Talking Footy

NSWAFL wrote:

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

there are 86K U12's AR players in NSW

U12's ?

yes

so theres 86K 12 year olds playing AR .. in NSW

well .. umm .. err theres that many who are under 12 years of age

so theres not 86K U12's AR players in NSW

yes

yes what.. there is or there isn't ?

there isn't


gawd F me
I'd get more sense out of a wombat

Under 12 represents all players who are eligible to play all grades of under 12 as well as younger age groups. Not all 12 year olds fit this category as it depends on when they turned 12. The number also includes players who are 11 and younger.

Just to unwrap Dave's pretzel.....

Raiderdave wrote:

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 ?

1. the AFL did not write the article. They were probably asked for the participation numbers for NSW and they gave their answer.
2. the article refers to auskick in a number of paragraphs.

More than 300,000 children take part in AFL promotional activities including gala days, clinics and holiday camps every year. Auskick is the AFL's introductory program for 5- to 12-year-olds, and children are given an Auskick pack that includes a football, backpack, AFL passport and posters

But it was the lower cost of playing, not the sport's popularity, that resulted in Noah and Luke Carpenter, eight-year-old twins, playing Australian rules with the Glebe Greyhounds.

Their mother, Shahn Lambert, said: ''I'm a single mum and I couldn't afford the cost of two registrations and two pairs of footy boots for soccer. But their club is providing us with the boots, the uniform, the registration fee and even a ball, so they've been able to enrol in a sport for the first time.''

3. The article mentions a number of other sports including participation rates. It never mentions one age group specifically, but many. Why would it only mention the numbers of AFL participants in one age group, yet then go on to mention 3 other codes with participation numbers for all juniors ages???

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. Enrolment for junior union up to under-17s was 20,189 last year, lower than Australian football, rugby league, soccer (football to the purists) and netball

Soccer remains the dominant winter sport. Enrolment last year was 133,933 - including boys and girls - and the Football NSW media manager, Mark Stavroulakis, said the code expected a slight rise in player numbers this year off the back of the World Cup.

In rugby league, 38,119 juniors signed up to play last year.

4. Why would the AFL possibly say there are 80k 11 yr olds playing AFL in NSW when there would be lucky to be that many in Victoria!

Is it possbile your interpretation of this article is as misguided as you are?

I think so.

NSWAFL wrote:

Under 12 represents all players who are eligible to play all grades of under 12 as well as younger age groups. Not all 12 year olds fit this category as it depends on when they turned 12. The number also includes players who are 11 and younger.

Just to unwrap Dave's pretzel.....

big difference between U12's ... thats players who turn 12 before Dec 31st of a given year
& players who are under 12 years of age ... that'd be anyone who hasn't had their 12th birthday

what did the article say
U12's
or players under 12 years of age ?

here I'll remind you
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.


AFL Bull Honkey at its finest

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Under 12 represents all players who are eligible to play all grades of under 12 as well as younger age groups. Not all 12 year olds fit this category as it depends on when they turned 12. The number also includes players who are 11 and younger.

Just to unwrap Dave's pretzel.....

big difference between U12's ... thats players who turn 12 before Dec 31st of a given year
& players who are under 12 years of age ... that'd be anyone who hasn't had their 12th birthday




quote]

Sure is. I agree there. Your issue is with the author and their poor terminology. But their intention was clear for all to see.

After all, why would they mention 3 other sports and their full junior enrollment numbers, then go on and mention a specific age group of AR's?

Youre wrong. We all know it. Get over it.

A burp machine doesn't know how, Xman.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Under 12 represents all players who are eligible to play all grades of under 12 as well as younger age groups. Not all 12 year olds fit this category as it depends on when they turned 12. The number also includes players who are 11 and younger.

Just to unwrap Dave's pretzel.....

big difference between U12's ... thats players who turn 12 before Dec 31st of a given year
& players who are under 12 years of age ... that'd be anyone who hasn't had their 12th birthday




quote]

Sure is. I agree there. Your issue is with the author and their poor terminology. But their intention was clear for all to see.

