Thanks Redman both players have now been updated...
Resource List thread - Inaccuracy in official records
- Thread starter Supermercado
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Thanks Redman both players have now been updated...
Just a rather minor one, but while AFL Tables, AustralianFootball.com and Wikipedia have this player's name as Alan Brown he should be Allan Brown!:
From Collingwood Forever:
www.collingwoodfc.com.au
Oliver Gigacz
*Paul*
From Collingwood Forever:
Magpies mourn two past players
The Collingwood Football Club is deeply saddened by the passing of two of its former players.
Oliver Gigacz
*Paul*
Just a rather minor one, but while AFL Tables, AustralianFootball.com and Wikipedia have this player's name as Alan Brown he should be Allan Brown!:
From Collingwood Forever:
View attachment 930828
View attachment 930830Magpies mourn two past players
The Collingwood Football Club is deeply saddened by the passing of two of its former players.
View attachment 930785
Oliver Gigacz
*Paul*
Thanks for that AF has been updated, I am sure it won't be the last Alan/Allan I think this is the third one for 2020.
Trying to find the date (or at least the month) where the League changed the holding the ball rule, predominantly because of my father's exploits of bouncing the ball when tackled.
He recalls it was mid 1970s/late 1970s, and gained traction because of a column Ron Barassi wrote.
He recalls it was mid 1970s/late 1970s, and gained traction because of a column Ron Barassi wrote.
Derby103
Team Captain
Looks like it took effect from the start of 1979, Rhett.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136980666
Yes '79 Couldn't drop the football in a tackle
THanks Derby, later than I thought!
In WA as well. This from April 1979 Westside Football (1st edition).
I remember watching the 1977 State of Origin game and seeing Barry Cable regularly bounce the ball as he was tackled, and get the holding the man call! Crazy.
I remember watching the 1977 State of Origin game and seeing Barry Cable regularly bounce the ball as he was tackled, and get the holding the man call! Crazy.
Thank you all.
Was there anything that occurred around 1973 season that impacted holding the man.
Dad is adamant in 1972 Barassi wrote complaining of the way he was bouncing the ball when tackled, and felt the following season in 1973, there was a rule change that removed the bouncing while tackled.
He thought 1979 was too late for that rule change, as he has a memory of something similar being changed when Hafey was coach (so pre 1977)
Was there anything that occurred around 1973 season that impacted holding the man.
Dad is adamant in 1972 Barassi wrote complaining of the way he was bouncing the ball when tackled, and felt the following season in 1973, there was a rule change that removed the bouncing while tackled.
He thought 1979 was too late for that rule change, as he has a memory of something similar being changed when Hafey was coach (so pre 1977)
New rule to stop - Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (Port Moresby : 1969 - 1981) - 4 Mar 1977
MELBOURNE, Thurs. —The Victorian Football League has introduced a new rule aimed ...
trove.nla.gov.au
Holding-man rule to be changed - The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995) - 16 Feb 1979
MELBOURNE: Football's most controversial rule, holding the man holding the ball, will be changed this season. ...
trove.nla.gov.au
Last edited:
Law 13
Bruce Andrew in The NFL Coaches manual 1977
This law appears to create more controversy and earns more
penalties than any other. The major cause of the law says
"A player in possession of the ball when held by an
opponent firmly enough to stop him or re-tardd his progress
should be given a reasonable chance of disposing of it by
kicking or handball otherwise a free kick shall be awarded
to his opponent for holding the ball."
In short, it mean that a player in possession of the ball
when correctly tackled must kick or handball the ball
How is a player correctly tackled ?
He must be held below the top of the shoulder and above
the knee -or- by the arm or hand; and when so held, it
must be firmly enough to stop or re-tardd his progress.
if the player is pushed in the back, grabbed on or over the
shoulder or ridden into the ground from behind, the
tackling player shall be penalised.
It should be noted that, if the player with the ball disposes
of it just a fraction before he is tackled, or immediately he
is tackled, his opponent, having been committed to the
tackle, should not be penalised if he releases his hold
immediately.
However, if he holds throws, or deliberately slings his
opponent after that player has disposed of the ball then he
shall be penalised.
Whilst this law appears to assist the player making the
play - the player who has used his skill to gain possession
of the ball - he must also be prepared for the tackle and
the provisions of this Law concerns his disposal of
the ball
When he is firmly held in accordance with this
law he is given a reasonable time to dispose of the ball
by kicking or hand balling if he tries to break clear when
being held by an opponent he shall be penalised for
holding the ball if he bounces or attempts to bounce the
ball or lets it fall to the ground immediately he is held by
an opponent he shall be penalised for not kicking or
hand balling in accordance with this law. (There is no
such law as "DROPPING THE BALL")
Bruce Andrew in The NFL Coaches manual 1977
This law appears to create more controversy and earns more
penalties than any other. The major cause of the law says
"A player in possession of the ball when held by an
opponent firmly enough to stop him or re-tardd his progress
should be given a reasonable chance of disposing of it by
kicking or handball otherwise a free kick shall be awarded
to his opponent for holding the ball."
