(06-14-2024, 12:28 AM)Lods date Wrote:If they're to be used in meaningful way all contributing stats need to be included.Even then it can be muddy, because like the situation with the rules the AFL enforce there own interpretation on the events that generate a stat.
We've been through this before, and perhaps the best example is what the AFL define as a contested possession versus what the average fans thinks of as a contested possession. For example I'm not surprised if fans think a contested possession requires some physical contest with contact from an opponent, like shoulder to shoulder attacking the footy, but the AFL definition only requires an opponent in the approximate vicinity. A player in the vicinity who wins the footy gets a Contested Possession stat, and the player in the vicinity exerting what we can best describe as "proximity" gets a Pressure Act or 1%er.
It's one of the reasons why you can't even compare stats from one source versus another, because they use different definitions.
A while back there was an isolated example of stupidity of stats, a player at a ruck contest was or wasn't credited for a HtA for having the ball bouncing off his head directly to a team-mate. Technically it's probably correct for either outcome, but it's a measure of luck more than a measure of ruck work. Many times we've seen rucks miss the footy completely for it to then come off a knee or shoulder and go to the advantage of a team-mate, sometimes in a direction that is seemingly random, who decides? A stat yes, a measure of skill, hardly!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"