Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Ages 5-12
U12's

big difference

No difference. None whatsoever. To say that there is shows your trolling ability and nothing more than that.

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Ages 5-12
U12's

big difference

No difference. None whatsoever. To say that there is shows your trolling ability and nothing more than that.

Players under 12 can also be called under 12 players, or under 12's.

If you add "competition" or "league" to under 12's it means a comp for players under 12. If there are no comps for age groups below that age group the term under 12's means all players under the age of 12.

I hope that clears it up. I think we're done here! :D

Xman wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Ages 5-12
U12's

big difference

No difference. None whatsoever. To say that there is shows your trolling ability and nothing more than that.

Players under 12 can also be called under 12 players, or under 12's.
If you add "competition" or "league" to under 12's it means a comp for players under 12. If there are no comps for age groups below that age group the term under 12's means all players under the age of 12.

I hope that clears it up. I think we're done here! :D

we're not done
they can be called the first 2... the 3rd refers to that specific age group for the purposes of organised sporting competitions
no need to add anything else to that ... its a term by itself.

I think we're done here .. .. now

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

No difference. None whatsoever. To say that there is shows your trolling ability and nothing more than that.

Players under 12 can also be called under 12 players, or under 12's.
If you add "competition" or "league" to under 12's it means a comp for players under 12. If there are no comps for age groups below that age group the term under 12's means all players under the age of 12.

I hope that clears it up. I think we're done here! :D

we're not done
they can be called the first 2... the 3rd refers to that specific age group for the purposes of organised sporting competitions
no need to add anything else to that ... its a term by itself.

I think we're done here .. .. now

No. Under 12's can be an abbreviation of under 12 year old players, as is clearly the case in this article when it's entirety is taken into account.

If not why did the author only refer quote one AFL age group competition while at the same time quoting data for three other codes without age specifics?

Further, why did the author describe auskick in detail to then quote figures for non-auskick competitions?

The evidence is compelling.

Raiderdave is confused!

Done and dusted.

I couldn't have said that better. Dave is trying to impress his own opinion as fact when it's not. He should stop.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Players under 12 can also be called under 12 players, or under 12's.
If you add "competition" or "league" to under 12's it means a comp for players under 12. If there are no comps for age groups below that age group the term under 12's means all players under the age of 12.

I hope that clears it up. I think we're done here! :D

we're not done
they can be called the first 2... the 3rd refers to that specific age group for the purposes of organised sporting competitions
no need to add anything else to that ... its a term by itself.

I think we're done here .. .. now

No. Under 12's can be an abbreviation of under 12 year old players, as is clearly the case in this article when it's entirety is taken into account.

If not why did the author only refer quote one AFL age group competition while at the same time quoting data for three other codes without age specifics?

Further, why did the author describe auskick in detail to then quote figures for non-auskick competitions?

The evidence is compelling.

Raiderdave is confused!

Done and dusted.

it cannot

I need to address the U12's football team
the kids aged 12 ?

no ..all kids under 12 years of age

then why didn't you say that ?

nuff said

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

we're not done
they can be called the first 2... the 3rd refers to that specific age group for the purposes of organised sporting competitions
no need to add anything else to that ... its a term by itself.

I think we're done here .. .. now

No. Under 12's can be an abbreviation of under 12 year old players, as is clearly the case in this article when it's entirety is taken into account.

If not why did the author only refer quote one AFL age group competition while at the same time quoting data for three other codes without age specifics?

Further, why did the author describe auskick in detail to then quote figures for non-auskick competitions?

The evidence is compelling.

Raiderdave is confused!

Done and dusted.

it cannot

I need a group of U12's for a task
kids aged 12 ?

no .. kids under 12 years of age

then why didn't you say that ?

nuff said

Context. The author consistently referred to four codes' junior numbers without targeting a single age group.

Stop trolling and admit you are defeated, Dave. You are pushing a context that was yours and yours alone.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

No. Under 12's can be an abbreviation of under 12 year old players, as is clearly the case in this article when it's entirety is taken into account.

If not why did the author only refer quote one AFL age group competition while at the same time quoting data for three other codes without age specifics?

Further, why did the author describe auskick in detail to then quote figures for non-auskick competitions?

The evidence is compelling.

Raiderdave is confused!

Done and dusted.

it cannot

I need a group of U12's for a task
kids aged 12 ?

no .. kids under 12 years of age

then why didn't you say that ?

nuff said

Context. The author consistently referred to four codes' junior numbers without targeting a single age group.

the author wrote U12's
didn't need anyother context .... it said .. hilarilously .. AR had twice the number of players in one age group then several codes had juniors all up
don't care what it meant to say .. thats your opinion
its what it said ... the AFL is named as the source ....
end of story

And another burp in reply as usual.

Raiderdave wrote:

the author wrote U12's
didn't need anyother context ....

In your opinion, and we all know what the opinion of a troll is worth. Zero.

Context is - players under the age of 12. Context is not under 12 competition.

So shut up and stop lying, troll.

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

the author wrote U12's
didn't need anyother context ....

In your opinion, and we all know what the opinion of a troll is worth. Zero.

Context is - players under the age of 12. Context is not under 12 competition.

So shut up and stop lying, troll.

U12's .... Definition ...... players aged 12 at Dec 31st of a given year

thats what the article said
no " context " required

K

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

the author wrote U12's
didn't need anyother context ....

In your opinion, and we all know what the opinion of a troll is worth. Zero.

Context is - players under the age of 12. Context is not under 12 competition.

So shut up and stop lying, troll.

U12's .... Definition ...... players aged 12 at Dec 31st of a given year

thats what the article said
no " context " required

K

And one ambiguous term used by the author does not change the context of the article. You are using this ambiguous term as ammunition when the intent of the article was clear.

You're basing these lies about the AFL on ambiguity.

You = fail

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

In your opinion, and we all know what the opinion of a troll is worth. Zero.

Context is - players under the age of 12. Context is not under 12 competition.

So shut up and stop lying, troll.

U12's .... Definition ...... players aged 12 at Dec 31st of a given year

thats what the article said
no " context " required

K

And one ambiguous term used by the author does not change the context of the article. You are using this ambiguous term as ammunition when the intent of the article was clear.
You're basing these lies about the AFL on ambiguity.

You = fail

the intent of the article was clear all right
to decieve ...

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

U12's .... Definition ...... players aged 12 at Dec 31st of a given year

thats what the article said
no " context " required

K

And one ambiguous term used by the author does not change the context of the article. You are using this ambiguous term as ammunition when the intent of the article was clear.
You're basing these lies about the AFL on ambiguity.

You = fail

the intent of the article was clear all right
to decieve ...

I'd be asking the author about that.

The intent of the article is clear in the heading. It wasn't to compare u12 players of different codes but to compare juniors overall.

The fact that you cannot see this indicates your stupidity or bias, or both.

That's my last comment on this matter. The facts are clear. Disagree if you want but I'm not changing my view.