In short, it mean that a player in possession of the ball
when correctly tackled must kick or handball the ball
How is a player correctly tackled ?
He must be held below the top of the shoulder and above
the knee -or- by the arm or hand; and when so held, it
must be firmly enough to stop or re-tardd his progress.
if the player is pushed in the back, grabbed on or over the
shoulder or ridden into the ground from behind, the
tackling player shall be penalised.
It should be noted that, if the player with the ball disposes
of it just a fraction before he is tackled, or immediately he
is tackled, his opponent, having been committed to the
tackle, should not be penalised if he releases his hold
immediately.
However, if he holds throws, or deliberately slings his
opponent after that player has disposed of the ball then he
shall be penalised.
Whilst this law appears to assist the player making the
play - the player who has used his skill to gain possession
of the ball - he must also be prepared for the tackle and
the provisions of this Law concerns his disposal of
the ball
When he is firmly held in accordance with this
law he is given a reasonable time to dispose of the ball
by kicking or hand balling if he tries to break clear when
being held by an opponent he shall be penalised for
holding the ball if he bounces or attempts to bounce the
ball or lets it fall to the ground immediately he is held by
an opponent he shall be penalised for not kicking or
hand balling in accordance with this law. (There is no
such law as "DROPPING THE BALL")
Last edited:
This is getting off topic, but it seems that the research is suggesting that Jack Jackson (1904) and John Jackson of Port Melbourne could be the same player.
RedmanWasHere
Rarely in kitchens at parties.
- Aug 23, 2010
- 26,814
- 29,438
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Exers, Gryffindor, Rich+Ess AFLW, Tassie
Another goal thing I've found.
I noticed earlier that Bob Dummett's been credited with an extra goal which takes him from 199 to 200 career goals.
Was this covered earlier in the thread?
I noticed earlier that Bob Dummett's been credited with an extra goal which takes him from 199 to 200 career goals.
Was this covered earlier in the thread?
So this below question came about when the Kick to Kick podcast crew asked me why Dyer's career game when he retired (310), is now different to AFLTables (312). The answer being 19th man was counted as a game back then but now it. .... but the question I have while researching when that affected Dyer is:
Q: Should Jack Dyer still be credited with the game in Rd 5 1934 , Richmond v Essendon (Monday 4 June 1934), as per AFLTables
He is listed in the line-up at half forward in the Herald https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/243168115
Saunders is listed as 19th Man.
Now, Dyer's not listed in the match report itself, and a couple of days later The Argus indicates Dyer did not play AT THE LAST MINUTE because of illness https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/561320
The Age goes further and says it was a relative who was sick. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/19056658
A few days later he is listed as an ALTERATION to the side playing Rd 6. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/204809002
The RFC Annual Report lists Dyer only with 15 games this year. That's because back then they didn't recognise 19th Man as playing a game.
Hence why Dyer when he finished his career was 310 games, but now on AFLTables etc he's 312, because in 2 games he was "19th Man".
Saunders is listed as playing 6 games in the RFC Annual Report, which is the same as AFL Tables. To me that indicates that all of Saunders 6 games he started on the field, or at least came on from a 19th Man slot.
I've been trying to correlate the Richmond team of Rd 5 with MATCH REPORTS
At the moment, I cant seem to find a reference to these players playing: Bolger, Dyer, Heifner, Murdoch, Saunders. in the match reports
So what's the outcomes:
It's possible, Dyer, hearing of a sick relative, drops down to 19th Man and never takes the field (which is fine, cause his stats stay the same), and remains at the ground on the bench. But if he's not going to play the match, why would he stay at the match?
But it's also possible that Dyer isnt at the game at all , particularly if the illness is a relative. And someone else is 19th man.
I can't see anywhere atm that says Saunders COMES ONTO the ground to replace someone. So Saunders therefore might have started on the ground (in replace of Dyer?) (hence the AR and AFLTables numbers lining up). But if thats the case, was someone else 19th Man instead?
Rhett
Q: Should Jack Dyer still be credited with the game in Rd 5 1934 , Richmond v Essendon (Monday 4 June 1934), as per AFLTables
He is listed in the line-up at half forward in the Herald https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/243168115
Saunders is listed as 19th Man.
