Preliminary Final 1971 – St Kilda v Richmond: On being crucified

 

 

We wuz robbed. The common complaint of fans when their team loses. Whenever I hear that refrain I like to offer some sage observations. Games are one hundred minutes long with multiple incidents, interconnections and patterns and it’s extremely rare that isolated umpiring decisions determine outcomes. You just got outplayed.

 

Except, I would add, in the case of Richmond’s preliminary final loss to St. Kilda in 1971.

 

I was at the match as an 11-year-old with my parents and younger brother. It rained all day. I remember being outraged along with all the other Richmond supporters in the stands as the Saints took control of the match in the second half. We blamed Ian Coates, the sole field umpire. My father, who rarely, if ever, became animated at the footy seethed with indignation and exclaimed that we were being “crucified”.

 

I didn’t know that anyone, apart from Jesus on the cross, could be crucified.

 

I recall my shock and anger as Richmond went down. All I knew at the time was that Richmond didn’t lose finals – two in ’67 and three in ’69 leading to the premiership pennants, along with inexplicable fifth-place finishes in 1968 and 1970. Those seasons didn’t count. Then the finals sequence was continued in the first semi-final victory over Collingwood a fortnight before the St. Kilda match when we stormed home in the last quarter to win by 44 points. Six of the best under Tom Hafey, leading a team that simply couldn’t lose in September.

 

The Tigers had beaten St. Kilda twice in the home-and-away season; by 19 points at VFL Park and by three points at Moorabbin after trailing by five goals at three-quarter time. There was no doubt in my mind that Richmond would obliterate them again before meeting Hawthorn in the Grand Final. The Grand Final would be a mere formality as well, since we had avenged a heavy loss at Glenferrie Oval early in the season with a 32-point win over the Hawks at the MCG.

 

But it was St. Kilda, not Richmond, that met Hawthorn in the title match. The Saints led by 20 points at the final break before going down by seven points in a classic, brutal Grand Final encounter.

 

The narrative owned by Richmond supporters was that we had the preliminary final stolen from us by the nefarious field umpire Ian Coates. Six years later our family moved house. I had a summer job working as a clerical assistant in the old Commonwealth Department of Social Security in the city. Our new next door neighbour offered to drive me into work each day, as he also worked in the CBD. He was a St. Kilda man. Upon hearing that I had been present at the ’71 preliminary final, and without hearing my take on the afternoon’s proceedings, he snorted and said, “What? So still you still reckon you were robbed?’

 

I did reckon that, and this view persisted for years.

 

Recently my brother alerted me to the fact that the entire match could be viewed on YouTube. I was intrigued. Did my perception match reality? Did the Tigers have their opportunity to win the 1971 premiership cruelly denied them by an umpire who was either incompetent or corrupt? After 49 years it was time to settle the issue. I have no memory of watching the replay on Channel 7 on the night of the game.

 

The footage is of surprising high quality. In the days when health and safety was of no concern and the MCG packed as many paying spectators as they could into standing room sections, there were 102,000 in attendance. The outer was a mass of terraced umbrellas with the rain falling for most of the game. I’m 11 again and reliving the weekend routine. My football season at the Holy Child Junior Football Club had been completed a few weeks before. We only won one game, but what did that matter when we could witness the mighty Tigers on Saturday afternoons? Throughout the footy year we watched the replay on Saturday night and World of Sport on the following day while enjoying the Sunday roast after Mass.

 

Commentary was provided by Mike Williamson, Frank ‘Bluey’ Adams, Bob Skilton, Ron Barassi and former umpire Jeff Crouch.

 

The match is fast and exciting. Great men from the past stride the earth again. Hart, Bartlett, Sheedy, Bourke and Stewart for the Tigers. Ditterich, Murray, Breen, Smith and ‘Cowboy’ Neale for the Saints. Most players prefer the blast kick method of getting the ball forward as quickly and directly as possible. This is especially true of Richmond with the brilliant Royce Hart at centre-half-forward. This leads to the spectacle of contested high marks or opponents desperately scrambling for bouncing balls when they land in open space. Every opportunity to take out rivals in bone-crunching shirtfronts is met with ferocious glee.

 

Richmond lead by 12 points at quarter time. There are four lead changes in the second term before the Tigers take a one-point lead into half time.

 

St. Kilda take charge of the game in the third quarter with four unanswered majors. A late goal to Francis Bourke reduces the margin to a manageable 18 points before they turn for home. But is the umpiring a factor in Richmond’s challenge?

 

The adjudication was different 49 years ago. A higher number of free kicks were paid by umpires of that era. Quite often the slightest contact to the back or above the shoulder could result in frees. Players took advantage of this and staging is certainly not a new phenomenon.

 

The commentators openly discuss Coates being less stringent when awarding marks as the rain makes it more difficult to grip the ball. They also refer to him paying free kicks for minor infractions to “clear out the congestion”. They don’t criticise Coates for doing these things. At times they bicker among themselves as to the correctness or otherwise of particular decisions. Jeff Crouch contends more for the letter of the law and is dismissive of contrary opinions. Barassi urges Coates to overlook some of the rough and tumble and allow the game to flow. Without the benefit of instant replays there are occasions when the commentators are unable to evaluate some calls, something they simply accept.

