News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[Sir_Loin]

Would you believe that sometimes an award was a pound of sugar?

Worth it’s weight in gold those days

 

[Michaels]

discuss the topic properly?

You mean discuss the topic as you see fit ?

The answers given were a joke

Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.

Any chance of making that evidence public?

What exactly do we have to lose through transparency ?

I also find it very hard to understand why you would say you would ignore me, yet keep coming back to attach me, not the issue but me personally.

Why are you doing that? What is in it for you personally?

Do you have an issue with me personally? It sure seems that way.

Stop harassing me, this is a public forum where ideas can be shared right? we don';t all have to agree with you do we?

The answers you got from Rhett were not a joke.

Rhett answered everything he could for you mate (and others), you should be thankful he took the time to provide answers to some great and solid questions by you.

He didnt have to come on and do that.

But at the same time we have to respect the fact he doesnt want to throw someone under the bus.

The revealing of that name should be for club officials to declare if they wish to do so.

And I agree with you that knowing that probably closes off the issue, but just because Rhett didnt disclose it doesn't dilute any of his other answers.

Edit: and no I dont have an issue with you personally,I have an issue with how you're treating this topic.

 

[rmcq]

I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.

You really need to stop this vendetta you seem to have against Rhett Bartlett. Even if he was doing it to prove his dad was the Greatest Ever Athlete in the History Of Sport, the evidence has been vetted by multiple people, including the CEO of the Richmond Football Club.

If you’re not happy with their opinion, then you appear to have an agenda to discredit the current leadership of the RFC.

 

[blaisee]

The answers you got from Rhett were not a joke.

Rhett answered everything he could for you mate (and others), you should be thankful he took the time to provide answers to some great and solid questions by you.

He didnt have to come on and do that.

But at the same time we have to respect the fact he doesnt want to throw someone under the bus.

The revealing of that name should be for club officials to declare if they wish to do so.

And I agree with you that knowing that probably closes off the issue, but just because Rhett didnt disclose it doesn't dilute any of his other answers.

Edit: and no I dont have an issue with you personally,I have an issue with how you're treating this topic.

I have on numerous occasions, quite politely, thanked Rhett for his contribution on this thread, I don't need you to tell me to do that, I already did it yesterday.

I have also told Rhett that my beef is not with him, but with the club itself. I am not sure why there has been such a paranoia on this thread because some of us don't agree with what the club is doing, on this issue. It makes me even more curious, what exactly is being hidden here, and why?

On the one hand you are telling me that all my questions have been answered so I should stop asking, and then on the other hand you admit that he has not answered my question and revealed the name . So which one is it?

The reason why the answers are unsatisfactory is that they are all veiled in secrecy, where is the evidence? Why can't we see it? What are they hiding?

Look in the grand scheme of things clearly we all love the club, and IMHO we are the best run sporting org in the country.

This however does not mean that I have to bow down and swallow and accept and agree with every thing the club does unconditionally. If you want to do that, good luck to you, but I have my own brain, and a right to a differing opinion without veiled threats of bans and harassment.

If this site is not a place for healthy debate and differing opinions, what exactly does it stand for?

Are we at the point that if we don't accept and agree with everything the club does you get banned from big footy, or harassed and intimidated ?

Is this how you run this board ? How did we get here ?

 

[blaisee]

You really need to stop this vendetta you seem to have against Rhett Bartlett. Even if he was doing it to prove his dad was the Greatest Ever Athlete in the History Of Sport, the evidence has been vetted by multiple people, including the CEO of the Richmond Football Club.

If you’re not happy with their opinion, then you appear to have an agenda to discredit the current leadership of the RFC.

grow up man seriously

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

The answers given were a joke

Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.

I also asked for further details on this and got a joke of an answer, seems sus and not something that needs covering up, something innocent really that should be explained, I respect rhetts love for the club but he seems like a bit of a snobby dick

 

[blaisee]

I also asked for further details on this and got a joke of an answer, seems sus and not something that needs covering up, something innocent really that should be explained, I respect rhetts love for the club but he seems like a bit of a snobby dick

I don't think he is a prick at all.

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

I don't think he is a prick at all.

I think his responses were that of what I said in previous post, don’t think he’s a prick but he’s responded like a snob or politician

 

[TigerImposter]

The answers you got from Rhett were not a joke.

Rhett answered everything he could for you mate (and others), you should be thankful he took the time to provide answers to some great and solid questions by you.

He didnt have to come on and do that.

But at the same time we have to respect the fact he doesnt want to throw someone under the bus.

The revealing of that name should be for club officials to declare if they wish to do so.

