The cause of Elijah Hollands’ mental health episode is not the main issue

The questions that the football masses are posing about Elijah Hollands, understandably, are those that might explain his state of mind on Thursday night, when he suffered a mental health episode and couldn’t contribute.

We want to know whether he was playing under the influence, as Collingwood players might have whispered during the game.

We would like to know if he had been drinking, or imbibed an illicit drug. Or if those possibilities are ruled out, whether his episode was related, in some way, to prescription medication.

We want to have an insight into what made him behave oddly, flapping his arms like Jim Carrey, in the midst of the hurly-burly of a fierce physical contest before nearly 80,000 and a million viewers.

But even if answers to those salacious questions are forthcoming, even if Carlton, the AFL or Hollands himself divulge the results of his post-game drug test, the cause of Hollands’ issues on the night is not what matters most in this strange and mystifying saga.

More important than the source of Hollands’ issues is the chain of events – on the bench, in the rooms, on the field and in the coach’s box – that resulted in Carlton’s collective failure to remove an unwell footballer from the field.

We know that the club doctors made assessments of Hollands during the game, that they dialled in the relevant psychologist, and that they permitted him to stay on the field.

We know that Hollands communicated to the doctors that he was experiencing issues.

And we know that despite his inability to perform or contribute, Carlton’s game-day operation, including Michael Voss and his coaching crew, allowed him to remain on the field.

The problem, thus, seemed to be one of inaction, rather than action. All signs point to failures of communication, to errors of judgment or both. Almost no one on the Australian continent who watched the behind-goals or social media footage would say, in retrospect, that it was fine to leave him on the field.

It is possible or probable, of course, that the Blues considered that a) Hollands had been productive this year after his pre-season reprieve; b) that he had experienced issues during games in the past and surmounted them; and most crucially c) that the medical team and psychologist are experts, have treated Hollands in the past, and they did not feel they could overrule experts on performance or welfare grounds.

So, what matters most is the communication between the parties that led to this embarrassment for the club and Hollands. Carlton’s account must cover who knew what during the game, what they said to one another about Hollands’ state, and why the decision to leave him on the field for so long was ultimately made. The AFL wants those questions answered in full.

The role of Carlton’s senior players is still largely unknown at the time of writing. They will not carry the can, as Voss and his team might, but it would be reassuring to know that Hollands’ struggles were noticed by teammates and especially team leaders and that they voiced some concerns. Soon, Patrick Cripps and Jacob Weitering should enlighten us.

Whether some Collingwood players suspected Hollands was tipsy or not is secondary to this fact: That they noticed that he was behaving unusually. It would be astounding if opposition players were more attuned to Hollands’ issues than his teammates.

Hollands, whose issues with substance use and mental health have been on-record to this masthead, was fortunate to be given a second chance by the Blues this year. It would be reasonable for teammates to question that call today, given that some were sounded out before Carlton put him back him on the list.

Commendable in other circumstances, Carlton’s decision to show faith – to keep him on the field, to back him to turn it around – may have been detrimental to Hollands’ interests.

Had he been quietly removed at half-time – like a subbed out player who couldn’t touch it – Voss would have been asked in his post-game media conference why the player had been yanked off.

“He was unwell,” would be the logical reply.

“What was wrong with him?”

The coach might have alluded to unspecified issues, or simply declined to elaborate. No one would second guess the removal of a player who had not touched the ball in the first crowded hour.

Had Hollands not returned after half-time, the Carlton Football Club may have saved the player and themselves from ongoing consequences – distraction, a media circus, a dent to reputations, and potential career damage to the player – that both parties confront today.

Support is available from Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636, and MensLine Australia on 1300 78 99 78.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.