I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.
Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.
Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.
If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.
Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?
All well and good but you didn't list 1 player you listed 22 players over a 12 year period, so did you or did you not get that information from somewhere?
Yes it is easily found and yes it is common knowledge that all AFL players are drafted but to reproduce it such detail like you have means you sourced it from somewhere which should be IMHO be noted
But I get that you are refusing to do so
I reckon it's common knowledge that most of our picks have been stuffed up in the past 30 years
And in Hardwick's time, not only stuffed up but failed to develop any of the possibles into decent footballers.
