News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .
- Thread starter Socrates2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Socrates2
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 11, 2015
- 9,041
- 9,787
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #2
Richmond bombshell stuns 'disappointed' family of club icon Jack Dyer
The Tigers have rewritten club history after a thorough two-year investigation. The outcome has divided Richmond and a family.
www.google.com
gunnagunnagunna
Senior List
- Jul 14, 2014
- 161
- 580
Rhett Bartlett has been saying this for years. I guess it's only now that it's been made official, following a club investigation.
Not sure why Dyer's relatives would be dirty, it doesn't diminish his standing or influence.
Perhaps there's been a bit of a spat between the Dyer & Bartlett families as a result.
1932 was the year Dyer suffered a serious knee injury that left him unable to turn at speed. He didn't play after Round 11, casting doubt on whether he would've won a hypothetical b&f, although he did finish equal 5th in the Brownlow with 12 votes.
Not sure why Dyer's relatives would be dirty, it doesn't diminish his standing or influence.
Perhaps there's been a bit of a spat between the Dyer & Bartlett families as a result.
1932 was the year Dyer suffered a serious knee injury that left him unable to turn at speed. He didn't play after Round 11, casting doubt on whether he would've won a hypothetical b&f, although he did finish equal 5th in the Brownlow with 12 votes.
Meh! Still one of the greatest. RIP Jack!
fumbler
Lazy, Very Very Lazy
Why would you take it away from him if there is no evidence he didn’t win it?
It's best to also publish Richmond's statement released tonight.
The changes affect multiple pre WWII recipients
www.richmondfc.com.au
The changes affect multiple pre WWII recipients
Historical records amended after investigation
Richmond’s History and Tradition Committee has completed a thorough investigation into the Club’s best and fairest award winners pre-1940, after some anomalies were brought to the attention of the Club Board.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,855
- 13,708
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Based on the statement it seems they have removed all pre 1940's Best and Fairest results, Including Vic Thorp, Dan Minogue, Hugh James, 1 of Ray Martin's. A fair few others.
Seems weird to have a Best and Fairest in '35 and not '36, though I'm not doubting the process to find the answers wasn't exhaustive.
Seems weird to have a Best and Fairest in '35 and not '36, though I'm not doubting the process to find the answers wasn't exhaustive.
Rodney Dangerfield
Doesn’t matter
Don’t know why they bothered to be honest.
- Banned
- #14
random as
These players hadn't had the awards for 80 years. They were 'awarded' their Best and Fairest retrospectively in late 1980s
- Nov 26, 2013
- 12,578
- 22,353
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Man U, Chicago Bulls, Anaheim Ducks
Just saw that on the clubs twitter, those that have left a response seem filthy about the clubs decision
Sounds like an OCD type thing tbh
Sounds like an OCD type thing tbh
- Nov 25, 2015
- 18,666
- 63,960
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond VFL Richmond VFLW AFLW
If he didn't win it so be it
In 2000, Trevor Ruddell (MCC Asst.Librarian), Roland Weeks (Museum Curator), and myself began reviewing the club's minute books and we noticed discrepancies with the Life Membership list (which have been subsequently changed), and then noticed discrepancies with Best and Fairest list.
A bit pedantic I reckon.
If the club decided in the 80s that these blokes deserved to win the best and fairest for those years they should have just left it, and maybe just put an asterisk next those years saying it was awarded retrospectively.
If the club decided in the 80s that these blokes deserved to win the best and fairest for those years they should have just left it, and maybe just put an asterisk next those years saying it was awarded retrospectively.
It was clear in the research that the respective awarding was incorrect.
How was it incorrect, did they just pick who they thought was the best player or did they not have the authority to retrospectively award it?
They misinterpreted Annual Reports and Minute Books.
But the award was never made, to the satisfaction of club historians. It's similar to the mythical "Champion of the Colony" award from the early years, for which Vic Thorp was credited as a two-time winner. Turned out it was a retrospective title created by journalists years down the track.
Preserving historical fact is the right thing to do.
