Ending congestion

[sprockets]

I disagree.

I guess it comes down to how individuals want the game to look like.

That's why the AFL has no hope of 'fixing' the game. If you ask 5 people what the game should look like, you'll get 6 different answers.

I'm an offence guy. In all sports.

Now that doesn't mean that high scores are the priority and more goals means a better game.

I've posted about this before..

IMO, the good sports are ones where good offence beats good defence
Where no matter how good the defense is, the offence can win out if it's good enough.

I'm talking about play by play scenarios during games.

NBA, NFL, baseball, athletics, swimming, F1, cricket, MMA, soccer - all sports where the offence has the advantage.

In the AFL, the issue is that good offence no longer beats good defence. Defence wins. It used to be the opposite, but now it's not.

Therein lies the problem.

It means the superstars aren't worth paying to see. The superstars used to rip games apart with individual brilliance and kick 10 - now they get 18 short kicks across the half back line. Even the superstars are boring.

So back to the stand rule, although the AFL screwed it up as usual, I think they were on the right track. And it's why I disagree with you.

It's needs to be harder to defend in the AFL. Currently, it's too easy. The advantage is with the defending team. The main reason is that you very, very rarely have to defend on your own. It's too easy to double team and 'team defend'.

You're right. The only real holistic solution that I can think of without it affecting the fundamentals of the game (kick, handball, mark, etc) and keeping it fair is zones. Not just for centre bounces but for the whole game. It's not something I want but that's all I can think of that'll return us to one-on-one, non-congested football.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

I disagree.

I guess it comes down to how individuals want the game to look like.

That's why the AFL has no hope of 'fixing' the game. If you ask 5 people what the game should look like, you'll get 6 different answers.

I'm an offence guy. In all sports.

Now that doesn't mean that high scores are the priority and more goals means a better game.

I've posted about this before..

IMO, the good sports are ones where good offence beats good defence
Where no matter how good the defense is, the offence can win out if it's good enough.

I'm talking about play by play scenarios during games.

NBA, NFL, baseball, athletics, swimming, F1, cricket, MMA, soccer - all sports where the offence has the advantage.

In the AFL, the issue is that good offence no longer beats good defence. Defence wins. It used to be the opposite, but now it's not.

Therein lies the problem.

It means the superstars aren't worth paying to see. The superstars used to rip games apart with individual brilliance and kick 10 - now they get 18 short kicks across the half back line. Even the superstars are boring.

So back to the stand rule, although the AFL screwed it up as usual, I think they were on the right track. And it's why I disagree with you.

It's needs to be harder to defend in the AFL. Currently, it's too easy. The advantage is with the defending team. The main reason is that you very, very rarely have to defend on your own. It's too easy to double team and 'team defend'.

LBR posts in #450

My comments in blue font.
-------------------------------------------------------

I disagree.

I guess it comes down to how individuals want the game to look like.

That's why the AFL has no hope of 'fixing' the game. If you ask 5 people what the game should look like, you'll get 6 different answers.

I can agree with this. The Demons v Bulldogs game Friday evening was not particularly high-scoring (13 goals to 9) but was fascinating for its 1-on-1 non-zone play and how could one forget the battle Liberatore+Bontempelli versus Petracca+Oliver. One for the ages. Quite a different game from








where 52 goals were scored. Both games were riverting.

I'm an offence guy. In all sports.


Now that doesn't mean that high scores are the priority and more goals means a better game.

I've posted about this before..

IMO, the good sports are ones where good offence beats good defence
Where no matter how good the defense is, the offence can win out if it's good enough.

Agree with you on this. ^^^

I'm talking about play by play scenarios during games.

NBA, NFL, baseball, athletics, swimming, F1, cricket, MMA, soccer - all sports where the offence has the advantage.



The presence of NFL and Soccer in this list leaves me cold. Games full of structure and playbooks!?

So boring that the customer has to resort to communal singing (Soccer) or watching cheer-leaders (NFL) to pass the time between true highlights. Spare me our home-grown anarchic, free-wheeling exciting AFL ever sinks to these structured levels.

In the AFL, the issue is that good offence no longer beats good defence. Defence wins. It used to be the opposite, but now it's not.

Therein lies the problem.



Agree

It means the superstars aren't worth paying to see. The superstars used to rip games apart with individual brilliance and kick 10 - now they get 18 short kicks across the half back line. Even the superstars are boring.

