Updated ,first published
Carlton could face a significant fine of $50,000 or more under the AFL’s rules if they are found to have allowed a disoriented Elijah Hollands to remain on the field when he was not fit to play.
While the AFL has left the Blues to investigate the embarrassing Hollands affair – in which the player remained on the field, including into the final quarter despite an apparent mental health episode and virtually no impact on play – the league can still fine the club under the rules that govern a player’s fitness to play.
Those rules have been applied to concussions, as when a player returns to the field or is not removed when concussed, but can be employed in relation to Hollands if the league decides that he was not fit to play due to what Carlton have described and diagnosed as a mental health episode.
The AFL, though, would need to find that Hollands was medically unfit to play under a reading of the league’s rules, in what would be a rare instance of an AFL player being found to be medically unfit due to mental health rather than a physical injury.
The questions of what caused Hollands’ mental health episode, when he behaved erratically and did not have a single effective disposal in 60 per cent ground time, remained unclear, as did whether the forward/midfielder had been subject to a drug test post-game.
Carlton would not confirm on Monday whether Hollands had been drug-tested.
The Blues had suggested on Friday that there was no reason to suspect Hollands played under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but his state was the subject of mid-game speculation by some Collingwood players in his vicinity, as Pie Brayden Maynard confirmed to this masthead.
Carlton chief executive Graham Wright said on Sunday that they had been aware the 23-year-old had been struggling through the match.
The AFL has asked Carlton a number of questions that the Blues must address in their internal probe of what went awry with Hollands. Carlton’s medical team did an assessment of him during the Thursday night loss to Collingwood.
Part of the Blues’ review into the circumstances relating to Holland’s fitness to play will focus on how closely the player was monitored in the days leading into the match.
The AFL formally sent a list of questions to Carlton to answer during their review after consultation with experts in the field of mental health.
Among the questions being posed were obvious game day ones as well as a specific questions relating to Hollands’ management and the decision-making around him being fit to play.
Competition sources, who preferred to remain anonymous, would not detail the specific questions being put to the Blues. But they confirmed the questions related to both the period from when Hollands arrived at the MCG and what happened in the days before the game.
A sample of the questions being asked of the Blues:
- Why did they allow Hollands to take the field?
- What assessments took place during the match to determine his suitability to remain in the game?
- When did those assessments occur and what recommendations arose from the assessment?
- What interactions did Carlton have with Hollands in the days leading into the game to ensure he was on the right track to play?
The hope is that the review is completed by Thursday as the AFL considers what can be learnt from the incident.
The relevant rule that the AFL can apply to the Hollands affair is rule 35.1, which states:
“No club shall, by itself or its officers, any coach, servant or agent, permit or allow any player to play or train or continue to play in any match or train where it suspects or where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such player:
(a) may not be responsible for their actions;
(b) is not in a fit state to play or continue to play, having due regard to their health and safety; or
(c) pursuant to any guidelines issued by the AFL should not continue to play or train.”
The sanction for a breach of the rule is “50 units” or a maximum of $50,000, but there is scope for a heavier fine by the league if it deems the failing egregious.
Under a second relevant rule (35.2), the club can be fined up to $50,000 if there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” that a player has an injury that may cause the player “not to be responsible for their actions” or is “is not in a fit state to play or continue to play”.
This rule says the player must be examined by the club medical officer and unless the doctor certifies that he is in a fit state to play (or train) and “cognisant and responsible for their actions or in a fit state” than he should not train or play.
This rule also carries a maximum fine of $50,000.
Carlton’s doctors, however, did make an assessment of Hollands during the game, and dialled in the club’s psychologist in making their call. He was not ruled out, and played into the final quarter.
Port Adelaide were fined $100,000 for allowing defender Aliir Aliir to return to the field late in the 2023 season following a head clash with a teammate. Aliir was allowed back on without undertaking a SCAT5 concussion test, the AFL found.
Half of the fine was counted in Port’s soft cap for football spending.
Carlton president Robert Priestley said on Sunday that the facts surrounding the situation would be “gathered in a supportive and respectful setting, and we are confident that valuable learnings will come from this process”.
He also said Hollands’ welfare remained the club’s focus.
The AFL released a “mental healthcare road map” for clubs last year.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Jake Niall is a Walkley award-winning sports journalist and chief AFL writer for The Age.Connect via X or email.
