Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Your issue is with the author of the article and the fact he used ambiguous terminology.

Auskick, which the author mentions a number of times, is for ages under 12. There is no mention of AFL under 12 leagues or clubs, just participants under 12 years of age in NSW. This is exactly what auskick is!

You morons completely misunderstood the article and went into a frenzy, all because you lack basic skills of interpretation and understanding!

U12's .. not participants U12 ..
there a massive difference


U12's is reference to an age group with the addtion of the .. s.. singular .. not a range of ages
no mention of any range of ages where the 85,154 is concerned

we didn't understand it .. oh we understood just fine
its a typical headline whore attempt by the look at me .. look at me AFL

its embarrasing

If an article like that came out about NRL .. as poor .. as misleading

the NRL would have said so & corrected the nonsense in it
the AFL's reponse to this pile of poo & the one cuzzy posted

crickets chirping
why would we expect anything else from these lying scum.

I understood the article on the first read. You did not. It was referring to auskick, of which it mentioned in depth and on a number of occasions. It never mentioned AFL clubs or leagues just "numbers".

Sure, get upset about the way it was written, or it's headline. But don't blame the AFL! They were correct. The number of Australian rules juniors in NSW under 12 yrs have doubled. This of course is an astounding result! Your lack of intelligence is also astounding!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Your issue is with the author of the article and the fact he used ambiguous terminology.

Auskick, which the author mentions a number of times, is for ages under 12. There is no mention of AFL under 12 leagues or clubs, just participants under 12 years of age in NSW. This is exactly what auskick is!

You morons completely misunderstood the article and went into a frenzy, all because you lack basic skills of interpretation and understanding!

U12's .. not participants U12 ..
there a massive difference


U12's is reference to an age group with the addtion of the .. s.. singular .. not a range of ages
no mention of any range of ages where the 85,154 is concerned

we didn't understand it .. oh we understood just fine
its a typical headline whore attempt by the look at me .. look at me AFL

its embarrasing

If an article like that came out about NRL .. as poor .. as misleading

the NRL would have said so & corrected the nonsense in it
the AFL's reponse to this pile of poo & the one cuzzy posted

crickets chirping
why would we expect anything else from these lying scum.

I understood the article on the first read. You did not. It was referring to auskick, of which it mentioned in depth and on a number of occasions. It never mentioned AFL clubs or leagues just "numbers".

Sure, get upset about the way it was written, or it's headline. But don't blame the AFL! They were correct. The number of Australian rules juniors in NSW under 12 yrs have doubled. This of course is an astounding result! Your lack of intelligence is also astounding!

your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....
no mention of any age bracket when using 86K as the figure doubled .... they say U12's
you can try n explain this away .. thats whats written , its embarrasing when exposed isn't it
I maintain the AFL was attempting to .. misrepresent their figures
like they do at every opportunity .... they'll get away with these absurd claims if they can ... cuzzies article was equally absurd .. theres no mention at all of the fudge program ( auskick) in that
its quite clear the AFL is reponsible for the article going through as is .....as it is written.. it is a lie
it came from them.. they are liars

fullstop

Raiderdave wrote:

your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....

Your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....

Your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....

yep

With the winter junior sport season starting across Sydney this morning, AFL NSW/ACT says junior Australian rules numbers have doubled for under-12s since 2005, from 41,807 to 85,154 last year.

how anyone could interperate this.. what is written here .. in any other way .. reeks of the delltones
but but but .. derp derp derp

& lames suggestions saying it says anything else ...to be disregarded
here we have an AFL self promotion article & what is written in it.. that is not even close to being accurate


how many more are as inaccurate ?

oh .. just heaps

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....

Your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....

yep

With the winter junior sport season starting across Sydney this morning, AFL NSW/ACT says junior Australian rules numbers have doubled for under-12s since 2005, from 41,807 to 85,154 last year.

how anyone could interperate this.. what is written here .. in any other way .. reeks of the delltones
but but but .. derp derp derp

& lames suggestions saying it says anything else ...to be disregarded
here we have an AFL self promotion article & what is written in it.. that is not even close to being accurate


how many more are as inaccurate ?

oh .. just heaps

Context, that's what it's called. You don't take one sentence in isolation and assume you can understand the full context. The very reason of the article was to say that auskick numbers had expanded greatly and this was a concern for RL in NSW. This is why the article makes a point of describing auskick fairly thoroughly. This is why the article calls the players 'numbers' not club players. This is why the article describes auskick as 5-12 and the numbers as under 12.