Agree

So back to the stand rule, although the AFL screwed it up as usual, I think they were on the right track. And it's why I disagree with you.

I am happy with the objectives of the STAND rule. I am happy that it had (for a few weeks) opened up the game to creative continuous play.

I am happy the speccies seem to be growing by the week.

But the AFL has been defeated by the coaches yet again. A mark or a free kick has become so valuable that many coaches are resorting excessively to the short kicking game. We now need to recognise that we can only get continuous purposeful movement and randomness back into the game if we make the kicker use the ball in a smaller interval of time.

It's needs to be harder to defend in the AFL. Currently, it's too easy. The advantage is with the defending team. The main reason is that you very, very rarely have to defend on your own. It's too easy to double team and 'team defend'.

Agree

Of course it easier to defend now.
Defenders are given the time to all flood back into defence. And of course that gives the attackers can stream forward; where 30 or so players congest in a small area.



Join my campaign…

Use it or lose it

Reduce the wwwpause.

 

[sprockets]

LBR posts in #450

My comments in blue font.
-------------------------------------------------------

I disagree.

I guess it comes down to how individuals want the game to look like.

That's why the AFL has no hope of 'fixing' the game. If you ask 5 people what the game should look like, you'll get 6 different answers.

I can agree with this. The Demons v Bulldogs game Friday evening was not particularly high-scoring (13 goals to 9) but was fascinating for its 1-on-1 non-zone play and how could one forget the battle Liberatore+Bontempelli versus Petracca+Oliver. One for the ages. Quite a different game from








where 52 goals were scored. Both games were riverting.

I'm an offence guy. In all sports.


Now that doesn't mean that high scores are the priority and more goals means a better game.

I've posted about this before..

IMO, the good sports are ones where good offence beats good defence
Where no matter how good the defense is, the offence can win out if it's good enough.

Agree with you on this. ^^^

I'm talking about play by play scenarios during games.

NBA, NFL, baseball, athletics, swimming, F1, cricket, MMA, soccer - all sports where the offence has the advantage.



The presence of NFL and Soccer in this list leaves me cold. Games full of structure and playbooks!?

So boring that the customer has to resort to communal singing (Soccer) or watching cheer-leaders (NFL) to pass the time between true highlights. Spare me our home-grown anarchic, free-wheeling exciting AFL ever sinks to these structured levels.

In the AFL, the issue is that good offence no longer beats good defence. Defence wins. It used to be the opposite, but now it's not.

Therein lies the problem.



Agree

It means the superstars aren't worth paying to see. The superstars used to rip games apart with individual brilliance and kick 10 - now they get 18 short kicks across the half back line. Even the superstars are boring.

Agree

So back to the stand rule, although the AFL screwed it up as usual, I think they were on the right track. And it's why I disagree with you.

I am happy with the objectives of the STAND rule. I am happy that it had (for a few weeks) opened up the game to creative continuous play.

I am happy the speccies seem to be growing by the week.

But the AFL has been defeated by the coaches yet again. A mark or a free kick has become so valuable that many coaches are resorting excessively to the short kicking game. We now need to recognise that we can only get continuous purposeful movement and randomness back into the game if we make the kicker use the ball in a smaller interval of time.

It's needs to be harder to defend in the AFL. Currently, it's too easy. The advantage is with the defending team. The main reason is that you very, very rarely have to defend on your own. It's too easy to double team and 'team defend'.

Agree

Of course it easier to defend now.
Defenders are given the time to all flood back into defence. And of course that gives the attackers can stream forward; where 30 or so players congest in a small area.



Join my campaign…

Use it or lose it

Reduce the wwwpause.

You can't reduce the pause. Players have always 'paused' to find an option and it'd be unfair to make them kick before they have a reasonable chance to find someone to kick it to, particularly when guys having shots on goal are given 30 seconds, even if they don't have a shot.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

You can't reduce the pause. Players have always 'paused' to find an option and it'd be unfair to make them kick before they have a reasonable chance to find someone to kick it to, particularly when guys having shots on goal are given 30 seconds, even if they don't have a shot.

hi sprockets

Player may have always paused to find an option, but it is not true that we have always been prepared to wait for the half-forwards to run 70 yards from where they have 'flooded' into the back-line and return to their correct position in the forward line, and then to double back 20 more yards as hit-up lead to the pauser. This elongated pause crept into the game when congestion became a game-plan for some sides. This congestion came from teams that encouraged players to roam all over the ground, and if they became puffed we gave them the chance to recuperate by being subbed off for some time.

