RFC alters Best and Fairest records | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact admin@puntroadend.com // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

RFC alters Best and Fairest records

Scoop

Tiger Legend
Dec 8, 2004
19,997
1,220
First sign of the club being sanctimonious and too smart for its own good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
12,191
1,388
Camberwell
Despite his fearsome reputation Jack Dyer was a gentleman. He knew he was credited with the 1932 b&f well before he died and I have no doubt that if it were not true he would have said so. That’s good enough for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

123kid

Tiger Superstar
May 1, 2016
1,836
719
I don’t understand the reaction, am I missing something?

People have worked hard to improve the validity of our historical records. And they did.

I get perceptions of bias if someone with the last name Bartlett contributed to a change in records that happens to favour a Bartlett, but why would that matter? The evidence is the evidence, and the decision was made by others.

The club’s history is now richer.

I’d say our success helped give them the confidence to make this correction, so I guess the overall thing we can agree on is we’re all just grateful for having the luxury to make this kind of change without it tearing apart the club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
27,031
3,859
Melbourne
Yeah that's all fine, it's your introduction of the political nonsense around Bruce Pascoe that gives me the irrits dude
Ah come off it, it was a fleeting mention. Could just as easily have mentioned the historical temperature "estimates" masquerading as real measurements that have been added to the official record. I understand if it causes discomfort since both cases are egregious and damaging, but you could've simply allowed the remark to stand.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,883
2,721
The home of Dusty
I don’t understand the reaction, am I missing something?

People have worked hard to improve the validity of our historical records. And they did.

I get perceptions of bias if someone with the last name Bartlett contributed to a change in records that happens to favour a Bartlett, but why would that matter? The evidence is the evidence, and the decision was made by others.

The club’s history is now richer.

I’d say our success helped give them the confidence to make this correction, so I guess the overall thing we can agree on is we’re all just grateful for having the luxury to make this kind of change without it tearing apart the club.
For me the evidence needs to be made transparent.

If they are just relying on newspaper reports and annual reports not mentioning it, and the fact no-one can find a 90 year old trophy lying around then I reckon it doesn't pass the pub test.

Especially when, as someone mentioned, Dyer and the 15 other removed winners for the most part accepted the award at the time, so the implication with this decision was they did so under false pretences.

I'd be interested to know if there was anyone from those eras who they were able to actually speak to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
27,031
3,859
Melbourne
Especially when, as someone mentioned, Dyer and the 15 other removed winners for the most part accepted the award at the time
That's the whole point. They didn't. No 'best and fairest' or 'best player' award was made in those years. Several other clubs are similar.

Also, while I understand that some people will perceive it as "Bartlett wins, Dyer loses" as a result of the newspaper headline (which is reflected in the thread title), Dyer was first credited with the award while Bartlett was coach. KB probably had more important things to worry about and may not have even been aware of it.
If they are just relying on newspaper reports and annual reports not mentioning it, and the fact no-one can find a 90 year old trophy lying around then I reckon it doesn't pass the pub test.
"Important official sources of information of the era include Richmond Football Club’s annual reports and minute books which have been thoroughly examined. The inscriptions on cups and trophies held by the Richmond Football Club Museum have also been consulted.

Chief among the independent primary sources were local newspapers such as The Richmond Guardian, The Richmond Australian and The Richmond Chronicle. These papers have been thoroughly examined as were Melbourne’s sporting and football journals of the era such as The Richmond Football News, The Football Record, The Sporting Globe, The Sport, and The Winner. Daily metropolitan newspapers were consulted as were yearly football magazines and annuals."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
19,261
1,636
Don't mind at all that the clubs records are made as accurate and tidy as possible. It is after all the history of our great club.
Jack Dyer is and will always be the icon and legendary champion of our club, regardless of how many trophies he did or didn't win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Tenacious

Tiger Champion
May 19, 2008
3,907
742
My immediate reaction (posted last night from a late train home) was probably irritation that this issue was even being raised.

