Why AFL fined Carlton for disrepute
The Elijah Hollands episode has been elevated to the status of an unofficial AFL saga, given that the dispute ended with the AFL trashing Carlton for what he called “bringing the game into disrepute”.
Bringing the game into disrepute is one of the AFL’s most ingenious inventions, as it allows headquarters to punish anyone (players, coaches, presidents, clubs) without having to prove that a particular rule has been breached.
This is a way of saying that we can’t blame you for breaking our rules, but you have damaged the game and we can’t let you go unpunished. “Disrepute” is a broad canvas on which those who pollute the home of football will be cursed.
And this is where the AFL lands with Carlton. Like many, they were adamant that Hollands should not have been on the field that long. They considered this unacceptable and a failure.
The problem was that the AFL had failed to catch the Blues in terms of the rule applied in the Hollands case that says clubs are liable and can be fined for leaving a medically unfit player on the field.
There were two main reasons for the $75,000 fine, which was donated to the league’s mental health partner headspace to provide a charitable sheen. Firstly, the AFL wanted to make it clear that Hollands should be off the field and the club should be held accountable.
As everyone said, it was a scary sight to see the player behaving strangely and not being able to touch the ball due to his mood.
The second purpose of the AFL finding was to avoid excluding any individual and, in particular, not to make any judgments about the conduct of the doctors and medical team, including the psychologist called during the match last month.
This is why Carlton received the all-encompassing penalty. Had the league pinged the Blues for the “medically unfit” rule, they would have risked legal repercussions from Carlton’s medical unit, which carried out numerous professional assessments during the game Hollands could have played.
As with every AFL saga, lawyers were also involved in the contest. The Blues had workplace lawyers, partly because they were dealing with a possible WorkSafe investigation; This would take the issue where neither club wanted it: outside the AFL arena.
The AFL intervened harshly and were appalled from the outset by Carlton’s attitude towards Hollands, but they soon learned that this case had wrinkles – “complexities”, as they put it – and that it would not be as easy as offering a player two matches for a dangerous tackle.
Carlton did not back down from defending the medical team, no matter what they did wrong.
It was, after all, a unique incident – the first lawsuit brought over a mental health incident during a match – but one that ended in the standard way: a conclusion designed to tick the necessary boxes, punish the club without damaging its professional reputation, or provide critical details about exactly where the Blues had gone wrong.
Several questions remain unanswered.
One is whether Hollands had been drinking alcohol, as some Collingwood players suspected. Hollands was drug tested after the match, but the AFL did not respond to questions on the merits, so to speak, citing the confidential nature of the drugs test. It also remains unanswered whether prescription drugs played any role in Hollands’ erratic actions.
Technically, Hollands would even have to give Carlton permission to receive the results of the drug test, which he was said to have willingly participated in.
Another lingering question was exactly when Hollands should be taken off the field, given his mental health issues. Had he gone at half-time, there’s a suspicion this whole thing would have been a one-day miracle. The AFL has not filled this huge gap.
Perhaps Carlton’s most intriguing unanswered question will be on what basis they left him on the field. We know that doctors, with input from a psychologist, deemed him medically unfit at the time of the game. So what was the attitude of Voss and the coaches?
But the most important question remains before us.
Voss and the Blues’ defensive, slightly angry tone at the Holland investigation – directed at the AFL, the media or both – appeared to be largely driven by the fact that they had spent so much time, expertise, care and effort in dealing with a player whose mental health issues were, yes, complex.
They took Hollands off the list, then gave him another chance and took him back with some conditions. What Carlton was upset about was that despite putting in so much effort to help a talented young man and keep him healthy and in the game, they were in the dock.
In an already troubled season, were their care and efforts worth all the trouble and distraction that had been keeping them busy for weeks?
There are people within the game, at club level and even at AFL level, who think the Hawthorn racism saga has pushed some clubs further towards risk-averse recruitment when it comes to First Nations players.
Will players like the Netherlands, with mental health issues requiring greater investment in welfare and management, the next frontier where clubs take a hard-nosed approach, simply take risks and allow their resources to be drained for the sake of super-talented high performers?
Maybe they’ll do this for Clayton Oliver. Or Bailey Smith. So will they be competing with players who are slightly above average?
It shapes up as the most important question in the Elijah chapter.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Jake Niall is a Walkley-winning sports journalist and The Age’s chief AFL writer.Connect with: X or email.
