Why Lachie Neale should still play on grand final day

It’s the compelling and exceptional circumstances provision. The two-time Brownlow medallist has never been suspended before in his 320-game career.

In the context of how many people play 300 games and then how many of those do so without a suspension, and the fact he has two Brownlow medals, Neale is the very definition of exceptional circumstances.

In the 2024 Cameron case, a very minor additional point the tribunal considered was that he had also done extensive community work. This was not the reason his suspension was overturned at the time, but the AFL subsequently removed off-field behaviour as a character consideration. Neale might be glad of that given his very public personal matters this year.

Pertinently, it was the only change the AFL made. They did not remove the broad exceptional and compelling circumstances provision, only the off-field part. They had every chance very recently to remove that provision if they wanted to, but they didn’t. So if the provision is there, it would be difficult to argue it should not apply to Neale.

This is before considering the broader point which the AFL has for years stubbornly refused to do, which is to acknowledge – as they do in meting out punishments for offences committed in grand finals – that finals, and grand finals in particular, are worth far more than any other games, thus a suspension that forces a player to miss one is a much greater penalty.

Until this year, an act such as Neale’s hit on Ginnivan would only have drawn a fine, but he now stands to miss a grand final for it. The irony is that it was former Brisbane Lions CEO Greg Swann who brought in the change when he took up his job at the AFL.

Let’s not get distracted by the free kicks

Are we really going to do this? Are we going to start our discussion about Saturday night’s game with conjecture about an umpiring decision?

This was a game where 39 goals were kicked in front of 97,000 people. It was one of the great finals of all time, so let’s not focus on an umpiring decision.

This was one of the great finals. Recency bias naturally skews things, but this final stands with the storied 1970, 1989 and 2023 grand finals for greatness.

It was antidote football. It was a game that felt like Malcolm Blight was in one of the coaching boxes. The game exorcised the demons of niggardly football from coaches who have enjoyed describing themselves as defence first coaches, like this was something to boast about.

Neither side defended that well, but that was because they both attacked so ruthlessly. More than 250 points were kicked between the teams. The momentum shifted so decisively, so repeatedly it was like there were four games played on the night: Hawthorn won it in the first half, then had to win it again in the last quarter; Brisbane won it in the third quarter, gave it up in the last, then won it at the siren.

This game should never be distilled to an argument over whether the umpire was right to ping Jarman Impey for holding the ball? Of course he was right. That was a free kick in any game.

Impey had an arm free and could have dropped the ball to his boot, as he belatedly did when he panicked and realised the umpire was about to penalise him.

Players have been penalised all year for having an arm free and not getting rid of the ball. They have been penalised in truly farcical situations of having an arm free when lying on the ground in a tackle and apparently not dropping it on their foot. Those free kicks on the ground should not have been paid, this one should have.

The error here was that no Hawthorn players rushed in to join the tackle, create a pack and force a ball up. It was a brave decision by the umpire, but not a difficult one.

The anger, disbelief and seething frustration witnessed at the MCG on Saturday night was in the context of the game and its consequence. It was completely understandable – even if the moronic bottle-throwing is not condoned – because it was not a contest that deserved to end like this.

It was also a result of the cumulative effect of three controversial decisions in a minute that all went against Hawthorn. To the Hawks, in their heightened emotional state, it felt like bias; a conspiratorial pile-on. Having surged back to reclaim the lead in stunning fashion, only to have victory snatched by officialdom felt galling.

In that moment, when the siren went it didn’t matter to Hawthorn fans that it was a correct decision because it felt wrong and unjust to have the game turn, not on the action of a player (and this puts aside whether you count Impey’s part) but an umpire’s decision.

It felt like there were so many other moments that should have been the indelible image of the game. Like Mitch Lewis’s pack mark, which had shades of Leo Barry. But even that moment had a taste of injustice about it for Lions fans, as replays revealed (not clear to the naked eye for those in front of the play) that Jack Gunston pushed Harris Andrews into the back and into the pack. He could have been penalised and potentially reported.

But then came Tom Barrass and James Sicily taking towering marks in defence within seconds of one another. Each felt match-saving.

Then there was Josh Ward playing the game of his life. Nick Watson already one of the most watchable players, was something otherworldly with his speed and one-touch surety.

Kai Lohmann and Mabior Chol were mere spectators in the first half. Their efforts to turn the game for their teams in the second half could have been recognised as where the game pivoted.

Should the game have been allowed to turn on the chance bounce of the ball? Jai Newcombe thought he was about to take the Sherrin at the final centre clearance, only for it to spike the other way. Stephen Milne, watching on TV somewhere, must’ve muttered “I feel you”.

Now, let’s talk about the free kicks

So, OK, then what about the frees? As mentioned, the Impey one was there. It was a free kick.

Sam Mitchell said after the game he was more troubled by the frees that led up to the Impey moment.

First there was the deliberate out of bounds, or rather insufficient intent to keep the ball in, on the wing when Mitch Lewis knocked it over the line. That would be paid all year. That doesn’t make it a good rule, but it was the right decision. Had Lewis grabbed the ball and run over the line with momentum, it would probably not have been paid a free.

The AFL has made the act of keeping the ball away from your opponent less important for a player than keeping the ball in play. It is a wrong-headed rule, but it was properly applied.

The second of the trio of frees – the high-contact free to Dayne Zorko – was wrong. OK, there might have been some contact, but not enough to justify a free kick. The contact was so incidental it should have been waved off. Greater contact happens in every marking contest, let alone every ruck contest.

This is the one Mitchell and Hawthorn can rightly feel aggrieved about. If Zorko didn’t get the free play would have gone on and the ball wouldn’t have immediately gone forward for the Impey moment. But who knows where it goes and what happens next?

The issue with this free and the high incidence of head-high contact frees is that the players, and Hawthorn are as guilty as anyone, are complicit in creating this. You live and die by the sword, or by the duck as it were.

These two teams in particular, with Zorko, Dylan Moore, Zac Bailey, Nick Watson and (previously he doesn’t do it as much any more) Ginnivan, have players who are among the league’s most adept at searching for an arm to get them high whenever they possess a ground ball.

Hawks to get better not bitter

The salve to Hawthorn wounds is the knowledge next year should be different.

Ben King and Zach Merrett will come in. That will make them better. King will displace Chol in that team, though that would leave a question mark over the second ruck spot, which might then fall to Mitch Lewis to fill.

Merrett will make them better, but then Josh Ward just played the game of his life, Will Day and Newcombe are already A-graders, so it as not like they were tremendously lacking.

Get around our AFL finals coverage

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