Now, Dyer's not listed in the match report itself, and a couple of days later The Argus indicates Dyer did not play AT THE LAST MINUTE because of illness https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/561320
The Age goes further and says it was a relative who was sick. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/19056658
A few days later he is listed as an ALTERATION to the side playing Rd 6. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/204809002
The RFC Annual Report lists Dyer only with 15 games this year. That's because back then they didn't recognise 19th Man as playing a game.
Hence why Dyer when he finished his career was 310 games, but now on AFLTables etc he's 312, because in 2 games he was "19th Man".
Saunders is listed as playing 6 games in the RFC Annual Report, which is the same as AFL Tables. To me that indicates that all of Saunders 6 games he started on the field, or at least came on from a 19th Man slot.
I've been trying to correlate the Richmond team of Rd 5 with MATCH REPORTS
At the moment, I cant seem to find a reference to these players playing: Bolger, Dyer, Heifner, Murdoch, Saunders. in the match reports
So what's the outcomes:
It's possible, Dyer, hearing of a sick relative, drops down to 19th Man and never takes the field (which is fine, cause his stats stay the same), and remains at the ground on the bench. But if he's not going to play the match, why would he stay at the match?
But it's also possible that Dyer isnt at the game at all , particularly if the illness is a relative. And someone else is 19th man.
I can't see anywhere atm that says Saunders COMES ONTO the ground to replace someone. So Saunders therefore might have started on the ground (in replace of Dyer?) (hence the AR and AFLTables numbers lining up). But if thats the case, was someone else 19th Man instead?
Rhett
He could have been administratively put as 19th man, but left the ground and Richmond just went without. You'd think that, unless there was a league rule about late changes, they would have elevated a seconds player to be 19th man if they could, but who knows. Maybe it was such a late change it counted as using the 19th man?
They didn't use the 19th man according to the Tuesday match report:
They didn't use the 19th man according to the Tuesday match report:
To me it looks as if Dyer wouldn't have been in the 19 at all, but Geddes would have been there. He's not in the official Rd. 5 side: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/1934/051419340604.html
Just looking at the next game's lineup, Geddes is in the side on AFL Tables and here (yet not mentioned as an 'in'): https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/243170852
It does seem to suggest Saunders was 19th man for both games. I think this also suggests Geddes (along with G. Strang and Bentley) picked up an injury in the Monday game:
In The Age the following Friday:
Geddes is named on the wing in the Rd. 5 Football Record (Dyer is also there, Jordon isn't):
Geddes gets mentioned in The Age match report: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/204826341
Last edited:
So here's some research I have done. (see attached spreadsheet)
I have looked through each of Richmond's Annual Report during Jack Dyer's playing time. And compared it to AFLTables.
In Column B - you can see that the Annual Report listed the games each season for Dyer. That tallys up to 311
In Column C - is the Annual Reports attempt to lists the 'ongoing number of games'. You can see from the 1934 Annual Report their ongoing counting is completely out of whack by 11 games. It is in 1934 that we have a 1 game discrepancy as well - the above mentioned in prev posts: Rd 5 1934 match
The last Column shows the games discrepancies ongoing between the Annual Report and AFLTables.
As you can see in 1942, Dyer's ongoing tally discrepancy of 11 games, suddenly decreased to 3 games!
Then the difference drops to 2 games.
Column C ends up with Dyer on 310 games - which is how most of the press reported him on after his last game. But their game by game tally actually takes him to 311 games.
(1945 Annual Report I haven't cited yet. But using their 'incorrect' ongoing tallying, that would put Dyer at 19 games for that year which matches with AFLTables.)
Interestingly even as early as Oct 1949, just 1 month after Dyer's retirement, a Sporting Globe mailbag says Dyer is on 311 games http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article178165793, and in 1951 The News (SA) says he finished on 311 games http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article130362551
However even as early as March 1950 (not many months after Dyers retirement),the Sporting Globe puts him at 312 games http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article178602225. and again later in the year when Reynolds breaks his record. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article178609832
Hugh Buggy sticks to 310 games in a 1952 article http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article23193436
but then later in the end of season Look at Footy publication he lists him on 311 games
In short: There's clearly an ongoing counting issue in the Annual Report. Couple that with the Rd 5 1934 dispute in early posts, and it is possible Dyer played 311 games (which in a couple of publications of the time was what was documented)
Update: Rd 3 1957 VFL Record has Dyer on 311 games
Thought in Rd 10 1967 Record, Dyer is listed as 310 games. Obviously different people had different numbers around these decades
What's other peoples thoughts on this ? 35Dacios seems to be leaning towards Dyer not playing that 1934 game. What are others thoughts?
