Why Steven May’s tribunal hearing will set a new precedent for the AFL

Francis Evans lost a tooth, was concussed and broke his nose after a collision with Steven May. But what was May meant to do? The tribunal’s verdict could cause the largest shift in the game’s fabric in a decade.

Laura Kane was 11 days into her official tenure as the AFL’s new football boss when she sent Brayden Maynard to the tribunal for a landmark test case over his contentious finals smother on Angus Brayshaw.

Officially she ‘jointly’ sent the case up with MRO boss Michael Christian but Kane had her fingerprints all over the move.

In the end Maynard escaped sanction at the tribunal and won a grand final weeks later.

So the AFL tightened its provisions that summer so players were more likely to be suspended for that same act.

Steven May collects Francis Evans

This time both Christian and the AFL’s footy bosses are in agreement.

Steven May’s collision which broke Francis Evans’ nose, concussed the Carlton player and loosened his teeth is the ultimate AFL head scratcher.

Kane remarked to some on Monday she had never seen a more challenging case in her time at the AFL.

Christian told AFL figures it was the hardest case he had worked on in his nine years as the MRO boss.

And AFL boss Andrew Dillon said of the case on Monday: “The tribunal decisions are hard, and I don’t necessarily want to go into that one because it is before the tribunal. But these things are split-second. But we also have Francis Evans who has gotten concussed, broken nose, and he’s lost a tooth.”

Melbourne's Steven May hit on Francis Evans

Carlton captain Patrick Cripps said on Monday night that despite the injuries to Evans, May had done nothing wrong.

“When the ball is in dispute as a young guy when you come to the club you are taught to body line the ball and when the ball is in dispute you want to go and win the ball,” he told the On the Inside podcast.

“You take Carlton versus Melbourne out of it. I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball. Franky was courageous with what he did. You never want to see a player get injured but I don’t understand what we want players to do. If that’s a grand final and he hesitates and Franky gets the ball what do you do? I never want to see people go off with head knocks but it’s a really tough situation.”

Melbourne captain Max Gawn said the case would set a precedent either way.

“That’s why I’m going to tune in because I’m interested to know what it is. May is never going to take a backwards step for that ball, so he’s just going to get sent to the tribunal by the looks of things. Whatever happens will be the precedent.”

In 2023 Kane believed the Maynard case was suspendable but this time the AFL truly needs the tribunal to set a precedent for what is permissible as players approach a ground ball.

Under AFL rule changes brought in from round 1 last year, Christian can offer a player guilty of a severe-impact high contact charge a three-game ban or send them to the tribunal for a four-plus week penalty.

For the first time in 50 weekends of action since that change, May will be asked to plead his case but the AFL will ask for only a three-week ban in another indication of the perplexing nature of this contest.

Why is it so challenging?

Because May did nearly everything right.

He approached a ground ball aware if the ball bounced on its end he could get to the ball first.

He didn’t divert off his line, he didn’t choose to bump, he cupped his hands to receive the ball, he didn’t jump off the ground.

Steven May is heading to the tribunal on Wednesday night. Picture: Morgan Hancock/AFL Photos/via Getty Images.

But he did concuss a rival player when second to the ball by a fraction of a second.

He approached the contest at velocity and injured a rival player instead of slowing down when he realised he would be a split second late to that contest.

His suspension shows the MRO has judged that in 2025 a reasonable player faced with that situation must slow down to corral or tackle even if that is an impossibly high standard.

But if the tribunal throws out the case it will give Christian a precedent to work with.

Just as the tribunal did in 2023 when after 17 consecutive dangerous tackle suspensions Adam Cerra overturned his penalty when it was found he released or had only a light grip on Tom Hickey’s arm in his tackle.

But it is also an interesting case because if he gets off on Wednesday night it will be the sixth recent case where a player was concussed in a lineball incident with no case to answer.

No one would suggest the AFL is going soft on head knocks.

But for many years the AFL was so paranoid about concussion that any lineball case involving that result seemed to tip in the balance of suspension.

Christian this year has repeatedly ruled on the act rather than the outcome despite those who would suggest the MRO is focused only on the injury rather than the intent.

Ben King was cleared for his attack on the ball despite Lachie Whitfield’s concussion.

Luke McDonald’s head clash that concussed Jarrod Berry was deemed accidental.

Ed Richards’ bizarre fend that concussed Luke Davies-Uniacke was deemed non-reportable as LDU’s positioning contributed to the injury.

Patrick Lipinski’s concussion was not considered because Lloyd Meek’s spoil was deemed a football act.

And Alex Pearce was able to overturn an MRO suspension at the tribunal when it was judged he was attacking the ball as Darcy Byrne-Jones was concussed running back with the flight.

The open question is how much concussion do we allow as the natural price of our game at a time when May himself was concussed by a Tom De Koning knee to the head in a marking contest later that day?

The AFL’s own rulings would suggest there is an acceptable amount as we see whether the tribunal agrees over May’s lineball hit on Evans.