Touch Footy is NOT Rugby League

[cos789]

RD, parafeel wont like that claim.
He doesn't like Auskickers included as participants

so he's not going to be happy learning you want to include keepitoffers as rl particpants.

week as the proverbial RD , get a life.

[Xman]

RD, parafeel wont like that claim.
He doesn't like Auskickers included as participants

so he's not going to be happy learning you want to include keepitoffers as rl particpants.

week as the proverbial RD , get a life.

Not only do they ignore auskick they also ignore school footy which is played in every Vic SA WA Tas school. Yet the touch numbers quoted include school comps.

[Raiderdave]

RD, parafeel wont like that claim.
He doesn't like Auskickers included as participants

so he's not going to be happy learning you want to include keepitoffers as rl particpants.

week as the proverbial RD , get a life.

Parra doesn't like people who don't register to play a sport .. they are fake participants , he is quite right
but
what a shame all touch & tag players do

keep searching cuzzy
you'll find another straw to clutch soon enough ...........

[Raiderdave]

RD, parafeel wont like that claim.
He doesn't like Auskickers included as participants

so he's not going to be happy learning you want to include keepitoffers as rl particpants.

week as the proverbial RD , get a life.

Not only do they ignore auskick they also ignore school footy which is played in every Vic SA WA Tas school. Yet the touch numbers quoted include school comps.

League is played in every school in NSW .. the ACT & QLD too
so .. errrrrr .... what was your point again

[Xman]

RD, parafeel wont like that claim.
He doesn't like Auskickers included as participants

so he's not going to be happy learning you want to include keepitoffers as rl particpants.

week as the proverbial RD , get a life.

Not only do they ignore auskick they also ignore school footy which is played in every Vic SA WA Tas school. Yet the touch numbers quoted include school comps.

League is played in every school in NSW .. the ACT & QLD too
so .. errrrrr .... what was your point again

My point is the touch numbers claim school comps but the AFL never claim school comps as participation numbers.

[ParraEelsNRL]

BS.

[NSWAFL]

Prove that, Parra!

[ParraEelsNRL]

82,000 u12's play AFL in NSW.

Remember that bumfluffer?

[Xman]

82,000 u12's play AFL in NSW.

Remember that bumfluffer?

I do. I remember how you fools thought it meant 82k 11yr olds!

These were auskickck kids and not counted in the participation numbers the ASC counted. You know, the ones where AFL participants double RL?

[NSWAFL]

And school comps aren't counted because that would be double handling!

[Raiderdave]

82,000 u12's play AFL in NSW.

Remember that bumfluffer?

I do. I remember how you fools thought it meant 82k 11yr olds!

These were auskickck kids and not counted in the participation numbers the ASC counted. You know, the ones where AFL participants double RL?

it did say that
the question was wether the article was poorly written & AFL knew it was misleading info , but let it go anyway as it made their progress out to be far greater then it was
... the lamo excuse from the tanktop ball brigade was it said it was all kids under 12... it said nothing of the sort.

fudge fudge

[NSWAFL]

How do you know what the report actually said? You're relying on a bullsh1t article in Asian Correspondent that made the same mistake you did!

And I didn't know the basketball brigade supported us! Good for them!

[Raiderdave]

How do you know what the report actually said? You're relying on a bullsh1t article in Asian Correspondent that made the same mistake you did!

And I didn't know the basketball brigade supported us! Good for them!

not that article *********** ... the one from the asian correspondant was the one disputing the original one making the ludicrous claim about the 80K U12's
& how do I know

I read the F..ucking thing
& clearly .. you didn't

[Xman]

82,000 u12's play AFL in NSW.

Remember that bumfluffer?

I do. I remember how you fools thought it meant 82k 11yr olds!

These were auskickck kids and not counted in the participation numbers the ASC counted. You know, the ones where AFL participants double RL?

it did say that
the question was wether the article was poorly written & AFL knew it was misleading info , but let it go anyway as it made their progress out to be far greater then it was
... the lamo excuse from the tanktop ball brigade was it said it was all kids under 12... it said nothing of the sort.

fudge fudge

It introduced figures for 3 other codes that were for all kids under a certain age. Why would they then introduce 11yos only for AFL? Interestingly all auskick kicks are under the age of 12, which was the point of the article.

You're amazingly stupid at times!

[Raiderdave]

I do. I remember how you fools thought it meant 82k 11yr olds!

These were auskickck kids and not counted in the participation numbers the ASC counted. You know, the ones where AFL participants double RL?

it did say that
the question was wether the article was poorly written & AFL knew it was misleading info , but let it go anyway as it made their progress out to be far greater then it was
... the lamo excuse from the tanktop ball brigade was it said it was all kids under 12... it said nothing of the sort.

fudge fudge

It introduced figures for 3 other codes that were for all kids under a certain age. Why would they then introduce 11yos only for AFL? Interestingly all auskick kicks are under the age of 12, which was the point of the article.

You're amazingly stupid at times!

it never made anything clear.. intentionally in my opinion ... your lame excusing of this cr@p piece is typical AFL BS
it was a attempt by the AFL.... or more accurately NSW/ACT AFL .. to manipulate & mislead

but something they've always done though
why should this article be any different

fudge fudge