Two experienced AFL coaches have had their say on the league\u2019s mandated full-time psychologists.<\/p>\n
Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge and Essendon mentor Brad Scott have spoken on the change after the AFL announced the regulation as part of Carlton\u2019s sanction for the Elijah Hollands incident.<\/p>\n
Beveridge said he was confused by the \u201cfull-time\u201d mandate, given the Bulldogs\u2019 psychologist is \u201cvirtually full-time anyway\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t know whether it\u2019s a play on words \u2026 what happens in an AFL environment (is) we all take care of the players welfare,\u201d Beveridge said. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhat a full-time psych would look like is hard because of our itineraries. We\u2019re all over the shop.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the empowerment of staff and the playing group to support each other is absolutely critical and a practitioner like Andrew Waterson (Bulldogs\u2019 psychologist) is absolutely critical in any organisation but it\u2019s also your senior high performance management \u2026 that needs to continue to oversee that and make sure everyone\u2019s empowered to look after each other.\u201d<\/p>\n
Beveridge also criticised the AFL\u2019s updated illicit drug policy \u2014 which prohibits coaches from knowing if a player has failed a drug test.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s one of the things with the new illicit (drug) code where certain people aren\u2019t allowed to know if players are struggling from a mental health point of view, it just compromises our care.\u201d<\/p>\n
Scott, meanwhile, hoped the AFL would allow the mandated psychs to be paid outside of the club\u2019s soft cap or be \u201cfully funded\u201d by the league.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s this complex formula of exemptions that the AFL deem are more important than others. Whether that be setting a minimum spend for medical, setting a minimum spend for mental health and wellbeing,\u201d Scott said.<\/p>\n
\u201cPersonally, it gets very frustrating when the AFL are reactive to something and decide you must spend on this after cutting the soft cap and dictating what we can and can\u2019t do with our money. Clubs get held responsible, as Carlton have been in this case, and then the AFL come over the top and mandate things.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s been a constant challenge that soft caps have been cut and clubs are forced to decide where to allocate money, then the AFL have an incident and respond like this.\u201d<\/p>\n