Good decision to appeal. 17 other clubs should chip in $1K each towards our costs of appealing if they are serious about protecting the game.

The appeals board to be comprised of Heath Shaw, Nathan Buckley, Phil Carman, with a guest appearance from current player Brayden Maynard.

Anyone got any connections to a lawyer who can cogently argue the, as BoBo magnificently describes it, painfully absurd logic in Collingwood Gleeson’s reasoning?

And mount a better case of course

A good lawyer would rip Gleeson apart if allowed to use precedent and comments used in the ratio decidendi of the two contrasting decisions - May vs Maynard.

Brayshaw was kicking the ball and it was reasonably foreseeable that in leaving the ground in a smothering motion, contact was inevitable. Maynard had plenty of time to either keep his feet or change direction, which a 'reasonable player' would have done. He changed his body position in the air and made contact more forceful. Gleeson did not conclude thatr he had breached his duty of care

In contrast, May had no time. The ball was loose. He had a clear line to the ball. Did not brace for contact. Did not bump. Was not careless by definition. Maynard, on the other hand, was completely careless, both in his approach and the way he dropped the position of his shoulder. The AFL, after all, had come out to clarify that if a player leaves the ground and elects to bump, they in fact have the onus to uphold the duty of care...until it came to Maynard.

The AFL is corrupt and so is its Tribunal. I would love to see a group of Legal Eagles shred Gleeson KC beyond the Appeals Tribunal. It's fundamental Administrative Law. A conflict of interests and a clear bias using different and ever shifting legal reasoning.

I supportt Gus' brother's sentiments.

45 minutes ago, picket fence said:

That is NOT the piont, the piont is a grave miscarriage of justice is at play here, and on behalf of footballers everywhere this next decision will be crucial to the way the game evolves. If the appeal wins then its a victory for common sense and the values of our Australian Game. if it falls over this time. Footy will be further diminished and become diluted netball. Its crunch time for supporters everywhere AND a HUGE test of the AFL and its integrity as an organisation IMV

45 minutes ago, picket fence said:

That is NOT the piont, the piont is a grave miscarriage of justice is at play here, and on behalf of footballers everywhere this next decision will be crucial to the way the game evolves. If the appeal wins then its a victory for common sense and the values of our Australian Game. if it falls over this time. Footy will be further diminished and become diluted netball. Its crunch time for supporters everywhere AND a HUGE test of the AFL and its integrity as an organisation IMV

Point i am making is he is not playing no matter the outcome

The AFL and their outcome doesn't suprise me.

But let's face it, if this were the week before or the first week of finals with May being in the #1 ranked side, he'd get off scott free (e.g. Maynard).

If the ball had bounced forward to May's advantage and Evans still collided with him for the same outcome, again, he'd get off scott free.

The AFL spoke of May having 0.56 seconds to react to not contact, how much time did Evan's have to react to avoid contact which wasn't taken?

Can MFC bring in silk here or not?

1 hour ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

The club grew some balls TFFT.

Probably to protect Steven May's legacy, because this is how he would be remembered if he got or gets 3 weeks for this incident.

Actually no, the club reviewed the transcripts and by-laws of grounds to appeal the decision and weighed up the balance of probabilities of a successful appeal.

It’s got nothing to do with balls

The Maynard comparison being referred to on here is mute, the reason it’s 0 or 3 weeks is because of the Maynard incident.

It’s why Curtis got 3 when 1 if any was more appropriate and it’s why the AFL will give the MRO power/wriggle next year to give 1 week by changing the matrix.

May deserves 0 weeks IMO , unfortunately the AFL has to be seen to be doing everything in its power to reduce head injuries. If May rightfully gets cleared the AFL will say they did their best and issued a penalty, which was lost in a point of law.

2 hours ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Gerard whateleys view - completely aligns with us and we need to appeal

https://sen.com.au/news/2025/07/23/whateley-the-problem-with-the-may-verdict

This was a great editorial from Whateley. I think there are a few areas where the Tribunal's ruling can be disputed.

The tribunal concluded that May should have known Evans was 'highly likely' to get to the ball first before he began his approach. This is disputed by both May and Evans and is not consistent with the evidence. It also presumes that May should have known the ball would bounce back towards Evans before he even began his approach. I think that is a ludicrous proposition from the Tribunal. They are basically saying that before you approach a contest you need to be sure that you can reach the ball first even accounting for the unpredictable nature of the bouncing ball. That is an impossible threshold for a 'reasonable player' to satisfy.

The harder part to contend will be the Tribunal's contention that May did not make any attempt to minimise contact once it was clear he could not win the ball. May argued he attempted to slow down once Evan gained posession, so that will be up for the appeals board to determine.

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Failure of leadership if we don't appeal.

Yes

2 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

The harder part to contend will be the Tribunal's contention that May did not make any attempt to minimise contact once it was clear he could not win the ball. May argued he attempted to slow down once Evan gained posession, so that will be up for the appeals board to determine.