But on reflection and after reading more of the story and the discussion here - and having respect for the process that seems to have been undertaken - I'm comfortable with it all now.

And Capt Blood will always be a legend of our Club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
18,757
3,078
Ah come off it, it was a fleeting mention. Could just as easily have mentioned the historical temperature "estimates" masquerading as real measurements that have been added to the official record. I understand if it causes discomfort since both cases are egregious and damaging, but you could've simply allowed the remark to stand.
You just can't help yourself can you :vomit
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
18,757
3,078
When I say at the time, I mean when it was awarded retrospectively.
The article says the contentious awards were made in the 80s so you'd reckon there would still be people around who know why they were made then and on the basis of what evidence.

Given we were a basket case managerially and footballing wise in the 80s it could well be the case that these were just pulled out of someone's arse.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,883
2,721
The home of Dusty
The article says the contentious awards were made in the 80s so you'd reckon there would still be people around who know why they were made then and on the basis of what evidence.

Given we were a basket case managerially and footballing wise in the 80s it could well be the case that these were just pulled out of someone's arse.
Seems very unusual to me that out of however many of the 14 or 15 guys were around when awarded them in the 80s, none would have said I don't think I won this at the time.

I've been thinking about this today and it really sits uncomfortably with me. I lost my own father a couple of years ago and stuff like this means much more to me now than it ever did when he was alive so I think it needs to be done for absolutely compelling reasons.

At the end of the day however, a best and fairest is awarded by the club for whatever criteria it sees fit. There have been many changes to the voting system over the years and I'm sure that would result in changes to the winners, if the same rules were applied as today.

The fact the club chose to award those B & Fs should be the only criteria that matters for mine. It is our award and we awarded it. Simple.
 

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
27,454
1,438
Melbourne
Someone posted a photo of a page from Jack Dyer's book on Facebook where he states that he won the B&F n 32. I find it odd that they would award B&F's in random years. Obviously more living witnesses in the 80's than now - the more i think about it the less comfortable i am with the decision. Would need to see categoric evidence that the awards were not given, not that evidence doesn't exist that they were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
27,031
3,859
Melbourne
Someone posted a photo of a page from Jack Dyer's book on Facebook where he states that he won the B&F n 32. I find it odd that they would award B&F's in random years. Obviously more living witnesses in the 80's than now - the more i think about it the less comfortable i am with the decision. Would need to see categoric evidence that the awards were not given, not that evidence doesn't exist that they were.
Disagree. Think we only need to see the basis for the 1988/93 revisions.
 

Mac

Tiger Superstar
Sep 16, 2003
2,490
258
My two cents...

If it wasn’t for the reported hurt of the Dyre ancestors, this is not a problematic issue IMO. That is an unfortunate fall out from the correction I admit. Other than that, I don’t care that the club is announcing a correction in the historical records.

I highly doubt KB ‘conspired’ to elevate himself quite frankly. I really do. And Rhett has always seemed motivated by accuracy, not self or family recognition. I would imagine he has done this despite knowing the possible perception. If we’re basing angst on Bartlett ego, we’d have to also consider Dyre ego if he claimed to have won it in the absence of proof.

As far as any decisions the club made in the 80s/90s, well.... it’s not like the record there is great. Is the passing of a longer length of time a justification for maintaining a status quo that’s been incorrect all along? Admittedly a markedly different circumstance but... Time elapsed was used as a ‘reason’ to drop the Essendon drug scandal case by certain quarters - should Jobe have been able to keep his Brownlow just because some time had elapsed, or should the correct outcome be pursued (and for goodness sake....NO, I’m not comparing Dyre to Watson. Just highlighting the time elapsed debate).

To be blunt, this doesn’t change my perception of Dyer, Bartlett or any player, or the club. Dusty didn’t win this year’s medal but we all know he’s the best player we’ve got. But Prestia deserved the gong. I like the current club mindset that we’re all in it together despite individual awards ... to that end, I don’t care who’s won the most b&f’s for the club. We know who the greats of the club are. Dyre’s stature will never fade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users