Why Carlton could get a hefty fine, and the questions the AFL wants answered
Updated ,first published
Carlton could face a hefty fine of $50,000 or more if they are found to have allowed the deranged Elijah Hollands to remain on the field when he was unfit to play, under AFL rules.
While the AFL has left the Blues to investigate the embarrassing Hollands incident, which saw the player remain on the field including the final quarter despite suffering from an apparent mental health issue and barely affecting the game, the league can still impose a penalty on the club under rules determining a player’s fitness to play.
These rules applied to concussions, such as not allowing a player to return to the field or be removed from the game if a concussion is sustained, but could also be applied regarding Hollands if the league determines the player is unfit to play due to what Carlton described as a mental health condition.
But the AFL would have to find Hollands medically unfit to play under league rules, in a rare example of an AFL player being medically unfit due to mental health rather than a physical injury.
It remained unclear what caused Hollands’ mental health crisis, which saw him act erratically and fail to deliver an effective ball from 60 per cent of the field, and whether the striker/midfielder was subjected to post-match drug testing.
Carlton would not confirm Monday whether Hollands had been drug tested.
The Blues claimed on Friday there was no reason to suspect Hollands was playing under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but his condition was the subject of mid-match speculation by some Collingwood players around him, as Pie Brayden Maynard confirmed in this piece.
Carlton chief executive Graham Wright said on Sunday that they were aware that the 23-year-old was struggling throughout the match.
The AFL asked Carlton a series of questions that the Blues must answer in their own internal investigation into what went wrong with Hollands. Carlton’s medical team carried out an assessment on him during the defeat to Collingwood on Thursday night.
Part of the Blues’ review into the circumstances surrounding Holland’s eligibility to play will focus on how closely the player was monitored in the days leading up to the match.
The AFL formally sent Carlton a list of questions to answer during the review after consulting with experts in mental health.
Questions asked included matchday-related questions as well as specific questions about Hollands’ management and their decision-making process regarding his fitness to play.
Competition sources, who preferred to remain anonymous, did not detail specific questions posed to the Blues. But they confirmed questions about both the time Hollands arrived at the MCG and what happened in the days leading up to the match.
A sample of questions asked of the Blues:
- Why did they let Hollands take the field?
- What assessments were made during the match to determine his suitability to remain in the game?
- When were these evaluations conducted and what recommendations emerged from the evaluation?
- What interactions did Carlton have with Hollands in the early days of the game to make sure the game was on the right track?
It is hoped the review will be completed by Thursday, with the AFL assessing what can be learned from the incident.
The relevant rule that the AFL may apply to the Hollands incident is rule 35.1, which states:
“No club shall permit or permit any player to play or continue to train in any match or training session where it or its officers, any coach, servant or manager suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that the player:
(a) may not be responsible for his actions;
(b) are unfit to play or continue playing, having regard to their health and safety; or
(c) Must not continue to play or train under any guidelines issued by the AFL.
The penalty for violating the rule is “50 units” or a maximum of $50,000, although a heavier fine is possible if the league deems the violation very serious.
According to the second relevant rule (35.2), if there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” that a player has an injury that would cause him to be “not responsible for his actions” or “unfit to play or continue to play”, the club can be fined up to $50,000.
This rule says that the player must be examined by the club medical officer and must not train or play unless the doctor confirms that he is fit to play (or train) and is “conscious and responsible for his actions or is in a fit state”.
This rule also carries a maximum fine of $50,000.
However, Carlton’s doctors made an assessment of Hollands during the match and called in the club’s psychologist. He was not ruled out and played until the last quarter.
Port Adelaide has been fined $100,000 for allowing defender Aliir Aliir to return to the field late in the 2023 season following a clash of heads with a teammate. The AFL found Aliir was allowed to return without being subjected to a SCAT5 concussion test.
Half of the fine counted towards Port’s soft limit on football spending.
Carlton chairman Robert Priestley said in a statement on Sunday that the facts surrounding the situation “will be gathered in a supportive and respectful environment and we are confident that valuable information will emerge from this process.”
He also said Hollands’ welfare remains a focus for the club.
The AFL published a “mental health roadmap” 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-winning sports journalist and The Age’s chief AFL writer.Connect with: X or email.
