Reasons: In regard to whether 'exceptional and compelling circumstances' provision can apply to Neale's benefit. We find that the Tribunal did err in having regard to whether the conduct was intentional. We accept the position of Neale in his written submissions that the intentional aspect was an element of the charge which had already been established. The relevant inquiry was whether, despite the charge having been established, there was exceptional and compelling circumstances. In this case, that was Neale's record. We find that Neale's record is exemplary, and that he should be afforded the benefit of the provision. In conclusion, we allow the appeal. We order that Neale instead be fined $10,000.

Anderson (Lions) notes the Tribunal didn't explicitly mention in its reasons Neale would be missing a Grand Final. He argues that implies the Tribunal didn't consider it relevant to the decision.

As we showed on @FOXFOOTY last night it is hard to argue this isn’t a one week ban given nine very similar incidents. But the Lions can argue a bump rather than strike. Then can argue low impact. Then Jeff Gleeson has total discretion to apply the exemplary record clause. He can take into account in play v behind play if he wants but it’s not written like that. 320 games without suspension is exemplary.

Says a lot about this game when Oscar McDonald is probably best on at 3QT