Latest news with #StevenMay
News.com.au
2 days ago
- Sport
- News.com.au
‘From a bygone era': AFL veteran sent to Tribunal after unique ruling
Melbourne veteran Steven May is heading to the Tribunal with a three-week ban hanging over his head for a brutal collision with Carlton's Francis Evans. In the third quarter of Saturday night's enthralling eight-point Carlton win, the Demons defender and Evans charged towards a loose ball inside Melbourne's defensive 50 with Melbourne trailing by just two points. As the yellow Sherrin continued to roll over itself towards Carlton's goal, the ball popped up favourably for either player to make their own. Evans beat May to the ball by no more than a quarter of a second, but his mini victory very quickly ended his night — with May electing to brace at full speed after relinquishing his chase of the ball. 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. It left Evans bloodied and battered in a hit that also knocked out a tooth of his. The 23-year-old was groggy to get to his feet as claret quickly appeared on his face, before leaving the field of play with a concussion diagnosis imminent. The Match Review Officer determined the incident was careless with severe impact and high contact, but rather than just handing May three weeks on the sidelines, he has referred it to the Tribunal - saving Melbourne $10,000 on needing to challenge the call. The AFL could ask for either three or four weeks in the hearing. While May never intended to concuss the rival Blue, the force and action with which he made contact on Evans has left three-time Richmond premiership player Jack Riewoldt with little doubt over an appropriate sanction. 'I think it's unfortunate Steven May's collected him high, but if you come in with that sort of velocity there … the collision was inevitable. Steven May has a duty of care when Francis Evans has the ball there,' Riewoldt told Fox Footy's Super Saturday Live after the final siren. 'For me, this will go to the Tribunal — and it's how hard, or how big a penalty they want to give Steven May. If they rank it severe, it could be anywhere from four to five weeks.' Two-time All-Australian David King agreed with Riewoldt's proposed suspension, and even wondered whether the hit could end May's 2025 season. 'My view is, you've got to come at it from the victim's point of view. What are we asking Evans to do?' King questioned. 'He's entitled to go at the ball in that fashion, and the game is supposed to protect him — that's what we've been preaching. So I don't have any empathy (for May) really in this instance, I think he knew he was going to make contact. 'I wouldn't be surprised if that's the last time we see Steven May this season.' King also said: 'He picked him off. It's as simple as that. He knew exactly what he was doing and he picked him off. This is from a bygone era. This is not 2025. 'He's played his last game for the season. That's as bad as it gets, you've got a player in vulnerable position, you choose to bump, you hit nothing but the absolute middle of his face. 'This is a six-weeker for me. It doesn't get worse than that.' In another unfortunate hit, a Tom De Koning knee to the back of May's head in the dying minutes of the match saw the former Sun taken from the ground for concussion testing of his own — which coach Simon Goodwin later confirmed he failed in his post-match press conference. It means the 33-year-old will join Evans in the league's concussion protocols for at least 12 days, and rules him out of a return to AFL before August 2 against West Coast; regardless of whether or not he is suspended. 'This is a really interesting test case for Michael Christian, in a year full of them. If he has elected to bump, then it's gone — that's done,' Fox Footy reporter David Zita added. 'But even if he hasn't 'elected' to bump, if he is contesting the ball, is it reasonable for him to contest the ball in that way? That's what the MRO's going to have to weigh up. 'It might be a sleepless night (for Michael Christian) ... if he hasn't done that (elected to bump), he's missing at least three weeks and potentially more — depending on what the AFL wants to try and push for at the Tribunal. Once it is reportable, then it's automatically three weeks at least because of the outcome with Francis Evans. 'What we've learnt this season, and in seasons past, is that particular way to approach a contest is not really something permitted in the rules or by the MRO.' May has previously been suspended long-term for a bump on an opposition player, most notably back in 2016 when knocking out Brisbane ruck Stefan Martin during his time playing at Gold Coast. Saturday night's clash was May's 249th at AFL level, however his milestone match looks likely to have to wait until the back end of this year — or worst case scenario — at the start of 2026. 'I think he's in trouble. It's a contest that he's second to the ball (so) you then have to have a duty of care to slow down. The stride length doesn't change, he doesn't show any pattern to slow down. He gets him high with a shoulder to the face,' Riewoldt ended by saying. 'It's a no-brainer for mine, it definitely goes to the Tribunal. You see the scenes post that, it's a pretty gruesome injury. 'Nothing would shock me here. Whether they go three, four or five (weeks), I think it's going to be on the higher scale of a suspension.' A May-less Melbourne will face up against St Kilda at Marvel Stadium next Sunday to close out Round 20.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Sport
- Sydney Morning Herald
Dees earn scrutiny as bigger loser in clash of AFL's most disappointing duo
