Carlton has argued that they did not break the rule governing a player’s “fitness to play” in their submission to the AFL on the Elijah Hollands episode.
Carlton’s submission has been with the AFL for more than a week, with the club standing firmly behind their medicos who assessed Hollands during the April 16 game against Collingwood, when Hollands stayed on the field into the final quarter despite not having an effective disposal and was subsequently diagnosed to have had a mental health episode by the club.
The Blues also have engaged lawyers with workplace expertise, whom the club uses regularly, to navigate an affair that has become more complicated over time, according to sources speaking confidentially about a matter that is being treated with considerable caution and sensitivity, as it involves Hollands’ health and wellbeing.
The Blues to date have contested the notion that they have broken the relevant rule governing “fitness to play” by allowing Hollands to stay on the field. He was assessed multiple times by medicos during the Collingwood game, when he behaved erratically. A psychologist was also dialled into the assessment.
A club can be fined more than $50,000 if they are found to have put a player who was medically unfit to play out on the field; this can be applied before or during a game. The rule has never been used for a mental health episode.
Hollands was admitted to hospital in the period after the April 16 game, which the Blues lost to Collingwood when first-year player Talor Byrne missed a shot at goal after the siren.
The Blues have stood strongly behind their two doctors, one of whom, the highly experienced sports physician Matt Chamberlain, took leave from his club duties.
The AFL sought further questions from the Blues after the club put in their submission on the Hollands episode late last week.
The Hollands probe by the AFL has prompted legal involvement, not only for the club’s stance with the league – and whether they wish to fight the AFL on the issue of whether they violated any rules – but also because of the possibility of a WorkSafe investigation.
An adverse finding against the club on medical grounds, such as under the AFL rules for medically fit players (usually applied on concussed players) arguably also contains professional ramifications for the medical team that assessed him.
The legal ramifications have added layers to the dialogue between Carlton and the AFL, which is not necessarily confined to the “fit to play” rules if it wishes to punish the club.
Carlton senior coach Michael Voss strongly defended the club’s staff in the week after the incident became a major storm and the subject of an AFL probe.
The AFL Doctors’ Association has backed the conduct and professionalism of the club’s medicos during the game.
Hollands willingly submitted to a drug test after the game. While there were suggestions that Hollands had consumed alcohol before the game, Carlton said there was no evidence he had used alcohol when the club first addressed the issue of him remaining on the field.
Hollands spoke on the record to this masthead about a panic attack he suffered during a game against the Swans in 2025, and he also spoke frankly about his issues with mental health and alcohol.
He was charged with drug possession shortly before he was traded by the Gold Coast Suns to Carlton in 2023, when he joined his brother Ollie Hollands.
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.
