Melbourne defender Steven May received a two-game ban for striking. AFL appeals board has upheld the Demons’ failed appeal of his rough conduct suspension. This decision follows his three-match ban imposed for a high-speed collision during the Demons’ loss to Carlton on July 19. The collision had devastating consequences, leaving Blues forward Francis Evans with life-changing injuries. He suffered a serious concussion, a broke nose, and even lost a tooth.
The incident occurred late in the second quarter of the game at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG). Officials ruled it a low impact and assessed it as careless body contact conduct. Even with such a severe outcome, May continued to argue that his eyes were always on the ball during the play. Sadly, that meant he was unable to attend the appeal hearing on Monday evening. In a decision that took the AFL appeals board 14 minutes to decide, they found in favor of Mr.
May’s suspension will see him miss highly influential games against a struggling West Coast and the in-form Western Bulldogs. He had already missed a game with a concussion from a crash beforehand in that evening’s demoralising loss to St Kilda. Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin said he was disappointed with the tribunal’s decision. He described May as feeling “devastated and shattered” by what happened. Goodwin stood by his statement that May did the right thing by going for the ball.
The AFL appeals board was made up of Stephen Jurica, Wayne Henwood, and chair Will Houghton. Houghton further stressed that the board was convinced May deeply understood the case against him. They too believed he was afforded more than sufficient chances to obtain an adequate defense. Whether May should have seen the ball coming in the expected line of play was the key element that the tribunal decided upon. The ball had bounced four times since a dangerous handball clearance sailed over Evans’ head, resulting in the controversial collision.
Jack Rush, representing Melbourne during the appeal, argued that the tribunal imposed an unrealistic standard on May, suggesting they expected a “sense of perfection” from him in anticipating the play. The board found that, on the whole, the tribunal had made the right call.