After all, why would they mention 3 other sports and their full junior enrollment numbers, then go on and mention a specific age group of AR's?

Youre wrong. We all know it. Get over it.

in a vain attempt at over stating the AFL's situation of course ... with the blessing of the AFL
geez what do you think I've been saying for the last 40 pages

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

big difference between U12's ... thats players who turn 12 before Dec 31st of a given year
& players who are under 12 years of age ... that'd be anyone who hasn't had their 12th birthday




quote]

Sure is. I agree there. Your issue is with the author and their poor terminology. But their intention was clear for all to see.

After all, why would they mention 3 other sports and their full junior enrollment numbers, then go on and mention a specific age group of AR's?

Youre wrong. We all know it. Get over it.

in a vain attempt at over stating the AFL's situation of course ... with the blessing of the AFL
geez what do you think I've been saying for the last 40 pages

The author worte the article. The author collected the figures. The author quoted figures for junior numbers across multiple age groups for all sports.

If you have a problem with the author email them. Otherwise try understanding the context of the article in its entirity. Thats what mature adults do. They understand that authors can and do use ambious terminology, make mistakes, and on occasion fail to edit their work. In this case it still doesnt change the meaning of the article. Youre the fool jumping on "U12's" when the author meant "Under 12".

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

big difference between U12's ... thats players who turn 12 before Dec 31st of a given year
& players who are under 12 years of age ... that'd be anyone who hasn't had their 12th birthday




quote]

Sure is. I agree there. Your issue is with the author and their poor terminology. But their intention was clear for all to see.

After all, why would they mention 3 other sports and their full junior enrollment numbers, then go on and mention a specific age group of AR's?

Youre wrong. We all know it. Get over it.

in a vain attempt at over stating the AFL's situation of course ... with the blessing of the AFL
geez what do you think I've been saying for the last 40 pages

The author worte the article. The author collected the figures. The author quoted figures for junior numbers across multiple age groups for all sports.

If you have a problem with the author email them. Otherwise try understanding the context of the article in its entirity. Thats what mature adults do. They understand that authors can and do use ambious terminology, make mistakes, and on occasion fail to edit their work. In this case it still doesnt change the meaning of the article. Youre the fool jumping on "U12's" when the author meant "Under 12".

if your code is the one named in the piece .. they're the ones whom it represents
if they've been misrepresented by the author
why has there not been a clarification

I tell you why ... the AFL is happy enough to have this tripe released to its moronic fans who actually believe it
again... for the 20th time .. cuzzy posted a different article with just as many absurdley stupid figures in it ... didn't think twice about it

ignorance is bliss .. thats the AFL's policy
Bull Honkey peddlers of the highest order ...

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

in a vain attempt at over stating the AFL's situation of course ... with the blessing of the AFL
geez what do you think I've been saying for the last 40 pages

The author worte the article. The author collected the figures. The author quoted figures for junior numbers across multiple age groups for all sports.

If you have a problem with the author email them. Otherwise try understanding the context of the article in its entirity. Thats what mature adults do. They understand that authors can and do use ambious terminology, make mistakes, and on occasion fail to edit their work. In this case it still doesnt change the meaning of the article. Youre the fool jumping on "U12's" when the author meant "Under 12".

if your code is the one named in the piece .. they're the ones whom it represents
if they've been misrepresented by the author
why has there not been a clarification

Probably because the vast majority of people understand the reason for the article, the context of the data presented, and the agenda (or lack of) of author of the article. Its only fools like you that jump on every single word looking for evidence of something that isnt there.

Seriously, 85k 11yos playing AR's in Sydney alone! OMG! If you cannot see that was not the intended meaning youre dumber than I first thought.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The author worte the article. The author collected the figures. The author quoted figures for junior numbers across multiple age groups for all sports.