I have looked through each of Richmond's Annual Report during Jack Dyer's playing time. And compared it to AFLTables.
In Column B - you can see that the Annual Report listed the games each season for Dyer. That tallys up to 311
In Column C - is the Annual Reports attempt to lists the 'ongoing number of games'. You can see from the 1934 Annual Report their ongoing counting is completely out of whack by 11 games. It is in 1934 that we have a 1 game discrepancy as well - the above mentioned in prev posts: Rd 5 1934 match
The last Column shows the games discrepancies ongoing between the Annual Report and AFLTables.
As you can see in 1942, Dyer's ongoing tally discrepancy of 11 games, suddenly decreased to 3 games!
Then the difference drops to 2 games.
Column C ends up with Dyer on 310 games - which is how most of the press reported him on after his last game. But their game by game tally actually takes him to 311 games.
(1945 Annual Report I haven't cited yet. But using their 'incorrect' ongoing tallying, that would put Dyer at 19 games for that year which matches with AFLTables.)
Interestingly even as early as Oct 1949, just 1 month after Dyer's retirement, a Sporting Globe mailbag says Dyer is on 311 games http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article178165793, and in 1951 The News (SA) says he finished on 311 games http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article130362551
However even as early as March 1950 (not many months after Dyers retirement),the Sporting Globe puts him at 312 games http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article178602225. and again later in the year when Reynolds breaks his record. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article178609832
Hugh Buggy sticks to 310 games in a 1952 article http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article23193436
but then later in the end of season Look at Footy publication he lists him on 311 games
In short: There's clearly an ongoing counting issue in the Annual Report. Couple that with the Rd 5 1934 dispute in early posts, and it is possible Dyer played 311 games (which in a couple of publications of the time was what was documented)
Update: Rd 3 1957 VFL Record has Dyer on 311 games
Thought in Rd 10 1967 Record, Dyer is listed as 310 games. Obviously different people had different numbers around these decades
What's other peoples thoughts on this ? 35Dacios seems to be leaning towards Dyer not playing that 1934 game. What are others thoughts?
Last edited:
That's certainly the way it appears, Rhett! Unfortunately, The Herald didn't seem to notice Dyer wasn't playing at all, and that Geddes (who missed Rd. 4) had returned to the side. It's also a pity there was no Sporting Globe that night after the game. The Age giving Geddes a mention among the best players is obviously handy, The Argus seemed to suggest he picked up an injury in that Essendon game, and I'd say he simply isn't talked about as an 'in' for the Rd. 6 game because he was already in the team!
Last edited:
Another question. Upon his retirement Basil McCormack finished on 200 games exactly. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article11910892
Now, he is recorded as 199 games.
Comparing his AFLTables season by seaosn to the Annual Report season by season, there is one discrepancy.
1934 season RFC Annual Report has him at 17 games. It also has J. McConchie at 3 games (which im treating as separate issue at the moment)
AFL Tables has B McCormack with 16 games in 1934, and Jock McConchie with 4 games.
I think the potential issue is Rd 7 1934. McCormack not credited with that game. McConchie is. I wonder if those two things are incorrect.
The Age match report of Rd 7 1934 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article204810436. says "On the winning side O'Neill, Bolger, and McCormack never wavered.."
In The Australian, McCormack is first named when talking about best players. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article141405934
Later on The Age indicates that Bolger - Murdoch - McCormack line up is unchanged for the 7th successive match http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article204824535. which would correlate to Rd1 to Rd 7 1934.
So, does McCormack get a game back and end on 200 games, and McConchie lose a game
Now, he is recorded as 199 games.
Comparing his AFLTables season by seaosn to the Annual Report season by season, there is one discrepancy.
1934 season RFC Annual Report has him at 17 games. It also has J. McConchie at 3 games (which im treating as separate issue at the moment)
AFL Tables has B McCormack with 16 games in 1934, and Jock McConchie with 4 games.
I think the potential issue is Rd 7 1934. McCormack not credited with that game. McConchie is. I wonder if those two things are incorrect.
The Age match report of Rd 7 1934 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article204810436. says "On the winning side O'Neill, Bolger, and McCormack never wavered.."
In The Australian, McCormack is first named when talking about best players. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article141405934
Later on The Age indicates that Bolger - Murdoch - McCormack line up is unchanged for the 7th successive match http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article204824535. which would correlate to Rd1 to Rd 7 1934.
So, does McCormack get a game back and end on 200 games, and McConchie lose a game
The Herald named McCormack in the side on the Friday: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/243166246
McConchie was named in the Seconds in the same paper.
