- LISTEN LIVE: For all the news on Neale and the tribunal

• Tribunal hearing will start at 5pm AEST

Lachie Neale is set to face the music at the AFL Tribunal with his spot in the Grand Final once again the biggest talking point of the final week of the season.

This time last year the 33-year-old was in a fight against time to recover from a calf injury for the big dance, now he is appealing what would be his first suspension in a 320-game career.

The Lions midfielder was handed the one-match ban for a gut punch on Hawthorn’s Jack Ginnivan in Saturday’s incredible Preliminary Final at the MCG.

Looking to secure his spot in a fifth Grand Final - against former club Fremantle - Neale will face the Tribunal later today (Tuesday). We will bring you all the news as it happens through the day.

LIVE

Anderson: "If you say it's a strike, we say, at most, contact from the left arm is negligible or at such a level where it's either negligible or low impact."

Anderson has continued his defence, claiming that the primary impact is from Neale's shoulder and chest, showing an individual frame from the incident.

The AFL is standing firm that Neale's action was "clearly" a strike, arguing it was a "forceful swing of the arm" that was "not a football act".

Woods has referred back to the guidelines that state that any intentional strike to the body that is not negligible would be graded as medium impact.

"It's the potential here, rather than the result."

The Lions are fighting back.

Adrian Anderson of the Lions is arguing that at no point does the vision display a single frame of Neale's fist in Ginnivan's abdomen.

Neale is being cross-examined by AFL counsel Andrew Woods - continuing to reject the AFL's suggestion that his swinging arm was the first thing to make contact with Ginnivan.

“I don’t think that was my intention to strike him, I think it was to wrap him up and hit him with my body to let him know I wasn’t happy with what had happened beforehand,” Neale said.

“I don’t think I’ve ever thought about, in a game of football, the consequences of a report. I’ve just played and tried to play as fairly as possible and stick up for my teammates.”

He is now being questioned over his three prior striking charges, claiming that both were retaliation.

Andrew Woods: "This is a very clear strike.

"(The vision shows) clearly that the first contact is this extended arm going into Ginnivan's midriff or chest area."

Neale confirms that he today spoke to Jack Ginnivan - he also feels it was more of a bump or a body check and not a strike.

"He said he felt it was more of a bump, a body check, than a strike," Neale said.

Neale has confirmed that he has never been suspended at any senior level, from Glenelg in 2011 through to his 320 games at AFL level.

“I was very close to the incident between Jack and Eric Hipwood, where it seemed like Jack was on top of Eric and gave him a couple of jumper punches,” Neale said.

“I didn’t feel like that looked great so I went to show my disappointment in that action and ran past him to body check, bump him, and felt that my shoulder made contact with his body and shoulder first, and my arm wraps around Jack but didn’t feel like I was striking him at all.

“It was more of a bump or body check. I just didn’t like what had happened to Eric.”

After the incident:

“I was indicating that Jack might have taken a bit of a dive to get a free kick.

“He (Jack) had a bit of a smile on his face but he didn’t say anything.”

Neale has stated that after the bump, he made a motion with his hands towards Ginnivan suggesting that he took a dive. Ginnivan smiled, but did not respond.

Neale is presenting his evidence, and has claimed that his hit on Ginnivan was not a strike.

"I didn't feel like I was striking him at all. It was more of a bump or a body check."

He feels as though Ginnivan stopped and braced as Neale approached, aware that the bump was coming.

"I actually don't think it's a strike. If you do think it's a strike, arguing that it's low impact is a fair argument. If you can't get off on those two points, you could easily argue the exemplary record. He has three genuine chances to get off."

Tom Morris on SEN's Locked In.

Be sure to listen to Locked In LIVE with Kane Cornes and Tom Morris as they go through the ongoing case.

Brisbane has argued that Neale's hit on Jack Ginnivan is not a strike. If it is, Brisbane argues it's low impact rather than medium.

The Lions are also arguing exemplary and compelling circumstances due to Neale's good on-field record - similar to the compelling circumstances that freed Scott Pendlebury.

Lachie Neale is now facing the AFL Tribunal.

Lachie Neale's case at the AFL Tribunal kicks off in just under 15 minutes. We'll be running live updates as it happens right here.

Hawthorn champion Luke Hodge expects Lachie Neale to play in this Saturday’s Grand Final against Fremantle.