And I agree with you that knowing that probably closes off the issue, but just because Rhett didnt disclose it doesn't dilute any of his other answers.

Edit: and no I dont have an issue with you personally,I have an issue with how you're treating this topic.

I don’t think he would be throwing anyone under a bus as imo the 88/93 mob were trying to do something which probably was beyond their means and something that was more involving than they actually thought it would be. I think they acted with good faith and intentions, but probably didn’t have the expertise to correctly do the task. The reality is we shouldn’t be degrading their good work especially as we know absolutely nothing on their findings. ATM it’s Rhett’s and the clubs words against theirs. They may have messed up, but with the right intentions and I think we should be lenient until further facts are presented.

 

[rmcq]

grow up man seriously

Back to the personal attacks I see. Very disappointing, but it does seem to be the way you try to persuade others to your point of view.

 

[Michaels]

I don’t think he would be throwing anyone under a bus as imo the 88/93 mob were trying to do something which probably was beyond their means and something that was more involving than they actually thought it would be. I think they acted with good faith and intentions, but probably didn’t have the expertise to correctly do the task. The reality is we shouldn’t be degrading their good work especially as we know absolutely nothing on their findings. ATM it’s Rhett’s and the clubs words against theirs. They may have messed up, but with the right intentions and I think we should be lenient until further facts are presented.

I think there is zero doubt about the fact that the initial retrospective awards were absolutely done with the best intentions at heart.

 

[69vintage]

Man it's full on in here might head back too The Tan for some light reading .

On SM-A520F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[rmcq]

I don’t think he would be throwing anyone under a bus as imo the 88/93 mob were trying to do something which probably was beyond their means and something that was more involving than they actually thought it would be. I think they acted with good faith and intentions, but probably didn’t have the expertise to correctly do the task. The reality is we shouldn’t be degrading their good work especially as we know absolutely nothing on their findings. ATM it’s Rhett’s and the clubs words against theirs. They may have messed up, but with the right intentions and I think we should be lenient until further facts are presented.

I did call them nuffies, that was a bit harsh. They simply made a mistake, an award voted by cinema patrons is on reflection not a fair B&F award and should not be considered as one.

 

[Punt rd end]

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I did call them nuffies, that was a bit harsh. They simply made a mistake, an award voted by cinema patrons is on reflection not a fair B&F award and should not be considered as one.

Well if one was the winner one may have a different view about such matters...packed cinema was it?!?

 

[rmcq]

Also in reflection, being told to grow up when browsing a forum that’s about young men running around chasing a ball is a bit unfair.

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

Also in reflection, being told to grow up when browsing a forum that’s about young men running around chasing a ball is a bit unfair.

POTY

 

[mighty tiges]

The answers given were a joke

Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.

Any chance of making that evidence public?

It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

oneeyed-richmond.com

 

[mighty tiges]

What happened to 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936? and as for 4 best on ground for 4/10 that doesn't win you a B&F in a full season. Try looking at it objectively without emotion.

You dismissed Dyer being able to win the 1932 B&F based purely on the generalisation of him being like the typical 2nd year player. That's not objectivity.

He was not the typical young footballer. He kicked 3 goals in his 5th game which was the 1931 SF win over Geelong. The Geelong ruckman in the 1931 GF only stopped Dyer by whacking Jack in the jaw. Dyer would latter say he had a good set of teeth before that strike.

Dyer was best on ground in 4 of our 6 wins he played full games in in 1932. Jack had 12 Brownlow votes by round 10. Gordon Strang who had 8 votes by round 10 and was BOG in the other two wins to that stage of the season didn't get a single Brownlow vote after Jack was injured. Stan Judkins who only had two best ons all season and finished on the same numbers of votes as Jack only had 2 votes by round 10. No one else for Richmond in 1932 got more than 5 votes. Doug Strang kicked 35 of his 49 goals in the last 7 games. Jack Titus kicked 31 of his 41 goals in the first 12 rounds. So it's not as though another Tiger was consistent let alone better across the entire 1932 season.

Based on the evidence available it's not unreasonable for Dyer to have been recognised as our best player in 1932 despite only playing just over half a season.

You then add the fact the early-mid 1930s was the height of the Great Depression. Who is to say the best player wasn't still acknowledged in some way even just nominally. Jack was voted most popular player and awarded a "Richmond Cup" by the Club in September, 1932 (see my previous post and the OER link to the 1932 Herald article). Sadly, everyone from that era is now long gone to confirm what exactly happened. Which was not the case in 1988 when the pre-1940 records were apparently added. It seems strange that no one took issue with these addition to the Club records if it was all just simply made up. I also find it hard to accept Dyer or any surviving former player at that time would accept an award like a B&F they knew they didn't earn.

