Brisbane’s champion midfielder Lachie Neale remains suspended for the grand final after the AFL tribunal rejected his “inconsistent” evidence in a landmark case.

The dual Brownlow medallist will miss Saturday’s grand final against Fremantle unless the Lions successfully challenge the tribunal verdict at the AFL appeals board.

The Lions have until noon on Wednesday to submit a notice of appeal, which would likely be heard on Thursday.

Neale was offered a one-match suspension for striking Hawthorn’s Jack Ginnivan in Saturday night’s preliminary final.

The two-time premiership captain challenged the ban, arguing at the tribunal on Tuesday night that his action wasn’t a strike, but a body check.

After a dramatic four-and-a-half hour hearing, the tribunal upheld the charge and dismissed pleas for a downgrade due to exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Neale’s off-the-ball blow on Ginnivan was graded as intentional conduct, medium impact and body contact by match review officer Michael Christian.

The 33-year-old argued contact was made with his shoulder and chest and wasn’t a strike.

Neale said Ginnivan “might have taken a bit of a dive to get a free kick”.

“My shoulder made contact with his body and shoulder first and my arm wrapped around Jack,” he said.

“But I didn’t feel like I was striking him at all. It was more a bump or body-check.”

But tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson KC dismissed Neale’s version of events.

“We find that this was a forceful blow delivered with a swinging arm and an open hand,” 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.

“We are comfortably satisfied that this is what occurred; we find that this is what Neale intended.

“We have listened carefully to Mr Neale’s evidence but we find it was inconsistent in key respects with what we saw on the video and, to that extent, we do not accept it.”

Neale’s counsel Adrian Anderson had argued Neale’s act was not a strike.

“Whilst first-flush looking at this vision it does look like it is a punch to the guts, a careful and close analysis of the vision, and consideration of what Lachie Neale says, reaches the conclusion that it is not,” Anderson said.

Anderson said if the tribunal found Neale did strike Ginnivan, it should enact the ‘exceptional and compelling circumstance’ clause.

He cited the Scott Pendlebury case from March, when the Collingwood great had a one-match ban for rough conduct downgraded to a fine because of the clause.

Pendlebury had never faced the tribunal or been suspended before in his 21-year career.

And Neale, in his 15-year career, had also never previously been banned.

But Gleeson noted the Lions ace had been found guilty of eight prior reportable offences, including three for striking. All were met with sanctions less than a ban.

“The purpose of the guideline is to stamp out this very sort of conduct. Neale ignored it and he knew the consequences,” Gleeson said.

“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 on the guts … and he did strike him in the guts.

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

-AAP