Bentley was a late withdrawal, with O'Halloran going into the 18, and Saunders back to 19th man.
The Herald on the Saturday night: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/26291062
As well as mentioning McCormack during the match report it even names him as best player.
Here's McConchie named as having played in the Reserves: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/204810436
It does look quite certain McCormack should be credited with playing this game, and McConchie has to lose one! Bit of a pity for the latter, but great story for McCormack to get (back to) 200 games!
The "official" Carlton lineup for Rd. 7 1934 doesn't include Frank Finn, but it looks like he played: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/1934/031519340623.html
The Herald on the Saturday night: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/26291062
The Sporting Globe: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/184286884
The Age has Finn scoring a behind for Carlton:
Jim Park is named in the official lineup, but seems to be the one who didn't play. He's not named in the senior side for Rd's 8-10.
In fact Park played in the Seconds against St Kilda: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/10949681
So Finn needs to be swapped for Park in the Carlton Rd. 7 1934 side.
The Herald on the Saturday night: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/26291062
The Sporting Globe: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/184286884
The Age has Finn scoring a behind for Carlton:
Jim Park is named in the official lineup, but seems to be the one who didn't play. He's not named in the senior side for Rd's 8-10.
In fact Park played in the Seconds against St Kilda: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/10949681
So Finn needs to be swapped for Park in the Carlton Rd. 7 1934 side.
It is interesting that Frank Finn was described as "a new man" for Carlton in the Rd. 7 team (see post above). He's meant to have debuted in Rd. 5 1934: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/1934/030619340602.html
It looks as if he didn't play that game, but Jim Park did!: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/243177052 (The Herald)
Sporting Globe: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/184284841
Also, in The Argus:
So Finn out and Park in! Strange days!
It looks as if he didn't play that game, but Jim Park did!: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/243177052 (The Herald)
Sporting Globe: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/184284841
Also, in The Argus:
So Finn out and Park in! Strange days!
Cheers Daicos for that information.
I've compiled it and put it on my webpage and linked it our thru my Twitter and Facebook for footy public to look over as well.
One of the feedbacks about the huge B+F changes last year was the public didnt know how we came to the changes, so in the interests of transparency (and because this change affects some famous Tiger names) I've put it out there for a few days https://tigerlandarchive.org/tiki-index.php?page=Under+Investigation
I've compiled it and put it on my webpage and linked it our thru my Twitter and Facebook for footy public to look over as well.
One of the feedbacks about the huge B+F changes last year was the public didnt know how we came to the changes, so in the interests of transparency (and because this change affects some famous Tiger names) I've put it out there for a few days https://tigerlandarchive.org/tiki-index.php?page=Under+Investigation
Thoughts?
1930 Richmond AR vd AFLTables have a few discrepancies
I wont post all atm, I'll post the first one.
AR says Cusack of Richmond played 3 games in 1930. AFL Tables say he played 2
AR says Dunne of Richmond played 5 games in 1930. AFL Tables say he played 6.
I wonder if Rd 18 1930 Richmond v StKilda has a discrepancy.
Sporting Globe has Cusack as 19th Man. I can't see Dunne in the lineup. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article182995927
In The Herald, day before the match, that put Cusack or Judkins as emergency. Cant see Dunne in the lineup
In The Herald REVIEW of the match, they have Cusack as 19th man. No reference to Dunne
The next game for Richmond after Round 18 was the SF against Collingwood some 14 days later.
The Herald notes that Oakley and Watson are omitted (they both played in the Rd 18 match on AFLTables), and in are Dunne and Judkins (which would indicate neither men played the previous game which is Rd 18, and we know Judkins didnt) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article242758384
1930 Richmond AR vd AFLTables have a few discrepancies
I wont post all atm, I'll post the first one.
AR says Cusack of Richmond played 3 games in 1930. AFL Tables say he played 2
AR says Dunne of Richmond played 5 games in 1930. AFL Tables say he played 6.
I wonder if Rd 18 1930 Richmond v StKilda has a discrepancy.
Sporting Globe has Cusack as 19th Man. I can't see Dunne in the lineup. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article182995927
In The Herald, day before the match, that put Cusack or Judkins as emergency. Cant see Dunne in the lineup
In The Herald REVIEW of the match, they have Cusack as 19th man. No reference to Dunne
The next game for Richmond after Round 18 was the SF against Collingwood some 14 days later.
The Herald notes that Oakley and Watson are omitted (they both played in the Rd 18 match on AFLTables), and in are Dunne and Judkins (which would indicate neither men played the previous game which is Rd 18, and we know Judkins didnt) http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article242758384