They can argue that with 0.5 seconds to react, once he realised he wasn't going to win the ball, he tucked his arm in and braced for contact, instead of lifting or opening his arm to cause more excessive damage.

They can also argue that May had one foot off the ground with 0.5 seconds to go, and couldn't in any physical measure change his position.

There is just not enough time physically for May to do anything but brace for contact, or try to lift his arm and hurt his opponent. He chose to brace, thereby minimising the impact to himself and, in the case of Evans being bigger/taller, to his opponent too.

The AFL tribunal already concluded that May did not elect to bump, so what they are basically saying is that he should have vanished into thin air, or levitated away from the contest. FFS he is a 100kg man, not a prima ballerina, you're asking physically impossible things of players with milliseconds of reaction time.

5 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

If May rightfully gets cleared the AFL will say they did their best and issued a penalty, which was lost in a point of law.

So the AFL want to wash their hands and say Not my problem, Are they hoping ?

Been busy the last few days, in short:

• How was it careless?

• Why was it not dismissed as just a 'football act'?

• Why do we keep hiring Adrian Anderson?

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

They can argue that with 0.5 seconds to react, once he realised he wasn't going to win the ball, he tucked his arm in and braced for contact, instead of lifting or opening his arm to cause more excessive damage.

They can also argue that May had one foot off the ground with 0.5 seconds to go, and couldn't in any physical measure change his position.

There is just not enough time physically for May to do anything but brace for contact, or try to lift his arm and hurt his opponent. He chose to brace, thereby minimising the impact to himself and, in the case of Evans being bigger/taller, to his opponent too.

The AFL tribunal already concluded that May did not elect to bump, so what they are basically saying is that he should have vanished into thin air, or levitated away from the contest. FFS he is a 100kg man, not a prima ballerina, you're asking physically impossible things of players with milliseconds of reaction time.

So the Tribunal's argument for the reaction time hinged on the fact that Evans was able to adjust to collect the ball once it bounced his way and began to change direction. They basically said if he had enough time to do that, May had enough time to do something to minimise the impact.

May argued that he attempted to slow down in that moment but the Tribunal didn't accept that. I don't think he tucked his arm in or braced. His arms maintained the same position as when he was going for the ball.

Your point about the fact May's foot was off the ground is interesting though, it would help May's contention that he attempted to slow down.

I'm not exactly sure how the appeals process works but I know you have a much narrower scope of argument than at the Tribunal. IIRC you can't enter new evidence in and have to argue that there was either an error of law or the tribunal was unreasonable.

I think we will argue the latter.

Just now, 640MD said:

So the AFL want to wash their hands and say Not my problem, Are they hoping ?

They want to win their lawsuits by saying "we tried to punish every player who caused concussion' in order to stamp out head injuries in the game.

Never mind that this could not be further from the truth, because they didn't suspend the guy who concussed Petty, nor TDK for concussing May.

I am not suggesting those players should be suspended, but their argument will be that they're forcing a duty of care on players and punishing those who don't display it.

Of course you can argue what is duty of care. Is it duty of care not to go flying knees first into an opponent? Is it duty of care not to contest a ground ball if you're only a 50% chance of winning it? Is it duty of care not to lay a chase down tackle?

The rules are murky, and while some things are black and white, aka leave the ground, hit someone high behind play, raise your arm and collect someone etc, some actions are just grey. 99% of marks don't result in concussion, 99% of ground ball gets don't result in concussion, 99% of chase down tackles don't result in concussion. So to punish the 1%, if those actions were taken with the reasonable expectation of winning the ball, is just stupid.

This reminds me a lot of the JVR suspension a couple of years ago, where JVR had eyes on the ball and went to spoil and accidently collected his opponent in the head. How many spoils since then have resulted in concussion? The appeals board was right to throw out his suspension, because suspending him would never have stopped players from spoiling a high ball, just as suspending May would never stop players from chasing a ground ball.

Whereas suspending guys for leaving the ground to bump, has significantly reduced those incidents, because they are very avoidable and not necessary. Keep your feet on the ground if you're going to bump an opponent to win the ball, is much easier to execute than asking a player to measure the projection of the bounce of the ball at full speed within 0.5 seconds of said bounce.

If the AFL had any consistency in its reaction to a fear of future concussion litigation bankrupting the game, they would have to ban any player who attempts a speccy and KO's another (team mate or oppo).

But they won't because the speccy brings in the fans (sorry I meant $'s) and so instead they do ludicrous virtue signaling in cases like May's.

Edited Thursday at 05:391 day by sue

3 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

They want to win their lawsuits by saying "we tried to punish every player who caused concussion' in order to stamp out head injuries in the game.

Never mind that this could not be further from the truth, because they didn't suspend the guy who concussed Petty, nor TDK for concussing May.

