We need to address 'the state of the game.'
Geez, we sound like politicians from my favourite Netflix show, Designated Survivor.
Thanks to a few AFL matches that have been considered sub-standard, detractors have come from here, there and everywhere to demand we make changes to save the look of the sport.
Firstly, we go down this path every season. Once the excitement and novelty of having the footy back wears thin and a few of the teams at the lower end of the ladder clash in primetime, experts make rash calls to implement this and implement that.
That's usually followed by "just leave the game alone."
That's not the attitude to take either.
Leaving the game alone will ensure we one day end up with a product that is both outdated and difficult to sell to prospective fans and sponsors.
There is middle ground however.
As a player, I do get frustrated when I hear former players -- who may have last played 30-plus years ago -- ridicule the standard of the skills players possess. They question our professionalism and whether we focus on the right things from week to week. Criticism is a part of the game -- believe me I know -- but ill-informed comments like that actually impact on how people perceive the game.
Expert analysts need to remember they help shape opinion. The players are responsible for the on-field product but the members of the media also need to be measured and take everything into account before removing the gun from the holster.
Is the game perfect right now? No. But has it ever been perfect? Was it perfect when we added more players to the interchange bench? Ask any successful businessperson and they will tell you treading water is giving up. You stop looking for ways to improve your product and you are already dead in the water.
Despite how it was introduced, I have no problem with the AFL bringing in the substitution rule. Sure, receiving that red vest was the least enjoyable role in the sport but how many times did we see a player shed the green vest and instantly impact a game? For all its shortcomings, we had a go at improving the sport. It didn't work out: who cares? Just scrap it and move on.
Evolution and improvement are never always a steady upward trajectory.
Let's get back to 'the state of the game.'
We have the premier athletes in the country playing our sport - which is apparently a bad thing. I heard Robert Walls on Fox Sports complaining about "too many athletes and not enough footballers." Farcical. Does he want our recruiters to go and select Johnny Smith from the bush who stands in the goalsquare and kicks five goals every week but can add absolutely nothing else to the game because he physically cannot get up and down the ground. Johnny can't tackle, he can't get to any contests, he can't contribute to his team in defence but gee, he's a true old fashioned footballer. Give me a break.
You could argue Carlton's Charlie Curnow is a better athlete than a footballer - but I've heard more than a few people say he's worth the price of admission.
There's a bloke in Sydney who does not take many pack marks and can be wayward in front of goal but he is in the conversation for the best forward to have ever played. His athletic prowess allows him to do the things he does on a footy ground. He's got flaws but we all do. And when I say we all do, I mean we all do. In every walk of life. Heck, we may as well not play the games if we knew what was going to happen.
That's the beauty of life. Sometimes we sit down to watch the footy and we see an all-time great contest and other times we see a snooze-fest with a thousand stoppages and only a dozen goals. That's sport. Even Brazil have nil-all draws in soccer. Winx has been beaten. Michael Jordan missed more shots than he made. It's sport - the good, the bad and the ugly.
The game evolves. It has always has and always will. Sometimes we will be in love with it and sometimes we will be looking for the remote.
Now, back to 'the state of the game.'
Have there been some goals missed that should've been kicked? Yes. I know I missed three gimmies against Gold Coast but what's the point of taking the kick if we never missed? Let the umpire run the ball back to the centre square and put the six points up on the scoreboard. That will save some time - which is a whole different sticking point.
Do players fail to execute 'easy' kicks? Yes. Do I ever feel like a kick I take on an AFL field is easy? Hell no. The speed and organisation of team defences often make moving the ball nearly impossible.
But how can anyone make the case -- goal kicking aside -- that today's skill level and game is less attractive and less skilful than in decades previous? Did players muff easy marks or shank simple kicks in yesteryear? Of course they did, but how many games were on TV, how many users were on Twitter or Facebook or Instagram? No one remembers the time Mark Bickley hand-passed the ball to the opposition for an easy walk-in goal but they do remember him holding up two premiership cups.
Spend some time at ground level for an AFL game and you will have a different perspective. I promise you that.
Does that mean we're perfect? Could we do with change? Could we try a few things? No, yes and yes.
I read an article where AFL greats Malcolm Blight and Leigh Matthews wanted the commission to implement a 6-6-6 rule where players had to be in their true positions after a goal is scored. I can guarantee you that's a waste of time. Within a week of that rule being brought in we would see wingers sliding to the back of the square and half forwards moving higher up the ground. As soon as the ball is bounced, whooshka, the instructions will be to get back and support in defence. It will be as if the rule was never brought in.
I will give 'Lethal' and 'Blighty' credit though because what they're aiming for is a great solution. Less congestion around the ball to ensure more free-flowing, attacking footy.
The only way we do that is by bringing in a rule we won't even notice: Two players from each team must remain inside 50 at all times. Give it a month and the players will have adapted and no one will even notice. It may even look like it did in the 'old days' where forwards and defenders took each other on in one-on-one battles.
Anyone can do it. Dustin Martin can spend 15 minutes in the midfield causing havoc then be one of his team's two stay-at-home forwards.
It will also limit the aerobic requirements on players, meaning the game's best midfielders would remain on the field for longer because they can - and are forced - to stay inside 50 instead of going to the bench for their 'rest.'
Modern day players are already brilliant at moving the ball in tight spaces. It's just that right now those spaces are too tight. Remove eight players from that stoppage and we'll see the game flow. We'll see players running out of stoppages and kicking long, high balls inside 50 to players competing one vs. one or two vs. two.
The coaches and players wear all the blame for the way the game is played and looks and that's fair enough but a player's responsibility is to adhere to the team's instructions and strategy and a coach's responsibility is to win games - however that may look.
Gently bring in a rule that we unknowingly had back in the day and we will likely see that fast, high-scoring, high-marking, speedy game we all know and love.