Inside AFL’s ‘toughest’ case... and how it could open a can of worms

The complex case of Steven May — the right to contest the ball vs. duty of care of an opponent.

May’s charge for a bump on Francis Evans was the “toughest decision” the current AFL administration and Match Review Officer has ever faced as a landmark tribunal hearing looms on Wednesday night.

And there’s five previous incidents that might help May avoid a ban — in particular Alex Pearce’s collision with Darcy Byrne-Jones.

FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer.

May’s hit on Evans — that left the small forward concussed, with a broken nose and displaced tooth — was graded as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact. and referred directly to the tribunal.

It’s one of the most polarising cases in recent memory given May appeared to make a genuine play for the ball and had literal microseconds to pull out of the contest once it was apparent he wasn’t getting to the ball first.

It’s a reason May’s sentence didn’t carry an original sentence, with the outcome solely in the tribunal’s hands in a watershed moment for the AFL.

“(MRO) Michael Christian is basically pleading for guidance from the AFL tribunal,” Herald Sun reporter Jon Ralph said on Fox Footy’s On the Couch.

“He and (head of AFL football operations) Laura Kane have both said to people across the weekend this is the toughest decision they’ve had in their time at the AFL.

Melbourne's Steven May hit on Francis Evans Source: FOX SPORTS

Opinions divided on Steven May incident | 01:41

“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.

“The fascinating side subject to this conversation is concussion and whether the AFL is prepared to live with it.”

Ralph on the program highlighted five similar case’s to May’s where a player ended up concussed, but either went uncited — or in Alex Pearce’s situation — was overturned at the tribunal.

“We’ve now seen five incidents that have seen players not suspended ... these are the five incidents either cleared by Christian, or with Alex Pearce, gone up to the tribunal and sent back for no penalty,” Ralph added.

“I think we’re realising there are areas of the game where we have to preserve certain parts of football, even if there are the odd concussions. Certainly if May is suspended it will take away a part of that.

“Otherwise we’ll get to that situation where potentially a knee in the back of a head in a marking contest could see someone suspended.”

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - JULY 19: Steven May of the Demons watches on during the round 19 AFL match between Carlton Blues and Melbourne Demons at Melbourne Cricket Ground on July 19, 2025 in Melbourne, Australia. (Photo by Morgan Hancock/AFL Photos/via Getty Images) Source: Getty Images

Fox Footy AFL 360 co-host Gerard Whateley suggested the Pearce case was “instructive” even though it was a marking contest, compared to May’s ground ball play.

“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.

“This will swing hugely on May’s evidence at the tribunal, whether he’s able to explain precisely what he did and whether it measures up with the vision.

“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? He’s got his hands down, ball is coming towards him, then the ball sits up.

“And then when he realised he wasn’t going to get to the ball, did he do anything to minimise the contact?”

Whateley said the process of Christian referring the case directly to the tribunal is an “acknowledgment of how in the margins this is”.

“Had a three-match ban been issued, Melbourne has to challenge and put up $10,000. This way, it sort of goes to arbitration — to be argued and decided,” Whateley said.

“From what we gather the AFL is not going to ask for more than three weeks, they haven’t referred it to the tribunal to max out the penalty. This is being sent as a true test case.

“It will swing largely on the evidence of May.”

"Don't tell me!" Gaz's 'dissent' blow up | 01:46

Melbourne legend Garry Lyon believes May made a “genuine play on the ball” and thinks the backman’s defence will ultimately come down to how well he can argue he had no other options to resort to once contact was inevitable.

“I don’t think he tried to pick him off. But what we’re going to get down to is what can be acceptable in a second,” Lyon said on AFL 360.

“It’s about what’s acceptable in that split-second (he realised he wasn’t going to get to the footy) ... I don’t think he braced to try and clean him up or pick him off. I think it was just: ‘OK, I’ll maintain my momentum forward here’, and the contact came to his shoulder.

“The AFL will argue the split second you realised you weren’t going to get to that footy, you needed to stop and throw your arms out for instance. Is that something he could be expected to have done?

“That’s in the margins. Did he do anything to maximise contact? Absolutely not. Did he cover up? Did he jump off the ground? Did he turn his body? I’d say no.

“And is it reasonable then to expect him to be able to minimise (contact)? Because I don’t think Pearce did ... I don’t think there’s a hell of a lot of difference.

“It will be an arguable case, and whether he gets off is going to be really interesting. I think the Alex Pearce case gives him great hope.”

GREATS DEBATE CASE

Fox Footy’s The First Crack team debated May’s charge, with David King opposing Leigh Montagna and Ben Dixon’s take that May is innocent given he made a reasonable play for the ball.

And the On the Couch line-up also discussed the matter on Monday night, with Jack Riewoldt this time the sole figure suggesting May should be suspended.

“I think this is a lay down messier for three weeks. This is a clear hit to the head from the shoulder,” the Tigers champion argued.

“I’m not sold that’s a play on the ball either. I feel like he came in at a real fast speed, and you might argue about the bounce of the ball, but he just continued to run straight through.

“There’s so much grey area, that’s why you see someone like myself on one side and so many vehemently on the other side.

“This is what’s going to happen, how well May can go to tribunal and plead his case. Because Alex Pearce did that and did it very well and that’s why he got off.

“The different thing with Alex Pearce though is there was a motion to spoil the ball. I don’t feel like May made a real football motion.”

Swann hoping to speed up games | 01:27

Asked if there’s a “Toby Greene (stigma) element” with May, Riewoldt said: “I think we’re starting to development one. He’s loosely known for these high-velocity collisions.

“I would’ve slowed up. I don’t know if there’s the ability to teach May to slow down. Because that’s what he is, he’s a brute.”

Riewoldt’s view was challenged by Jordan Lewis, who argued May was “unlucky” to be cited.

“It used to be if you left the ground, you were vulnerable. May didn’t leave the ground, Evans at the last second tries to evade Steven May,” the four-time premiership Hawk said.

“And n May is 193cm, Evans is 182cm. So there’s about 10cm difference, which means his head meets his shoulder.

“I think he’s unlucky. That play to me seems like he was playing the ball.”

Meanwhile former Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley also thinks recent history suggests there’s scope for accidents and thus May shouldn’t have a case to answer for.

“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.

“This is what’s always up for debate. The tribunal will be sitting against May to ask if his actions were careless in the circumstances. I don’t think they were. Intent is apparently not part of it, it’s what would a reasonable player do in those circumstances that will be asked.

“I think he’s going to the win the footy. I can’t see how that can be upheld.

“The ball pops up on the last bounce to Evans ... there’s evidence Melbourne will go to that I think put enough doubt in any case to try and prove that was absolutely careless and unreasonable.

“If I’m the AFL I’m asking why you didn’t put your hands out to play the football first. The answer to that question will be instructive, whether May can answer that clearly enough to mitigate against the carelessness.”

Click here to read article