Steven May has been banned for five matches by the AFL Tribunal for his high bump on Stefan Martin.
May will miss matches against North Melbourne, Geelong, Melbourne, GWS and Adelaide before being free to return in Round 10 against West Coast.
The ban leaves Gold Coast without their two first-choice key defenders as Rory Thompson is currently injured.
“I’d like to take this opportunity to say I accept the Tribunal’s decision and to thank them for a fair hearing,” said May after the hearing.
“I would also like to reinforce that I am very remorseful that in the heat of the game I overstepped the mark, I am disappointed in my action and for that I have apologised to Stefan.
“As a result of my action on the weekend I let down everyone connected to the Gold Coast Suns and for that I apologise to the club, my teammates and our members and fans.
“Clearly I made the wrong choice to leave the ground when bumping Stefan. I’ve got work to do on my technique, and that is something I will need to improve.
“During my suspension I look forward to helping the team in any way possible to ensure we capitalise on our positive start to the season.”
Tonight Steven May will learn his fate after a high bump on Stefan Martin during the weekend saw the Gold Coast defender refered directly to the AFL Tribunal. Join The Roar for live updates and the verdict from 5pm AEST.
May’s bump on Martin made headlines on Saturday as Martin and Gary Ablett rushed down the ground at full pace, Martin focusing purely on the ball allowing May to line him up for a bump that many have condemned as being unsportsmanlike.
What is really the killer for May is that the bump wound up being high contact – May left off the ground to deliver the bump and caught Martin in the head, leaving him absolutely flattened and ending his participation in the match.
Had May kept a bit lower and simply delivered a body blow it might have been the kind of bump that would be lauded for its courage and physicality – after all, you’ve got to be pretty bold to put yourself in front of 110kg of Stefan Martin coming at you at full pace.
But, May’s decision to leave the ground and risk high contact has made it a very dislikable act in the eyes of many and as a result there’s no question as to whether or not he will be banned, but simply for how long.
The good news for Martin is that he passed his concussion test on Monday and at this stage is a strong chance of being fit to take on the Western Bulldogs this week.
That might be good news for May too as if the injury resulting from the incident had been more severe that would likely have increased the willingness of the tribunal to hand out a lengthy ban.
A ban of three weeks or so probably looks like the absolute minimum for May, but some have called for a much longer absence for the Gold Coast defender, and that may well be the case.
We’ll have live updates from the tribunal including the verdict when the hearing begins at 5pm.
pjm
Roar Rookie
Every hit to the head affects your brain, the force that laid him out would have a big effect.
HB
Guest
Good call 'anon' Ablett saw May coming - watch the reply just prior to the push when he looks up and sees May coming - and then forceably shoves Martin in the back to increase the impact and possibly the damage inflicted. Ablett should have been asked for a please explain by the MRP. Anyone who has played the game knows what Ablett did was deliberate but hey, he's a protected species like a couple of others running around dishing out sly kidney punches, knees and elbows. And what was the the umpire in the foreground thinking, didnt whistle the push or the bump. Oops another blind freddie
Josh
Expert
Thanks to all who joined me to follow the case - what do you think, should we do more tribunal blogs in the future? - and have a pleasant night.
Josh
Expert
Hard to say, I suspect it would've been a lengthy ban for high contact whether he kept his feet or not, although leaving the ground is especially damning.
Samantha
Roar Rookie
If he kept his feet and still got the head, it wouldn't be nearly as bad. Probably a week, maybe two with his record. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next year or two the rules change to make leaving your feet an automatic intentional grading.
Samantha
Roar Rookie
Let's hope he doesn't get another hit to the head for some time. Even if he is 'cleared' another shot like that could be devastating.
Josh
Expert
Yeah, as said above, if he had kept his feet and not made high contact, I think it would be a no penalty.
Samantha
Roar Rookie
If May had kept his feet maybe you could take the push by Ablett into it (probably not though) but once he decided to go for maximum pain by jumping and leaving his feet, all bets were off.
Josh
Expert
And that Jarrad Waite kicks ten this week against the remnants of the Gold Coast backline. (Seriously though, immensely glad that Martin has avoided any long term complications, at least as far as we know for now.)
Josh
Expert
Not too much of a surprise, May's counsel really couldn't put forward much in the way of mitigating circumstances, just May's genuine remorse. Some debate about Ablett pushing Martin into the bump but I suspect the Tribunal's opinion would be that May accepted the risk. When you elect to bump, you do so knowing it may not come off as planned, that's what May did and he has been penalised for it. Just my own thoughts though, not clear yet what the Tribunal's reasoning is.
TomC
Roar Guru
And that's the end of a rather sad little episode. Let's just be glad that Martin is apparently okay, and hope that we're not subjected to many more ghoulish replays.
Josh
Expert
The verdict is in: Steven May banned for five games.
Josh
Expert
Jury now considering the verdict.
Josh
Expert
Gleeson: "I am here to assist the jury ... it is me performing my role properly. (Burns's) submission that I am changing the goal posts is incorrect."
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
Same interplay that happened with the jeremy cameron case
Josh
Expert
Burns not a fan of that notion at all saying it would be "grossly unfair" and "moving the goalposts after we have submitted a guilty plea."
Josh
Expert
Both parties agree on careless and severe, but Gleeson reminding the jury they can classify it as intentional rather than careless if they decide to.
Josh
Expert
A bit of interesting debate with Burns arguing that the tribunal is a "consequence driven" institution (and therefore should be a smaller penalty given the lack of serious injury). Gleeson disagrees, and the chairman has specifically instructed the jury to consider the possibility of serious injury.
Josh
Expert
Burns asks the jury to indicate in their final judgement what loading they apply for bad penalty and guilty plea. Chairman instructs them that they are not required to do so, but can if they chose to.
Josh
Expert
Burns arguing in favour of a four-game ban, one week less than Gleeson wants.