Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

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

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

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

Firstly the article wasn't even written by the AFL. They were asked for figures. The author then used the figures in an ambiguous way, but this was pretty clear if the entire article was taken in to context.

Have you got proof the AFL attempted to mislead with these figures? You're already heading for 1 BS point.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

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

Firstly the article wasn't even written by the AFL. They were asked for figures. The author then used the figures in an ambiguous way, but this was pretty clear if the entire article was taken in to context.

Have you got proof the AFL attempted to mislead with these figures? You're already heading for 1 BS point.

sure it wasn't
it was given to the journo as is I'd say .....

any inaccuracies are then blamed on her

fudge fudge