At about 10:30 on Wednesday night, the AFL tribunal convened to decide Steven May’s future. Specifically, they critiqued a controversial rough conduct citation imposed during the game on the Melbourne defender. During a practice match against the Geelong Cats, May was involved in a head clash with Francis Evans. This particular crash resulted in Evans suffering a concussion. The tribunal’s decision to award May just a three-game suspension has raised eyebrows and started conversations throughout the AFL community.
The accident occurred in a perfectly legal play as both women raced for the ball at full speed. But Evans was able to get his foot on the ball a split second before May, causing an enormous collision. According to the AFL’s match review officer, Michael Christian, May’s contact was classified as careless conduct, severe impact, and high contact. This one drew ire from everyone—players, coaches, analysts—across the board.
In response to the controversy over the hit, Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin came to May’s defense, arguing that the defender’s intent was “obviously” to win the ball. Goodwin emphasized that incidents like these are an inherent part of the game, noting, “It’s important that we limit it as much as we can but there will be football incidents where someone is concussed.” Goodwin’s comments are indicative of a growing recognition of the dangers associated with Australian Rules Football.
Steven May was concussed in a different incident and already wasn’t playing in that Round 20 game. Ian Fry, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change. “I thought I did everything right, so I’m just a bit shocked,” he stated during his video appearance at the tribunal. Attorney Adrian Anderson and co-counsel Steven Moore handled the defense case in court. They supplied nine excellent reasons why the incident should not be considered rough conduct, underlining that May was contesting the ball.
What made the overall situation more difficult was the lack of agreement about what had happened in the collision. David King, a former player and commentator, insisted on accountability, arguing that May’s hit on Evans was severe and warranted punishment. “He hit him with the absolute point of the shoulder and hit him flush,” King commented.
Michael Voss is one of the most respected figures in the AFL community. Michal Voss delivered his brutal assessment to the incident. He noted that both players appeared to be genuinely contesting the ball: “Both players were in line with the ball and seemed to be attacking it.” Voss did admit that one player was a little late and this played a part in the collision.
Evans had a big size advantage over May, as she was half-a-foot taller. The violent crash left Evans for dead, bleeding and broken on the pavement. Commentators were split on whether or not May’s actions should be considered a footballing act or dangerous play. Daisy Thomas weighed in on the discussion, asserting, “My mind would be blown if he does not get off. This is a footballing act to its core.”
The AFL has taken robust action in addressing hazards to players’ safety and conduct. This unfortunate occurrence is a further testament to the dangerous tightrope athletes dance on in their dedication and commitment to their craft and the game. The tribunal’s lengthy deliberation period highlights the difficulty in such complicated adjudication in the Australian Rules Football context.
