They did well and truly research this (that was done by Stephen Rodgers), and didn't just take the word of an ex-player. I simply left most of that part of the email out, thinking that as this change had been made by the AFL that folks here would only be interested in the end result, and not want a blow-by-blow account of what they found! Perhaps the way I worded it gave the wrong impression.Am I missing something here? Is there actually anything more to it or are we just going off Torch’s word? It surely sets a dangerous precedent if the AFL is happy to amend records based off people’s recollections from events more than 50 years ago
Anyway, here's (almost all of) what Steve had to say!: