ADELAIDE will appeal against the three-match ban given to forward Shane McAdam as the fallout continues from the first-round flashpoint.

The Crows on Wednesday morning were quick to lodge an appeal with the AFL after McAdam expressed disappointment with his three-match suspension.

McAdam was banned for rough conduct for his bump on Greater Western Sydney's Jacob Wehr. An appeal hearing is likely on Thursday evening.

McAdam's ban follows a two-game suspension for Melbourne's Kysaiah Pickett for a bump on Western Bulldog Bailey Smith.

The Crows, in their defence of McAdam at Tuesday night's tribunal hearing, used video of Pickett's hit.

The star Demon accepted a ban and avoided a tribunal hearing, with his bump graded by match review officer Michael Christian on a lower scale than McAdam's.

Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson, when announcing McAdam's ban, noted the Pickett bump.

"There appears to be a slightly more glancing aspect to the impact than occurred here," he said.

"If we are wrong about that, we note that the guidelines say that we are not bound by the examples.

"And it ought not be assumed that we would necessarily grade impact in the Pickett matter as high impact, and not severe."

Adelaide's Tom Duggan QC argued there was no severe head contact when McAdam chiefly made contact with Wehr's chest and shoulder, dispossessing the Giant of the ball.

"In that sense, it's entirely legitimate for a bump to be made ... it's perfectly fine," Duggan told the hearing.

"This is clearly not a high bump because it doesn't in any way involve the head.

'I THINK IT'S DEAD' Goodwin orders Dees to avoid bump

"Yes it was a tough bump but ... it was entirely fair."

Adelaide's dual premiership captain Mark Bickley has said the inconsistency McAdam and Pickett findings was "mind-boggling".

"(We have) two instances happen, almost identical, and we get different results," Bickley told SEN.

"I wouldn't be unhappy if Pickett and McAdam got three (games).

"It's really about consistency and that's where people ... get upset with the tribunal because we're comparing it to what happened six months ago. So you can imagine how upset people are when you compare it to something that happened one day ago.

"That is the thing that makes everyone put their hands in the air: how can we have inconsistency between things that happened so close together?

"It's mind-boggling."