Bump language shows mindset change Whether Steven May is suspended or not, the moment was proof the mindset of the game has fundamentally changed. You change behaviours by changing language, and the May case is proof the AFL has already changed the narrative on these types of collision incidents. Instantly, the discussion centred on the velocity of May, what his plan was and the expectation of collision if and when he arrived late. It was also about the change of the duty of care, that pulling up or pulling out of a contest is OK if it means you don't concuss the other player. Previously, the reaction would have typically been that the MRO shouldn't even look at the case because both players were going for the ball and it was just an unfortunate collision. Loading That could still ultimately be what the tribunal decides, but significantly the discussion – even among veteran players – reflects the sort of change the AFL has been seeking. Now the conversation is whether what May did was fair and reasonable when his opponent, Francis Evans, came off concussed and bleeding from the head with a lost tooth. May may be cleared, like Fremantle's Alex Pearce was earlier in the season, or he might go for weeks as North Melbourne's Jackson Archer did. That is not the point. The point is the shift in the conversation. 'He was going to go and win that football', Nathan Buckley said in commentary before adding that he was not sure 'our game can allow that any more'. Jack Riewoldt offered on Fox: 'if you come in with that sort of velocity … this incident has a little bit of the Jackson Archer about it and that cost him three weeks. 'He came that fast into the contest, the collision was inevitable. Steven May has a duty of care because Francis Evans has the ball there.' David King added: 'What we had to do is look at it from the victim's point of view. What are we asking Evans to do?' Whether May's action is considered more akin to Archer or to Pearce will determine May's fate, but the bigger outcome has already been realised with the change in the language and the idea of what the game should tolerate. Time to topple Tassie roof The Tasmanian state election does not deliver a majority government, but logically it does deliver a majority of MPs who support a new football stadium. Liberal and Labor have both backed a stadium. Combined they have the numbers to now approve the stadium. Logic would say they do, though logic is rare in politics Don't waste a crisis is a truism of politics, which – if applied to Tasmania – would say that the new government, in whatever minority form it takes, has the chance to leverage its precarious political position to achieve what should have been the AFL and state government position from the outset and abandon the roof. The roof was a desirable, if expensive, luxury item the AFL added to the stadium as an ambit claim. The AFL logic was that, at the moment of their strongest bargaining position, they needed to ask for everything they wanted. The rationale was that if they didn't get what they wanted now, they would never get it. So they set a roofed stadium – not just a stadium – as a precondition. It was the sort of negotiating position Tony Soprano would've applauded. A roofed stadium would be an easier sell when recruiting players and for luring travelling fans to fly down to watch their team play against the Devils. But in making the demand, the AFL managed to turn what should have been a unifying moment for Tasmania and its football into an election issue and a flashpoint in a state that does not have to go searching for things to fight about. Infrastructure projects that come in on budget are as rare as Tasmanian tigers. The stadium will cost more than budgeted, and the federal government, which is committing every spare sports dollar it has to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, has made it clear there will be no more money for the stadium. They put a ceiling on the roof. The AFL has said it won't throw in more cash, so if and when the costs run over, the state will be left scrambling for more. A roof in a cold but relatively dry state would be an excellent addition, particularly if combined with air conditioning/heating. But that would only add to the expense. And, yes, this idea of abandoning the roof is said in the knowledge of the foul weather experienced by Hawthorn and Port Adelaide at the weekend and after personally covering a North v West Coast game at Bellerive in horrendous conditions, with a wind so strong the ball blew back over players' heads. Let's not forget, football was played in Canberra in snow. No one demanded a roofed stadium for the Giants to come into the competition. If the Libs and Labor in Tassie don't join together and push the stadium through in its current state because they hate each other or maybe the minority Greens and independents demand concessions, what happens then? Is the AFL truly going to walk away from a team this far down the track, with funding offered by governments, a CEO and football staff employed, player movement rules and concessions drafted and clubs making decisions on the trading of players and draft picks in anticipation of the team's arrival? To go ahead requires the agreement of the majority of AFL clubs. Will they really cut and run on Tassie now with no roofed stadium? The AFL has the opportunity to pivot and reposition their brand in Tasmania, which has taken a hit even among the large number of Tasmanians who support a team and stadium. Rioli's revives Bosustow memories Peter Bosustow, who died earlier in the year, kicked goal of the year in his first season for a smother then recovering the ball and snapping a goal. He played in the era of Maurice Rioli. What Maurice Rioli Jnr (MJ) did against West Coast was very like Bosustow. His diving smother to then soccer the ball to himself, gather and chip to the goal square was superb. It was all Bosustow, right to the moment he didn't just kick the goal himself but passed it. Later he produced diving rundown tackle that was just as thrillingly team-lifting. It was one of those slow-motion moments where everyone but the ball carrier could see what was about to happen next. Poor Brady Hough. MJ has taken time to find his place in the Tigers' team. He is not a big possession winner, his skills can be loose, but his speed and pressure is elite.