If we wish to eliminate congestion we have to make the game more continuous and reduce the opportunity of players to flood back into the defence. We need to weaken defence strategies.

 

[sprockets]

hi sprockets

Player may have always paused to find an option, but it is not true that we have always been prepared to wait for the half-forwards to run 70 yards from where they have 'flooded' into the back-line and return to their correct position in the forward line, and then to double back 20 more yards as hit-up lead to the pauser. This elongated pause crept into the game when congestion became a game-plan for some sides. This congestion came from teams that encouraged players to roam all over the ground, and if they became puffed we gave them the chance to recuperate by being subbed off for some time.

If we wish to eliminate congestion we have to make the game more continuous and reduce the opportunity of players to flood back into the defence. We need to weaken defence strategies.

There's no "elongated pause". If anything players have less time to kick the ball these days than in the past. If you want to blame something blame flooding.

If we wish to eliminate congestion we have to make the game more continuous and reduce the opportunity of players to flood back into the defence. We need to weaken defence strategies.

Exactly.

 

[footyfan1978]

If we wish to eliminate congestion we have to make the game more continuous and reduce the opportunity of players to flood back into the defence. We need to weaken defence strategies.

So in the early 70's before our time, they deemed the centre area was getting too congested for centre bounces and they experimented with a centre rectangle, diamond and finally centre square, that they settled on where they made it a rule you could not have more than 4 players from your team in centre square and most of us have grown up with game that way before we even started following the game as kids.

It seems in our own lifetime we seen congestion become a problem down both ends of ground where we got 36 players mainly flooded down one end and virtually nobody up other end apart from the default full back positioned not far off the centre circle and default full forward of other team not far away, so if team defending gets ball from out of 50 metre arc quickly they basically got no forward line at that moment , so they basically try to get as many to run forward until they got someone close to goal to kick to. It is terrible look when 36 players on ground virtually down either end, just as I sure in late 60's and early 70's they deemed it was starting to look too congested when 20 or so players around centre circle for ball up after a goal.

They brought in a centre area with lines to change all that back then.

We just got to have some people with balls in charge that decide this 36 players down either end is removed from game. To me it is not too hard to decide to follow something along lines of what they did in early 70's for the centre area congestion. Our issue is congestion virtually within 50 metre arcs and not between the arcs so make a ruling on it to improve the spectacle of the game.

So make use of the 50 metre arc lines we already have on the ground. If there is a ball up or behind down either end, that both teams have to have a certain number of players on their team down the other 50 metre arc at that point. Whether that be 3 or 4 players each, what it would do is outlaw having 18 player defence zone set up for stoppages down either end which has been the norm for quite a few years now.

36 players down either end is ugly look for game. That's the congestion issue we have had for sometime now. It's ugly spectacle and can be cleaned up easily, just as they must have done in early 1970's when they decided congestion for centre circle ball ups after each goal or start of quarter was not good for the game as a spectacle.

It means when ball down either end, you can actually have 36 players anywhere you like whilst ball in play but you also know that if there is a stoppage within 50 metra arcs you also need to make sure 4 players on your team are at the other end of ground. So you virtually get coaches back to having to actually have forward pockets and key forwards not run down other end of ground, like they all coached to do now. Too me this would eliminate the grid lock of 36 players down either end of ground for four or five minutes at a time that we see so often now.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

So in the early 70's before our time, they deemed the centre area was getting too congested for centre bounces and they experimented with a centre rectangle, diamond and finally centre square, that they settled on where they made it a rule you could not have more than 4 players from your team in centre square and most of us have grown up with game that way before we even started following the game as kids.

It seems in our own lifetime we seen congestion become a problem down both ends of ground where we got 36 players mainly flooded down one end and virtually nobody up other end apart from the default full back positioned not far off the centre circle and default full forward of other team not far away, so if team defending gets ball from out of 50 metre arc quickly they basically got no forward line at that moment , so they basically try to get as many to run forward until they got someone close to goal to kick to. It is terrible look when 36 players on ground virtually down either end, just as I sure in late 60's and early 70's they deemed it was starting to look too congested when 20 or so players around centre circle for ball up after a goal.