As an aside, if the Club now believes the 1988 B&F additions were simply retrospective awards and see this as wrong then that is at odds with their newly introduced retrospective awarding of life memberships. Who is to stop say in 30 years time a future Board and admin deciding to remove life memberships and revert to the original criteria of 150 games?

 

[Punt rd end]

It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

oneeyed-richmond.com

If you have the proof that there was a vote for the 1932 B&F and he got 13 votes present that to the club as they have said that they are more than happy to adjust it.

 

[Punt rd end]

You dismissed Dyer being able to win the 1932 B&F based purely on the generalisation of him being like the typical 2nd year player. That's not objectivity.

He was not the typical young footballer. He kicked 3 goals in his 5th game which was the 1931 SF win over Geelong. The Geelong ruckman in the 1931 GF only stopped Dyer by whacking Jack in the jaw. Dyer would latter say he had a good set of teeth before that strike.

Dyer was best on ground in 4 of our 6 wins he played full games in in 1932. Jack had 12 Brownlow votes by round 10. Gordon Strang who had 8 votes by round 10 and was BOG in the other two wins to that stage of the season didn't get a single Brownlow vote after Jack was injured. Stan Judkins who only had two best ons all season and finished on the same numbers of votes as Jack only had 2 votes by round 10. No one else for Richmond in 1932 got more than 5 votes. Doug Strang kicked 35 of his 49 goals in the last 7 games. Jack Titus kicked 31 of his 41 goals in the first 12 rounds. So it's not as though another Tiger was consistent let alone better across the entire 1932 season.

Based on the evidence available it's not unreasonable for Dyer to have been recognised as our best player in 1932 despite only playing just over half a season.

You then add the fact the early-mid 1930s was the height of the Great Depression. Who is to say the best player wasn't still acknowledged in some way even just nominally. Jack was voted most popular player and awarded a "Richmond Cup" by the Club in September, 1932 (see my previous post and the OER link to the 1932 Herald article). Sadly, everyone from that era is now long gone to confirm what exactly happened. Which was not the case in 1988 when the pre-1940 records were apparently added. It seems strange that no one took issue with these addition to the Club records if it was all just simply made up. I also find it hard to accept Dyer or any surviving former player at that time would accept an award like a B&F they knew they didn't earn.

As an aside, if the Club now believes the 1988 B&F additions were simply retrospective awards and see this as wrong then that is at odds with their newly introduced retrospective awarding of life memberships. Who is to stop say in 30 years time a future Board and admin deciding to remove life memberships and revert to the original criteria of 150 games?

I suggest you send an email to the club, it's going around in circles here. As for my comment that you mentioned first it was only an open mind looking for a reasonable explanation. I only care about history being recorded as accurately as possible that's it, I don't care one way or the other if there was a 1932 B&F

 

[rmcq]

It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

oneeyed-richmond.com

"Most popular player" is not a best and fairest award though. Rhett Bartlett has been clear that even awards for "best player" or "best overall player" have also not been considered as "best and fairest".

Pretty sure Dusty would never win "Most popular player" at Richmond today, but has won a B&F.

Anyway, looks like the club have gone with the "only those awarded with a prize called 'Best and Fairest'" line, which is certainly something that could be argued over. Pretty sure Dyer misses out either way though.

 

[Meli]

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.

Totally agree!

 

[Ron The Bear]

It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong

oneeyed-richmond.com

Note that the Hoyts Theatre award was presented to Dyer prior to the finals, and Perce Bentley was also presented with a "most popular" cup the following Wednesday by the Burnley Theatre!

 

[Ron The Bear]

Dyer was best on ground in 4 of our 6 wins he played full games in in 1932. Jack had 12 Brownlow votes by round 10. Gordon Strang who had 8 votes by round 10 and was BOG in the other two wins to that stage of the season didn't get a single Brownlow vote after Jack was injured. Stan Judkins who only had two best ons all season and finished on the same numbers of votes as Jack only had 2 votes by round 10. No one else for Richmond in 1932 got more than 5 votes. Doug Strang kicked 35 of his 49 goals in the last 7 games. Jack Titus kicked 31 of his 41 goals in the first 12 rounds. So it's not as though another Tiger was consistent let alone better across the entire 1932 season.

Any hypothetical b&f would've included our two finals v Carlton. G.Strang starred in both and took a combined 29 marks.

It's just not possible to do this.