If you have a problem with the author email them. Otherwise try understanding the context of the article in its entirity. Thats what mature adults do. They understand that authors can and do use ambious terminology, make mistakes, and on occasion fail to edit their work. In this case it still doesnt change the meaning of the article. Youre the fool jumping on "U12's" when the author meant "Under 12".

if your code is the one named in the piece .. they're the ones whom it represents
if they've been misrepresented by the author
why has there not been a clarification

Probably because the vast majority of people understand the reason for the article, the context of the data presented, and the agenda (or lack of) of author of the article. Its only fools like you that jump on every single word looking for evidence of something that isnt there.

Seriously, 85k 11yos playing AR's in Sydney alone! OMG! If you cannot see that was not the intended meaning youre dumber than I first thought.

its the AFL's wish that everyone interperate like this jurno did without all the questions
nthners are far too smart for this BS to stand ...

Sthners.... AFL fans in general .. so cuzzy n the like ... are not

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

if your code is the one named in the piece .. they're the ones whom it represents
if they've been misrepresented by the author
why has there not been a clarification

Probably because the vast majority of people understand the reason for the article, the context of the data presented, and the agenda (or lack of) of author of the article. Its only fools like you that jump on every single word looking for evidence of something that isnt there.

Seriously, 85k 11yos playing AR's in Sydney alone! OMG! If you cannot see that was not the intended meaning youre dumber than I first thought.

its the AFL's wish that everyone interperate like this jurno did without all the questions
nthners are far too smart for this BS to stand ...

Sthners.... AFL fans in general .. so cuzzy n the like ... are not

The meaning of the article was to show the AFL are making some in-roads in to NSW. It was a feel good article that gave them credit, and justifiably so. Why would they give permission to an author to print wildly incorrect figures that are so easily proven innacurate. As soon as they are discredited they would just make the AFL look silly. They're way too smart for that.

Most southerners would breeze over the article and say "cool, auskick numbers are growing in NSW".

Any other "examples" of the AFL deliberately printing misleading figures?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Probably because the vast majority of people understand the reason for the article, the context of the data presented, and the agenda (or lack of) of author of the article. Its only fools like you that jump on every single word looking for evidence of something that isnt there.

Seriously, 85k 11yos playing AR's in Sydney alone! OMG! If you cannot see that was not the intended meaning youre dumber than I first thought.

its the AFL's wish that everyone interperate like this jurno did without all the questions
nthners are far too smart for this BS to stand ...

Sthners.... AFL fans in general .. so cuzzy n the like ... are not

The meaning of the article was to show the AFL are making some in-roads in to NSW. It was a feel good article that gave them credit, and justifiably so. Why would they give permission to an author to print wildly incorrect figures that are so easily proven innacurate. As soon as they are discredited they would just make the AFL look silly. They're way too smart for that.
Most southerners would breeze over the article and say "cool, auskick numbers are growing in NSW".

Any other "examples" of the AFL deliberately printing misleading figures?

how would anyone know if its a good result deserving of credit.. it doesn't say what % are ausfudge players
I wonder why ?
& anyway
the numbers have been discredited as they are presented ... the AFL does look silly for anyone with half a brain as a result of how they are presented
so we don't include its gullible fans do we
AFL fans would read it & say... cool .. 85K U12's in NSW

which is exactly what the article said... ( thats all these mongs would see)
& exactly what the AFL wants them to

ignorance is bliss in the bull honkey lar lar land AFL fans live in.
as for other examples
its a near daily occurance with these liars ....

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

its the AFL's wish that everyone interperate like this jurno did without all the questions
nthners are far too smart for this BS to stand ...

Sthners.... AFL fans in general .. so cuzzy n the like ... are not

The meaning of the article was to show the AFL are making some in-roads in to NSW. It was a feel good article that gave them credit, and justifiably so. Why would they give permission to an author to print wildly incorrect figures that are so easily proven innacurate. As soon as they are discredited they would just make the AFL look silly. They're way too smart for that.
Most southerners would breeze over the article and say "cool, auskick numbers are growing in NSW".

