The complex case of Steven May has become a focal point for the Australian Football League (AFL), as it navigates the delicate balance between a player’s right to contest the ball and the duty of care owed to opponents. May’s charge for a bump on Francis Evans, which resulted in a concussion, broken nose, and displaced tooth for Evans, has been described as the “toughest decision” the current AFL administration and Match Review Officer (MRO) have faced. A landmark tribunal hearing is set for Wednesday night, with potential implications for the future of the sport.
May’s hit was graded as careless conduct, severe impact, and high contact, leading to a direct referral to the tribunal. The incident has polarized opinions, as May appeared to make a genuine play for the ball, having mere microseconds to react once it became clear he wouldn’t reach the ball first. This has left the outcome entirely in the tribunal’s hands, marking a watershed moment for the AFL.
Historical Context and Comparisons
There are five previous incidents that might influence the tribunal’s decision, particularly the case of Alex Pearce’s collision with Darcy Byrne-Jones. According to Herald Sun reporter Jon Ralph, these cases highlight the complexities involved in adjudicating such incidents. “Michael Christian is basically pleading for guidance from the AFL tribunal,” Ralph noted, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of the decision.
“Christian’s judgment is May absolutely had too much velocity coming into this incident and he needs to accept the ramifications of it. The tribunal is going to set a precedent for the next couple of years.”
Ralph also pointed out that in five similar cases where players ended up concussed, the players were either not suspended or, as in Pearce’s situation, had their penalties overturned at the tribunal. This history suggests that the tribunal’s decision could redefine how such cases are handled in the future.
Expert Opinions and Analysis
Fox Footy AFL 360 co-host Gerard Whateley suggested that the Pearce case could be “instructive” for the tribunal, despite the differences in the nature of the plays. “The tribunal made an absolute virtue that the evidence Pearce gave was thoughtfully given and it was obvious he endeavoured to answer truthfully,” Whateley said. The outcome of May’s case may hinge significantly on his ability to explain his actions during the tribunal hearing.
“The Pearce case swung on — and I’ll relate this to May — did May have a realistic chance of winning the ball until the very last moment?”
Meanwhile, Melbourne legend Garry Lyon believes May made a “genuine play on the ball” and that his defense will rely heavily on his ability to argue that he had no other options once contact was inevitable. “I don’t think he tried to pick him off,” Lyon stated, emphasizing the split-second nature of the decision-making process on the field.
The Broader Implications for AFL
The tribunal’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the AFL, particularly regarding how the league manages player safety and the inherent risks of the game. Fox Footy’s The First Crack team debated May’s charge, with opinions divided on whether May is innocent given his apparent play for the ball.
“I think this is a lay down messier for three weeks. This is a clear hit to the head from the shoulder,” argued Tigers champion Jack Riewoldt, highlighting the contentious nature of the case.
Former Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley also weighed in, suggesting that recent history indicates there is room for accidents in the game and that May shouldn’t necessarily face suspension. “I do think there has been an acceptance in the last couple of months … where we understand there are going to be collisions in the act of playing the game that are hard to slate back to the careless actions of an individual,” Buckley said.
Looking Ahead: The Tribunal’s Decision
The tribunal’s decision on May’s case will likely set a precedent for how similar incidents are judged in the future. The AFL’s approach to player safety, particularly concerning concussions, remains a critical issue, and this case could influence future policy decisions. As the tribunal prepares to make its ruling, the AFL community watches closely, aware that the outcome could reshape the landscape of the sport.
The hearing will not only determine May’s immediate future but could also redefine the boundaries of acceptable play in the AFL, impacting players, coaches, and officials alike. The decision will be a litmus test for the league’s commitment to balancing player safety with the competitive nature of the sport.