They brought in a centre area with lines to change all that back then.

We just got to have some people with balls in charge that decide this 36 players down either end is removed from game. To me it is not too hard to decide to follow something along lines of what they did in early 70's for the centre area congestion. Our issue is congestion virtually within 50 metre arcs and not between the arcs so make a ruling on it to improve the spectacle of the game.

So make use of the 50 metre arc lines we already have on the ground. If there is a ball up or behind down either end, that both teams have to have a certain number of players on their team down the other 50 metre arc at that point. Whether that be 3 or 4 players each, what it would do is outlaw having 18 player defence zone set up for stoppages down either end which has been the norm for quite a few years now.

36 players down either end is ugly look for game. That's the congestion issue we have had for sometime now. It's ugly spectacle and can be cleaned up easily, just as they must have done in early 1970's when they decided congestion for centre circle ball ups after each goal or start of quarter was not good for the game as a spectacle.

It means when ball down either end, you can actually have 36 players anywhere you like whilst ball in play but you also know that if there is a stoppage within 50 meter arcs you also need to make sure 4 players on your team are at the other end of ground. So you virtually get coaches back to having to actually have forward pockets and key forwards not run down other end of ground, like they all coached to do now. Too me this would eliminate the grid lock of 36 players down either end of ground for four or five minutes at a time that we see so often now.

An excellent description of the issue to solved...i.e. CONGESTION....Well done footyfan 1978.
So we need to turn our attention to how to solve this problem. You have chosen a structural look to be imposed on regular play. And you refer to the previously successful solution to the centre bounce congestion, and you use this as a precedent for our current ailment. Fair enough; I would support a trial of that suggestion.

But, isn't the beauty of our game based on anarchy. I appreciate we can't have no rules at all solution, but could we at least experiment with a less/pause_less time solution. The player with the free kick has time to walk away from the STAND point, but as soon as he finishes his steps backward the Umpire should call pay-on. Don't allow the player an eternity to assess his reasonable options to emerge. If he has no downfield targets to kick it to then that is poor football by his side. I hope this would produce permanent half-fowards rather than on-ballers. And permanent half-forwards would weaken the defence side because they would have to consider permanent half-backs.

 

[footyfan1978]

An excellent description of the issue to solved...i.e. CONGESTION....Well done footyfan 1978.
So we need to turn our attention to how to solve this problem. You have chosen a structural look to be imposed on regular play. And you refer to the previously successful solution to the centre bounce congestion, and you use this as a precedent for our current ailment. Fair enough; I would support a trial of that suggestion.

But, isn't the beauty of our game based on anarchy. I appreciate we can't have no rules at all solution, but could we at least experiment with a less/pause_less time solution. The player with the free kick has time to walk away from the STAND point, but as soon as he finishes his steps backward the Umpire should call pay-on. Don't allow the player an eternity to assess his reasonable options to emerge. If he has no downfield targets to kick it to then that is poor football by his side. I hope this would produce permanent half-fowards rather than on-ballers. And permanent half-forwards would weaken the defence side because they would have to consider permanent half-backs.

I not sure why you are talking about a Stand rule. The rule was not needed. Like the ruck nomination rule , also not needed. We do not need all these little silly rules that complicated things further. Hocking said something of the nature, that he wanted the man with the free kick to take on the man on the mark more, but fffs, forcing a guy to stand is not having the guy with free kick taking the man on the mark on, it is giving him a head start as it stands...
I really just think abolish the silly rule as makes no sense how it even come about. Ruck nomination rule also get ride of.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

I not sure why you are talking about a Stand rule. The rule was not needed. Like the ruck nomination rule , also not needed. We do not need all these little silly rules that complicated things further. Hocking said something of the nature, that he wanted the man with the free kick to take on the man on the mark more, but fffs, forcing a guy to stand is not having the guy with free kick taking the man on the mark on, it is giving him a head start as it stands...
I really just think abolish the silly rule as makes no sense how it even come about. Ruck nomination rule also get ride of.

Agree, the STAND rule has become redundant because coaches have moved on to mis-use the pause time to flood/stream players back to their published position. The STAND-in -the-naughty-spot rule is now redundant.

Agree, the ruck-nomination rule has to go also.

But congestion will remain until the team with the free-kick/mark is forced to play-on quickly.