He explained the reasons why his former Lions teammate should take his place at the MCG as Brisbane chases a three-peat.

“Teams that have success in September, there are teams that put their ego to the side, whether it's a player or a team,” Hodge said on SEN’s Whateley.

“I reckon that's what the MRP should have done this week.

“I think they could have let it go. Don't just say it's a Grand Final, look back at the history this year of what has been suspended and what hasn't. You go to the ones that haven't been suspended, you go to the ones that what classifies as a fine."

Hodge says there are two precedents which should play into the hands of Neale and his defence.

“There's two that probably match up close to, that's the Jai Newcombe on Max Gawn and also the Harley Reid on Matt Johnson with the elbow at the stoppage. Both those players went down for a long period of time, a lot longer than what Jack Ginnivan did, got up and was still struggling when they got the free kick.

“Lachie Neale comes in, throws an arm, his left shoulder hits Jack Ginnivan's shoulder and then his arm swings around into the mid-riff - from what we can see.

“But Jack Ginnivan gets straight back up, Lachie turns around, has a bit of go at him at flopping. I think if they looked at that and went back and reverted to the ones that they gave just fines for low impact to Newcombe and Reid, that's what it classifies as.

“It's not something where Ginnivan stayed down, he wasn't winded, he got back up and move on from there. I think that would be the right one. I feel that's the way that the Tribunal will see it tonight.”

“Lachie’s played over 300 games and not been suspended. So I think that the Tribunal sit back and go, same as the Scott Pendlebury one - ‘We believe that this is too much question mark for him to miss a game. We'll give him a fine and move on’.”

Gerard Whateley agrees: “I think that would be the sensible outcome, I truly believe that's what will happen.

“And if it doesn't it'll require a lot of analysis given what's happened previously.

“I’m surprised how desperate some people are to have him suspended. I don't know what that's related to. Is that related to his off-field”?”

Hodge: “Yep. There’s no surer thing.”

Whateley: “There's such a nastiness and it's on the text, which I'm not surprised by much that comes on the text, but I think most of the time, historically, we've leant towards, ‘It’s a Grand Final’. Come on.”

Hodge: “Whoever's writing in as a text message, put your main player, your best player, and your player did that as a response. How would they justify that? Because you sit back and go, that's not worthy of missing a Grand Final, especially with a record and especially the fact that Ginnivan just got back up.

“There's a lot of hate out there for his last 12 months and people would sit back and love to see him miss just because of what he has done in his own personal life over the last 12 months.”

Can Ablett Jnr precedent save Neale's Grand Final hopes?

Adam Simpson and Gerard Whateley discussed the ban on Monday and both agreed on the absurdity of the AFL not returning just a fine.

Labelling the farce of a ban "a dead set like for like" with Gary Ablett Jnr in 2019, Whateley backed Neale to be let off.

"The (player's) record is not a loop hole it's a provision in the rules," he said.

"Gary Ablett, like for like, in 2019, he had 328 games unblemished and he gets a one week ban in the prelim, it took the tribunal three minutes to downgrade it to a fine.

"He was a dual Brownlow medallist, as is Neale who has game 320-games in an unblemished career; a one week ban for striking. Take all the emotion out of it, on basic precedent, what was applied for Ablett must be applied for Neale.

"It was the same thing for Pendlebury, but his record was in the 400s, but the dead set like for like is GA Jnr.

"Dubious suspension, a fine would have sufficed and this is why I have resisted the no wiggle room and no black and white on the strike. this is a mistake in its conception. This should have come back as a fine."

Echoing Whateley's sentiments, Simpson said the matter should never have reached the tribunal.

"What are they doing? It could have easily been a fine and low impact," he said. "I know rules are rules but it could be construed as a body check.

"It's a 50-50- call at best in my eyes. With the magnitude of everything...it's a Grand Final. To miss a Grand Final with that?

"Brisbane probably think there's a conspiracy happening here. This will be a distraction for everyone for a few days and hopefully he is allowed to play.

"I'll be so disappointed if he misses it for that.

"Look at the vision, 10m after the collision happens; Lachie suggests to Ginnivan he has taken a dive and they both laughed. It was silly, he shouldn't have done it, he has no one to blame but himself; but this will be a three minute job. I think this will come and go quick and he will play."