I am not suggesting those players should be suspended, but their argument will be that they're forcing a duty of care on players and punishing those who don't display it.

Of course you can argue what is duty of care. Is it duty of care not to go flying knees first into an opponent? Is it duty of care not to contest a ground ball if you're only a 50% chance of winning it? Is it duty of care not to lay a chase down tackle?

The rules are murky, and while some things are black and white, aka leave the ground, hit someone high behind play, raise your arm and collect someone etc, some actions are just grey. 99% of marks don't result in concussion, 99% of ground ball gets don't result in concussion, 99% of chase down tackles don't result in concussion. So to punish the 1%, if those actions were taken with the reasonable expectation of winning the ball, is just stupid.

This reminds me a lot of the JVR suspension a couple of years ago, where JVR had eyes on the ball and went to spoil and accidently collected his opponent in the head. How many spoils since then have resulted in concussion? The appeals board was right to throw out his suspension, because suspending him would never have stopped players from spoiling a high ball, just as suspending May would never stop players from chasing a ground ball.

Whereas suspending guys for leaving the ground to bump, has significantly reduced those incidents, because they are very avoidable and not necessary. Keep your feet on the ground if you're going to bump an opponent to win the ball, is much easier to execute than asking a player to measure the projection of the bounce of the ball at full speed within 0.5 seconds of said bounce.

The TDK one is funny. Basically because everyone loves a speccy, duty of care gets thrown out the window in a marking contest.

3 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

So the Tribunal's argument for the reaction time hinged on the fact that Evans was able to adjust to collect the ball once it bounced his way and began to change direction. They basically said if he had enough time to do that, May had enough time to do something to minimise the impact.

By the same token Evans had time to adjust his position to avoid collision.

The argument will be that he did what he could physically to try and slow down and minimise the impact of the contact, by not lifting his arm, with the time he had to react, which was proven to be less than 0.6 seconds.

Their argument was that he had enough time to minimise the impact by avoiding the collision altogether, since they conceded that he did not bump, raise an arm etc. That is physically not true.

There is no world in which May and Evans totally avoid touching each other, with the miniscule amount of time they had once the ball bounces in the direction of Evans. And if Evans is the size of May, or if May is the size of Evans, their collision looks totally different as it's either a shoulder clash or a head clash, rather than a shoulder to head clash. We made the height argument, but not sure how much we focused on it. To me, it's a critical part of the discussion, as it changes the outcome. No concussion = no suspension, thereby proving that the action is NOT in question here, but rather the outcome. Again.

The tribunal basically is saying May should never have chased after that ball because he should have known Evans was going to win it, because he should have known how the ball will bounce. It's a ridiculous argument in a game that is unpredictable.

I’m a bit confused at the commentary and vitriol towards Gleeson. Now I don’t like the fella but isn’t he in essence the prosecutor? Darren and the other fella were in this case the ‘judges’ so isn’t it that they have found May guilty and not Gleeson?

If I haven’t misunderstood this, then it puts another spotlight on the whole composition of the tribunal and how much faith we have to put into people that are holding the future of footy within their hands. The panel so to speak has to be rethought and look at other ways rather than past player representation.

5 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

I’m a bit confused at the commentary and vitriol towards Gleeson. Now I don’t like the fella but isn’t he in essence the prosecutor? Darren and the other fella were in this case the ‘judges’ so isn’t it that they have found May guilty and not Gleeson?

If I haven’t misunderstood this, then it puts another spotlight on the whole composition of the tribunal and how much faith we have to put into people that are holding the future of footy within their hands. The panel so to speak has to be rethought and look at other ways rather than past player representation.

Gleeson chaired the hearing. Woods represented the AFL.

1 hour ago, Trident22 said:

The AFL is corrupt and so is its Tribunal. I would love to see a group of Legal Eagles shred Gleeson KC beyond the Appeals Tribunal. It's fundamental Administrative Law. A conflict of interests and a clear bias using different and ever shifting legal reasoning.

100% true - they answer to nobody and use all sorts of tactics to get their way.

43 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

The TDK one is funny. Basically because everyone loves a speccy, duty of care gets thrown out the window in a marking contest.

He’s nominated for Mark of the Year instead

Gotta love the AFL 🙄🙄🙄

1 hour ago, 640MD said:

So the AFL want to wash their hands and say Not my problem, Are they hoping ?

I believe they want to appear to be doing their best and absolve some legal responsibility

why didnt evans back off he took mays staight line run in.Anyway he got blood nose and lost a tooth but [censored] for brains manyard destroyed someones life

1 minute ago, ghost who walks said:

why didnt evans back off he took mays staight line run in.Anyway he got blood nose and lost a tooth but [censored] for brains manyard destroyed someones life

and moore almost killed trac withe knees in the back and now more of the same from him .May is conncussed knee in back of head evans saw his coming may didnt and thats ok