 

[footyfan1978]

Agree, the STAND rule has become redundant because coaches have moved on to mis-use the pause time to flood/stream players back to their published position. The STAND-in -the-naughty-spot rule is now redundant.

Agree, the ruck-nomination rule has to go also.

But congestion will remain until the team with the free-kick/mark is forced to play-on quickly.

Congestion is not caused by free kicks etc. It caused by players all bunching up in one small area of ground, which is a choice of coaches to want to minimize risk of scoring goals against them. When players are taught on mass to run down other end and go take a break on bench if you getting tired so we can always keep freshest 18 players on field to continue to do that, that is how we have got to this being way game played down either end of ground for big chunks of games. There is easy solutions to this , just like they found an easy solution to when the centre area was being congested directly after goals in late 60's and early 70's. Stupid rules like stand rules and ruck nomination rules do not address it.

 

[The Hobo]

Sick and tired of rule changes to try and end congestion. Absolutely sick of it.

Implement the rules that are in place now, and there won't be congestion. That means paying 50m every time a player delays the restart of play by not giving the ball back immediately, or by sitting on the player who just won the free kick, pretending to pick the ball up, blocking access to the ball etc etc.

Secondly, don't wait for ruckmen to arrive for ball ups - throw the ball up straight away and get on with play. By waiting for the ruckmen to arrive, you're giving teams to set up and prevent the ball from going forward.

The above two tweaks to the way the game is umpired is not a change in rules - implement it and you'll see that players can no longer set up around the ball, or get back to flood the defensive lines etc. The result will be a far more open game without the need for this stupid stand rule and other abominations that we've tried.

 

[The Hobo]

2. Lower the threshold for what's considered a successful tackle. You basically have to lay a perfect tackle now to get a holding the ball decision. Even the old 360 spin rule seems out of the window now. Or the one that annoys me the most - a player will have possession of the ball with clear prior opportunity, and will get tackled to the ground, but then because the tackler doesn't do the whole "wrap them up with their legs" thing, the player can hop back up.

100% - The only way to succesfully tackle right now is bring them to ground and sit on them. This of course results in dangerous tackles whilst they're wresting them to ground. If a player is tackled standing, they are not pinged for such a long time it's ridicilous. The umpires are visibly so reluctant to pay the free and wait and wait. Eventually the bloke drops the ball and gets a toe to the ball and it's called play on.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

Perhaps I went too early on calling the STAND rule redundant* (*my original comment given the way the Coaches seem to have circumvented the intention of the rule up to the start of August).

It is now clear from the Giants demolition of the CATS and the TIGERS that one Coach has worked on a strategy to positively use the STAND rule.
In the game Giants v Tigers there were only 5 instances of Giants players using a handball to another Giant running past the STrANDed Tiger. Instead, the Giants went for the tactic....get back off the mark-point quickly and then veer to the right and roost the ball 55+ metres into the downfield. This had the benefit of kicking over the Tigers standard protection of the 45-50 yard down-the-line, and disrupted the Tigers zone defence set-up. The results were a 50 point margin to the Giants at half-time. A good tactic especially against the Tigers because they play shortish tacklers in most parts of the ground and they are disadvantaged by high balls coming in over the structured defence.

Given that Steve Hocking deliberately brought in the STAND rule to correct the misbehaviour of Tigers in 2020 at manning the mark, it was delicious to see the rule have such a curb on last years Premier team.

Oh, and interesting that there was not much congestion in the Giants v Tigers game. Not sure if the lack of congestion came from the STAND RULE, or perhaps most players worked out it is not good to stick your neck into a area where Mumford and Nankervis are 'lurking'.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Perhaps I went too early on calling the STAND rule redundant (given the way the Coaches seem to have circumvented the intention of the rule to the start of August).

It is now clear from the Giants demolition of the CATS and the TIGERS that one Coach has worked on a strategy to positively use the STAND rule.
In the game Giants v Tigers there were only 5 instances of Giants players using a handball to another giant running past the STrANDed Tiger. Instead, the Giants went for the tactic....get back off the mark-point quickly and then veer to the right and roost the ball 55+ metres into the downfield. This had the benefit of kicking over the Tigers standard protection of the 45-50 yard down-the-line, and disrupted the Tigers zone defence set-up. The results were a 50 point margin to the Giants at half-time. A good tactic especially against the Tigers because they play shortish tacklers in most parts of the ground and they are disadvantaged by high balls coming in over the structured defence.