Any other "examples" of the AFL deliberately printing misleading figures?

how would anyone know if its a good result deserving of credit.. it doesn't say what % are ausfudge players
I wonder why ?
& anyway
the numbers have been discredited as they are presented ... the AFL does look silly for anyone with half a brain as a result of how they are presented
so we don't include its gullible fans do we
AFL fans would read it & say... cool .. 85K U12's in NSW

which is exactly what the article said... ( thats all these mongs would see)
& exactly what the AFL wants them to

ignorance is bliss in the bull honkey lar lar land AFL fans live in.
as for other examples
its a near daily occurance with these liars ....

Given a lot of the article is about auskick I would say that all the quaoted numbers for ARs under 12's are auskick. Either way, if the figures are correct the game is growing.

How have they been discredited? By your silly interpretation? go figure!

The article montions 'AFL u12's' and 'Sydney' in the one sentence. Therefore if we are to interperate the piece like you, completely out of context, we need to assume they are claiming the AFL have 85k 11year olds playing AFL in Sydney (not NSW) alone!

Your conspiracy theories are hilarious! Go, run now, quickly, get that tin foil hat! Theyre coming! They are!

AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

its the AFL's wish that everyone interperate like this jurno did without all the questions
nthners are far too smart for this BS to stand ...

Sthners.... AFL fans in general .. so cuzzy n the like ... are not

The meaning of the article was to show the AFL are making some in-roads in to NSW. It was a feel good article that gave them credit, and justifiably so. Why would they give permission to an author to print wildly incorrect figures that are so easily proven innacurate. As soon as they are discredited they would just make the AFL look silly. They're way too smart for that.
Most southerners would breeze over the article and say "cool, auskick numbers are growing in NSW".

Any other "examples" of the AFL deliberately printing misleading figures?

how would anyone know if its a good result deserving of credit.. it doesn't say what % are ausfudge players
I wonder why ?
& anyway
the numbers have been discredited as they are presented ... the AFL does look silly for anyone with half a brain as a result of how they are presented
so we don't include its gullible fans do we
AFL fans would read it & say... cool .. 85K U12's in NSW

which is exactly what the article said... ( thats all these mongs would see)
& exactly what the AFL wants them to

ignorance is bliss in the bull honkey lar lar land AFL fans live in.
as for other examples
its a near daily occurance with these liars ....

Given a lot of the article is about auskick I would say that all the quaoted numbers for ARs under 12's are auskick. Either way, if the figures are correct the game is growing.

How have they been discredited? By your silly interpretation? go figure!

The article montions 'AFL u12's' and 'Sydney' in the one sentence. Therefore if we are to interperate the piece like you, completely out of context, we need to assume they are claiming the AFL have 85k 11year olds playing AFL in Sydney (not NSW) alone!

Your conspiracy theories are hilarious! Go, run now, quickly, get that tin foil hat! Theyre coming! They are!

AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh!!!!!![/quote]

How have they been discredited? By your silly interpretation?

whilst I totally agree with the jurnos fair n reasonable ideas on this article ... no I didn't discredit the article or the AFL, the jurno did
.. I don't have that type of influence

I would say that all the quaoted numbers for ARs under 12's are auskick. Either way, if the figures are correct the game is growing.

& as for ausfudge & how its numbers ought to be analysed

2.62 There must be concern, however, that primary school-aged children participating in modified Australia Rules via school programs will not necessarily translate into meaningful support for the code. Even in general terms, caution should be exercised when drawing parallels between participation in a sport and the likelihood of people going to see that sport live at an elite level or watching matches on television. If the committee were to accept that participation were a precursor to a viable supporter base, it is of the opinion that Auskick does not represent the sort of proactive, voluntary, participation that the AFL can depend on. Australian Rules football is barely played at club level in the area, and the weakness of the Sydney competition is most forcefully demonstrated by the fact that the existing recent premiership winning team based in Sydney, the Sydney Swans, can find no suitable competition for its reserves team in Greater Sydney and choose to send that team to play in the Canberra competition. The Committee believes this fact highlights the weakness of the market for AFL in the Sydney Basin, and underlines the risks being taken by the AFL in its decision to prioritise this market over Tasmania.

hmmm
maybe they're not going as well as they'd have you believe