Melbourne defender Steven May has been suspended for three matches after his charge for rough conduct was upheld at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night, however the Demons have decided to challenge the outcome.
May was referred directly to the AFL Tribunal following his charge for rough conduct on Francis Evans, and their request to have May cleared was denied.
The Demons are now wanting to take this saga further, with the club appealing the Tribunal's verdict at the AFL Appeals Board.
The Appeal Board hearing will be heard on Monday evening (July 28), with May already set to miss Round 20 due to concussion.
โWe felt we presented a really strong case, and Steven's sole intention was to win the ball, and we believe he provided a contest in a reasonable way given the circumstances," Demons football boss Alan Richardson said after the hearing.
"After reviewing the outcome and seeking further expert legal advice this morning, we have decided to appeal the Tribunal's decision."
The Tribunal hearing was a landmark decision for the AFL, setting a new threshold for the expectation on players to exercise a duty of care.
Chair Jeff Gleeson KC outlined his reasons for upholding the charge.
"Steven May was running back towards the goal and appears in the vision to have been 20 metres away from Evans when he first saw that the handball had gone over the head Evans," Gleeson said.
"May changed direction and ran at speed towards the ball.
"We find that at the moment May changed direction and ran towards the ball, a reasonable player would've realised it was highly likely Evans would reach the ball before May did.
"There was of course the possibility that if everything went right from May's perspective, he may reach the ball at about the same time as Evans, but only if the ball only bounced low and fast on every bounce, away from Evans and towards May.
"We find that when May changed direction, a reasonable player would've realised that there was little if any chance that May would reach the ball first.
"The most he could hope was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans and as we have said, it was far more likely he would reach the ball after Evans.
"May then accelerated towards the ball.
"He appears to have made no allowance for the likelihood that Evans would reach the ball first.
"In the circumstances, he should have done so.
"Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the last of the four times the ball bounced, it did so in a more upright manner and that brought the ball closer to Evans than to May and May could not have foreseen this.
"May said that the ground was wet and therefore, the ball tended to skid through.
"He acknowledged, however, that even in the wet, it is possible that the ball would bounce up.
"The vision shows that the second last bounce also bounces in an upright manner so May could and should've observed that the next bounce may sit up.
"May could and should've realised before the last bounce that he was unlikely to get to the ball first.
"By the second last bounce, he could and should've realised Evans was likely to reach the ball first and likely take possession of the ball.
"Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other.
"As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly, so as to turn slightly away from May.
"This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way to minimise or avoid the contact to Evans.
"May had his arms out to gather the ball but had sufficient time to retract them noticeably, indicating that he had some reaction time.
"May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest.
"As a result, the effect was he ran through Evans at high speed.
"A reasonably player would not have done so.
"May did not have a lot of time to do so but he had sufficient time to avoid or minimise a high-speed collision with a player who was gathering the ball."
The AFL contested a rough conduct charge was appropriate and sought a three-match ban.
While accepting May's action was not intentional nor a bump and it was a split-second decision, the AFL noted May's momentum should have slowed nevertheless.
Representing Melbourne, Adrian Anderson disputed that May had time to slow given the minuscule time between May realising contact was unavoidable and the contact occurring.
The match was played on a wet night at the MCG, with Anderson noting the first three bounces skimmed towards May and away from Evans, before the fourth bounce bounced up, which allowed Evans to reach the ball first.
May's defence outlined that his actions did not constitute rough conduct, for the following nine reasons.
1 - May contested the ball
2 โ May legitimately expected to get to the ball first
3 โ Both players were reasonably travelling at pace
4 โ The unexpected fourth bounce of the ball compared to the first three bounces and given the wet conditions
5 โ By the time May realises Evans is there, it's too late to slow down or significantly change momentum
6 โ He doesn't move off his line or path of the ball
7 โ He doesn't tuck his elbow in or rotate his trunk
8 โ He attempts to slow at the end, even though it is too late
9 โ May is significantly taller than Evans
Jackson Archer's suspension and Alex Pearce's non-suspension were both shown as evidence.
Archer's incident against Luke Cleary was shown by the AFL to demonstrate the expectation on players to slow or deviate when they have a reasonable opportunity to prevent harmful contact but don't.
The AFL therefore contested a duty of care was owed.
Pearce's incident resulted in the victim player being concussed in a similar manner where the Fremantle skipper arrived late to the contest.
In a strange quirk, the hearing was delayed one night to allow May, concussed in a separate incident later in that game, to give evidence.