Given that Steve Hocking deliberately brought in the STAND rule to correct the misbehaviour of Tigers in 2020 at manning the mark, it was delicious to see the rule have such an curb on last years Premier team.

I think the Tigers backline was especially vulnerable last night with no nominal key defender named and a defensive 7 that has not played much together overall. So I wouldn’t read too much into our defensive structures not being able to cope with the Giants’ tactics last night. We also saw the stand rule officiated variably last night which is frightening for finals really. The players need to have confidence that it will be officiated correctly and consistently.

I think the rule is a contrived nonsense thaqt has no part in our great game. It places a high value on one of the dullest features of the sport, the uncontested mark. I like your suggestions to make players who have a mark or free kick move the ball faster. This combined with the obvious move of not paying a mark for a backwards kick, may be enough to get players dispersed across the ground more in the fashion the sport evolved with. If this doesn’t work then I favour say 4 players minimum from each team in f50 and d50 at every stoppage but you have a very short time to get there like 3-5 seconds from when the stoppage is signalled. This would mean teaqms would have to keep forward structures in place at all times.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

The start of the 2022 season and our first real chance to see how the most recent rule changes rule changes are achieving their objective (or not).

1. The verbal disagreement with an umpire. The move is towards zero tolerance, and so far the penalties have been quite appropriate. A case in point was the Melbourne backman who invited the umpire to look at the (the controversial incident) replay on the screen. The umpire quite reasonably agreed and suggested that it was a better view 50 metres down the field. Given that all parties were standing quite close to the behind post, this was a bit humourous . The lessons learned from this incident is that Full Backs can afford to be lippy; but it is a 'coaches no-no' for Half-Forward Flankers. A more interesting case occurred in the Crows v Power game; the Crow backman chased down a Power forward and grabbed a handful of shorts in a desperate dive to make a successful tackle. The Power forward immediately had the full weight of the backman to drag along and gravity took him to the ground. The umpire ruled a trip ( ) and the Power player had a free kicker from the goal square. So the question is,,,,how does the Crow player bring this fact to the umpires attention. The true facts actually meant the decision should have been 'holding the ball'.
2. Player Gresham (St Kilda) gets dragged across the boundary line while in possession of the ball. He gets up and walks 4 steps and flips the ball to the Field Umpire. The umpy declares this to be time-wasting as the ball should have been handed to the boundary UMP instead and blows his whistle to award a free-kick to the Bombers. All up 3 seconds were wasted. 3 seconds doesn't sound much but the rule is zero-tolerance; so the Umpy is on solid ground )). But wait a minute, Dan Butler gets a free kick (on the half-back-flank) and stands stationary for 15 seconds as the Commentator tells us he is waiting for his forwards to take up position down in their forward line after they had flooded backwards in the previous play. Why is this not zero-tolerance time-wasting also?

So, Steve Hocking, thanks for your services in 2021. I know you read my posts. Could you please pass on my comments to Mr Scott. Thanks in advance.

 

[VascoDaGamer]

The world-wide-wait (www) is still being allowed by umpires.

What is the www?
It is where a free kick or mark is obtained by a defensive flanker on an exit kick and the player holds onto the ball and waits for all his mates to stream down the ground to the positions they should have been occupying , the player often then waits for a short lead-up and then chip kicks and the process of www often starts again.

The rules make no provision for this www.
The umpire should call play on as soon the player has room behind his mark (exception of course for shots at goal).

 

[naysayer]

THE DANGEROUS TACKLE PROBLEM

We have this little problem, where it turns out that tackling someone forcefully to the ground can result in their head also touching the ground. So, the tackle is clearly going the way of the bump. I want to share two graphics:


Can you imagine seeing a match with only 6 tackles between the two sides? I think I've seen Jai Newcombe lay 6 tackles in a single quarter before. And yet this is not ancient history, this is not some unrecognisably different non-contact sport played by men with comb-overs in grainy black-and-white footage. This is AFL in the 80s and 90s, before prior opportunity was introduced in 1996. Our sport has since become a stoppage feast. It's drawing numbers to the ball and driving the tackle count through the roof.

If the average tackle count for a match were closer to 10 than to 100, how many players would've been suspended this year?

I rest my case.