The Age
3 days ago
- Sport
- The Age
Dees earn scrutiny as bigger loser in clash of AFL's most disappointing duo
Bump language shows mindset change Whether Steven May is suspended or not, the moment was proof the mindset of the game has fundamentally changed. You change behaviours by changing language, and the May case is proof the AFL has already changed the narrative on these types of collision incidents. Instantly, the discussion centred on the velocity of May, what his plan was and the expectation of collision if and when he arrived late. It was also about the change of the duty of care, that pulling up or pulling out of a contest is OK if it means you don't concuss the other player. Previously, the reaction would have typically been that the MRO shouldn't even look at the case because both players were going for the ball and it was just an unfortunate collision. Loading That could still ultimately be what the tribunal decides, but significantly the discussion – even among veteran players – reflects the sort of change the AFL has been seeking. Now the conversation is whether what May did was fair and reasonable when his opponent, Francis Evans, came off concussed and bleeding from the head with a lost tooth. May may be cleared, like Fremantle's Alex Pearce was earlier in the season, or he might go for weeks as North Melbourne's Jackson Archer did. That is not the point. The point is the shift in the conversation. 'He was going to go and win that football', Nathan Buckley said in commentary before adding that he was not sure 'our game can allow that any more'. Jack Riewoldt offered on Fox: 'if you come in with that sort of velocity … this incident has a little bit of the Jackson Archer about it and that cost him three weeks. 'He came that fast into the contest, the collision was inevitable. Steven May has a duty of care because Francis Evans has the ball there.' David King added: 'What we had to do is look at it from the victim's point of view. What are we asking Evans to do?' Whether May's action is considered more akin to Archer or to Pearce will determine May's fate, but the bigger outcome has already been realised with the change in the language and the idea of what the game should tolerate. Time to topple Tassie roof The Tasmanian state election does not deliver a majority government, but logically it does deliver a majority of MPs who support a new football stadium. Liberal and Labor have both backed a stadium. Combined they have the numbers to now approve the stadium. Logic would say they do, though logic is rare in politics Don't waste a crisis is a truism of politics, which – if applied to Tasmania – would say that the new government, in whatever minority form it takes, has the chance to leverage its precarious political position to achieve what should have been the AFL and state government position from the outset and abandon the roof. The roof was a desirable, if expensive, luxury item the AFL added to the stadium as an ambit claim. The AFL logic was that, at the moment of their strongest bargaining position, they needed to ask for everything they wanted. The rationale was that if they didn't get what they wanted now, they would never get it. So they set a roofed stadium – not just a stadium – as a precondition. It was the sort of negotiating position Tony Soprano would've applauded. A roofed stadium would be an easier sell when recruiting players and for luring travelling fans to fly down to watch their team play against the Devils. But in making the demand, the AFL managed to turn what should have been a unifying moment for Tasmania and its football into an election issue and a flashpoint in a state that does not have to go searching for things to fight about. Infrastructure projects that come in on budget are as rare as Tasmanian tigers. The stadium will cost more than budgeted, and the federal government, which is committing every spare sports dollar it has to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, has made it clear there will be no more money for the stadium. They put a ceiling on the roof. The AFL has said it won't throw in more cash, so if and when the costs run over, the state will be left scrambling for more. A roof in a cold but relatively dry state would be an excellent addition, particularly if combined with air conditioning/heating. But that would only add to the expense. And, yes, this idea of abandoning the roof is said in the knowledge of the foul weather experienced by Hawthorn and Port Adelaide at the weekend and after personally covering a North v West Coast game at Bellerive in horrendous conditions, with a wind so strong the ball blew back over players' heads. Let's not forget, football was played in Canberra in snow. No one demanded a roofed stadium for the Giants to come into the competition. If the Libs and Labor in Tassie don't join together and push the stadium through in its current state because they hate each other or maybe the minority Greens and independents demand concessions, what happens then? Is the AFL truly going to walk away from a team this far down the track, with funding offered by governments, a CEO and football staff employed, player movement rules and concessions drafted and clubs making decisions on the trading of players and draft picks in anticipation of the team's arrival? To go ahead requires the agreement of the majority of AFL clubs. Will they really cut and run on Tassie now with no roofed stadium? The AFL has the opportunity to pivot and reposition their brand in Tasmania, which has taken a hit even among the large number of Tasmanians who support a team and stadium. Rioli's revives Bosustow memories Peter Bosustow, who died earlier in the year, kicked goal of the year in his first season for a smother then recovering the ball and snapping a goal. He played in the era of Maurice Rioli. What Maurice Rioli Jnr (MJ) did against West Coast was very like Bosustow. His diving smother to then soccer the ball to himself, gather and chip to the goal square was superb. It was all Bosustow, right to the moment he didn't just kick the goal himself but passed it. Later he produced diving rundown tackle that was just as thrillingly team-lifting. It was one of those slow-motion moments where everyone but the ball carrier could see what was about to happen next. Poor Brady Hough. MJ has taken time to find his place in the Tigers' team. He is not a big possession winner, his skills can be loose, but his speed and pressure is elite.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Sport
- Sydney Morning Herald
Demon's outlook unclear after clash with Blue
The Sunday Footy Show panel debate whether Melbourne's Steven May will, and should be, suspended for his clash with Carlton's Francis Evans on Saturday night. Loading
The Age
3 days ago
- Sport
- The Age
Demon's outlook unclear after clash with Blue
The Sunday Footy Show panel debate whether Melbourne's Steven May will, and should be, suspended for his clash with Carlton's Francis Evans on Saturday night. Loading