By taking that quote literally you are saying the author meant that there are 80k 11 yo kids playing in AFL clubs in Sydney alone! Are you seriously trying to tell us that? There would be lucky to be that many in Victoria! Talk about taking a poorly written sentence completely out of context!!

You've clearly misunderstood the article. I have shown you the truth. Now you are letting your biassed views take over and spouting stuff that just isn't true. The AFL never came out and said they had 80k 11yr olds playing ARs in under 12 leagues in NSW. Never.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Your interpretation of the article is just that .. yours ....

yep

With the winter junior sport season starting across Sydney this morning, AFL NSW/ACT says junior Australian rules numbers have doubled for under-12s since 2005, from 41,807 to 85,154 last year.

how anyone could interperate this.. what is written here .. in any other way .. reeks of the delltones
but but but .. derp derp derp

& lames suggestions saying it says anything else ...to be disregarded
here we have an AFL self promotion article & what is written in it.. that is not even close to being accurate


how many more are as inaccurate ?

oh .. just heaps

Context, that's what it's called. You don't take one sentence in isolation and assume you can understand the full context. The very reason of the article was to say that auskick numbers had expanded greatly and this was a concern for RL in NSW. This is why the article makes a point of describing auskick fairly thoroughly. This is why the article calls the players 'numbers' not club players. This is why the article describes auskick as 5-12 and the numbers as under 12.

By taking that quote literally you are saying the author meant that there are 80k 11 yo kids playing in AFL clubs in Sydney alone! Are you seriously trying to tell us that? There would be lucky to be that many in Victoria! Talk about taking a poorly written sentence completely out of context!!

You've clearly misunderstood the article. I have shown you the truth. Now you are letting your biassed views take over and spouting stuff that just isn't true. The AFL never came out and said they had 80k 11yr olds playing ARs in under 12 leagues in NSW. Never.

Context, that's what it's called. You don't take one sentence in isolation

you do when it says what it said , with no reference in the sentence to anything else .... misread into it what you want ... a professional .. a journalist .. saw it the way I did .. plenty of others would too
except excuse making flogball merkins like yourself ..
K

No, you take one sentence in isolation for one purpose only. To intentionally misrepresent what was said.

You are the one making excuses, bub.

NSWAFL wrote:

No, you take one sentence in isolation for one purpose only. To intentionally misrepresent what was said.

You are the one making excuses, bub.

no .. that'd be the AFL

so now you're not agreeing .. with the figures in this Article ?
despite a dozen quotes from you I could find .. where you are pleading with me .. that they're quite correct

are you confused NSWAFL ?

No, you are confused, befuddled and bewitched - and in denial.

NSWAFL wrote:

No, you are confused, befuddled and bewitched - and in denial.

please agree or disagree with the following statement

Xmans is quite wrong .. in his assertion that I misunderstood the article about there being 86K U12 AR players in NSW .. & in fact there isn't &... this 86K was refering to ausfudge numbers

its simple
correct or not ?

I have already covered this and do not feel the desire to repeat myself.

NSWAFL wrote:

I have already covered this and do not feel the desire to repeat myself.

you've covered nothing

on one thread on this topic you declare the numbers as correct ... as is
on another you seem to indicate they are misrepresented

which is it NSWAFL ?

As usual the followers of rl have thrown in the towel and conceded defeat.
They have no time for logic, statistics, references or debate.
Until then, we can can consider this a win for Australian Football over the imported imperial English game.

cos789 wrote:

As usual the followers of rl have thrown in the towel and conceded defeat.
They have no time for logic, statistics, references or debate.
Until then, we can can consider this a win for Australian Football over the imported imperial English game.

heres something new for you

try posting some worth debating
K

We have, and you are twisting it like a pretzel into something unrecognisable.