged towards Ginnivan.

He moved his arm back so as to effect a strike, and he did effect the strike.

It is not a case where he intended one non-striking action, and due to carelessness, that intended action turned out to be a strike.

Neale jogged towards Ginnivan and formed the immediate intention to swing his arm and hand forcefully at Ginnivan, and that is what he did.

It follows from what we have said that we have listened carefully to Neale’s evidence, but we find that it was inconsistent in key respects with what we saw on the video, and to that extent, we do not accept it.

There is no doubt in our mind that this should be graded as medium impact.

While Ginnivan was not injured and did not appear to suffer any significant pain or discomfort, the blow was forceful and knocked him off his feet.

As we have said, he immediately doubled over in a manner consistent with a more than negligible blow having landed.

It was submitted that Neale’s arm wrapped around Ginnivan's body and arm.

We reject this evidence.

The vision shows that while Neale’s arm may have made contact with Ginnivan’s left arm or shoulder, this did little to reduce its impact.

Neale also gave evidence that it felt like Ginnivan’s arm was wrapping his arm up like in a tackle.

This is not consistent with the video evidence, and we reject it.

The Tribunal guidelines provide that an intentional strike, where non-negligible contact occurs to the victim player's body, will usually be classified as medium impact at a minimum.

As noted, we find that this was not negligible impact.

There was a deal of debate about whether Ginnivan saw Neale before the blow landed.

We find that he probably did see Neale momentarily before the blow landed, and that he moved his arm and left leg in a reflexive manner that was consistent with him expecting contact.

What is less clear is whether those movements are consistent with expecting it to be struck in the abdomen.

In any event, we do not find that Ginnivan had sufficient time to move in a way that blocked or appreciably deflected Neale’s strike.

We note that the guidelines provide that in the case of any intentional strike, strong consideration will be given to the distance the incident occurs from the ball and the expectation of the victim player.

It is relevant that this strike occurred nowhere near the ball, was not affected in or around the play, and because Ginnivan did not see Neale coming from behind and to the side until the very last moment, he had no expectation of being struck until it was too late to meaningfully defend himself.

We were referred to a number of other examples from 2026 of strikes to the body.

In some of those examples where the grading of impact was medium, the victim player went to ground, and in others, the victim player did not.

We are comfortable that this grading of medium impact is consistent with the grading of other strikes to the body to which we have been taken.

We are satisfied that this impact should be graded in line with what the guidelines indicate would be the usual grading.

We are mindful of the significant consequences for Neale of this finding of intentional strike, but we find the evidence to be cogent and have no doubt that this was an intentional strike with medium impact.

This brings us to the more difficult issue of whether there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that would make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a one-match suspension.

There are matters trending both ways on this issue.

The important matters that favour this outcome include the following:

A) Neale has played 320 games without being suspended, despite having been involved in thousands of contests and frequently having been tagged,

B) He has won two Brownlow medals for having been the best and fairest in the competition.

C) He has won a host of other awards, including club best and fairest awards.

D) This combination of games played, Brownlow, and other awards won, and absence of suspension puts him in extremely rare air. Of the 13,366 players to have ever played VFL or AFL, only 65 have played 320 or more games. That is less than half a percent, and only 25 of them have done so without a suspension.

E) It was forcefully put on behalf of Neale that such an extraordinary record means that he should not be suspended.

F) Ginnivan was not injured.

Having given the matter very careful consideration, however, we find that these matters do not either individually or collectively render it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a one-match suspension for this intentional strike.

In forming this conclusion, we take into account the following factors:

A) This was an intentional strike 

B) We understand that there is no previous instance of an intentional offence having been having attracted the benefit of this provision. That is not to say it could never be available for an intentional offence, but it is important to note that in the two matters on which considerable attention was focused, namely Pendlebury and Cameron, the Tribunal found that not only was the conduct careless, but that it was not at the upper end of the range of careless. Those two matters involve acts that were in the play.

C) The intention was not formed in a split second. Neale jogged towards Ginnivan and had time to consider whether and how he would physically remonstrate with Ginnivan.

D) Neale came partly from behind Ginnivan until very shortly before he delivered the blow. It was not a strike that was the culmination of grappling or scuffling, where the victim player may have anticipated some form of heavy physical contact.

E) While Neale has never been suspended in his long career, this is the fourth occasion on which he has been found guilty of a strike to the body. Neale gave evidence, which we accept, that these other striking matters involved him retaliating. But the fact remains that this is not the first occasion on which Neale has been found to have struck his opponent.

F) The guideline cracking down on intentional strikes, saying that they will usually be graded as medium impact, resulting in a one-match suspension, is very clear, and Neale admitted he was aware of it.

G) The purpose of the guideline is to stamp out this very sort of conduct. Neale ignored it, and he knew the consequences.

In the end, Neale delivered an intentional strike off the ball to an unsuspecting opponent.

To use the language that has been used more than once this evening, Neale intended to strike him in the guts for the way he behaved towards Hipwood and he did strike him in the guts.

Even Neale’s outstanding record does not render a one-match suspension for that act inappropriate or unreasonable.