1914 Grand Final

[snajik]

I recently read that after a strong first half South lost this game by 5 points to Carlton due to poor kicking for goal in the second half and a controversial umpiring decision. So including the 1899 GF and last year's 1 point losses, we could so easily have had a further 3 flags to our name.

I assume there are not too many of us left with who attended this game, but maybe there's someone with an historical bent who can shed some light on this 'controversial' umpiring decision. At the very least it might give me yet another reason to hate Carlton.

[royboy42]

Can't help with the umpiring decision except contemporary sources called it 'vital'!
But the fact that the Swans kicked 1.6 in the 3rd and 1.4 in the final quarter after a non scoring 2nd cannot have helped.
Finally done by a goal!

[Old Royboy]

I Can't help that much either. My source said that despite a splendid fightback, the Swans fell short by a goal. Final score 6-9 to 4-15. Wait for it, Carlton captain and defender Willie Duck (please insert i for u) was judged BOG.

[Frog]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
I Can't help that much either. My source said that despite a splendid fightback, the Swans fell short by a goal. Final score 6-9 to 4-15. Wait for it, Carlton captain and defender Willie Duck (please insert i for u) was judged BOG.

Then, instead of making us substitute letters, just write Dick ...

[ScottH]

In those years there was only 3 finals.

1 v 3 and 2 v 4.

The winner of each then played of for the premiership. South Melbourne won this final game.

However, the team that finished on top of the ladder after the regular season, Carlton, had a right to challenge the winner of the final, which they did, and the result is that mentioned above.

[Layby]

Originally posted by ScottH
In those years there was only 3 finals.

1 v 3 and 2 v 4.

The winner of each then played of for the premiership.

That is true enough.

That is why the Anzacs were sent to Gallipoli to fight the number 2 squad Turkey. I always thought Germany should have been rated higher than 3 though.

[bigswan]

Best on ground was South's Bruce Sloss, a pre-war champion player who couldn't buy a goal on the day but almost won the game single-handed. Tragically he was killed in the First World War.

[snajik]

Ah no worry. I probably couldn't hate Carlton any more than I already do. Some interesting detail there though ne'ertheless.

[Doctor]

Re: 1914 Grand Final

Originally posted by snajik
I recently read that after a strong first half South lost this game by 5 points to Carlton due to poor kicking for goal in the second half and a controversial umpiring decision. So including the 1899 GF and last year's 1 point losses, we could so easily have had a further 3 flags to our name.

I assume there are not too many of us left with who attended this game, but maybe there's someone with an historical bent who can shed some light on this 'controversial' umpiring decision. At the very least it might give me yet another reason to hate Carlton.

So the umpires have had it in for us for that long??

[Cosmic Wizard]

Originally posted by snajik
Ah no worry. I probably couldn't hate Carlton any more than I already do. Some interesting detail there though ne'ertheless.

Hate is always good in Football; especially when the other team crap and we are hot.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by ScottH
In those years there was only 3 finals.

1 v 3 and 2 v 4.

However, the team that finished on top of the ladder after the regular season, Carlton, had a right to challenge the winner of the final , which they did, and the result is that mentioned above.

There were quite a few comps around the country at the time that had this system. I've always found it a bit weird.

"Yeah the minor premiership is enough for us, we won't bother challenging for the big one, they can have it"!!!!

Did anyone ever not challenge???

[laughingnome]

Originally posted by floppinab
Did anyone ever not challenge???

Yeah, the years the minor premiers won it first time around.