 

When players concede 15-yard penalties for encroaching on the mark or holding onto opponents following marks and free kicks, the experts accuse them of being “rattled’ or “undisciplined”. It appears as though they are a little behind the times. Players had worked out quite some time ago that it was more advantageous to give away 15 yards of territory than to allow their rivals to play on quickly before defenders could guard the forwards.
But clearly, the standard of umpiring is not an issue for the commentators and there is no perception of bias in Coates’ officiating.

 

Kevin Bartlett is penalised three times in the first quarter for dropping the ball when he taps it in front of him and is tackled by opponents. The Tiger speedster was renowned for milking frees in this manner. The rules were later changed to prevent him from bouncing the ball just before contact and receiving free kicks for being held when not in possession. There had been controversy regarding Bartlett’s tactic and perhaps Coates was making a statement that he was not about to be hoodwinked by Richmond’s number 29.

 

There are Bronx cheers from the Richmond contingent fans when a decision goes Bartlett’s way. Maybe this is where they begin to feel aggrieved.

 

But is Richmond getting a raw deal from Coates?

 

Other factors are at work. Allan Davis had missed selection in St. Kilda’s two-point loss to Hawthorn in the second semi final. I recall a Richmond barracker near us derisively calling him “Brylcreem”, a reference to the hair styling product still favoured by men at that time. I still have no idea as to why this was an insult. Davis simply dominates. He boots his sixth goal late in the third term. It is at this point that Hafey moves young defender Grant Allford off him, replacing him with the belligerent Kevin Sheedy. Davis doesn’t add to his tally, but the damage is already done. Hafey was renowned for trusting his charges and making positional changes only as a last resort.

 

Big Carl Ditterich, all sharp elbows and flying boots, is moved to centre-half forward by Allan Jeans in the second half. Rex Hunt had completely blanketed Barry Breen, but finds Ditterich a much more difficult prospect. Neil Besanko, Barry Lawrence and ‘Cowboy’ Neale combine to make things difficult for Royce Hart, Richmond’s main avenue of attack. Midfielders Trott, Bonney and Manzie break even with Richmond aces Stewart, Bourke and Clay. Skipper Ross Smith is just as effective as Bartlett around the packs.

 

Barry Richardson snaps a goal within seconds of the opening of the last quarter to reduce the gap to 12 points. The Richmond faithful rise and shout with a sense of here come these rampaging Tigers, regardless of that white maggot! But Manzie replies for the Saints. The Richmond defence begins to wilt and lose its system, allowing St. Kilda’s playmakers to find unattended teammates. Barry Breen, previously unsighted, has been moved to the forward pocket and boots two in the space of a minute, taking St. Kilda’s lead out to an unassailable 30 points. Richardson scores three in the last to bring his total to five, but it’s of little consolation. The unthinkable has happened and the Tigers are defeated in a final.

 

Perhaps my father’s reaction took him back in time to Richmond’s last finals loss. It was a long time ago for him; a long time for every adult supporter at the time. Twenty-four years. He once described Richmond’s final game of the 1947 home-and-away season to me. The Tigers were in fifth place and played South Melbourne at Punt Road. Dad was 12 years old and standing on the Punt Road terraces with his father. They had to beat the Swans and Collingwood, in fourth place, had to fall to second-placed Essendon at Victoria Park for the Tigers to make the finals.

 

 

In the last quarter Richmond enjoyed an insurmountable lead over South. Collingwood had led the Bombers by 23 points at three quarter time and looked to have retained their place inside the four. Theirs was the first game of the round to be completed. When the scores were posted on the scoreboard heralding an eight-point win to Essendon a roar erupted from the Richmond crowd. Ecstatic fans couldn’t wait for the final bell, with many jumping the fence and running onto the field to tell Richmond players that the Woods had gone down and the Tigers were in the finals again.

 

After the exhilaration of that day they lost the first semi to Fitzroy by 28 points on the following weekend. Dad followed the Tigers through the lean years of the fifties and early sixties when they never made the finals. When Hafey arrived at Punt Road the Tigers rose to greatness again.

 

I wonder whether Richmond’s loss to St. Kilda in the 1971 preliminary final took my father back to that disappointment when he was 12. I can’t ask him because he passed away 29 years ago. Perhaps it worked in the same way for all the barrackers who experienced that painful preliminary final loss to St. Kilda. In the light of the new Richmond Tigers’ invincibility in big games and finals, the only logical explanation for the defeat was the umpiring.

 

I discovered the painful lesson as an 11-year-old that nobody wins ‘em all. Not even Richmond. And I no longer blame the umpire for what happened on that rainy Saturday 49 years ago.

 

Richmond supporters like my family were richly rewarded for following the club with two more premierships under Hafey in 1973-74. All of my frustrations were washed away in the euphoria of those triumphs. As for the Saints fans, I sincerely hope they win another flag someday.

 

 

 

ST KILDA           1.2    6.7    11.10    16.12 (108)
RICHMOND     3.2    7.2     9.4      12.6 (78)

 

 

GOALS

St Kilda: Davis 6, Breen 3, Theodore, Bonney 2, Smith, Galt, Manzie
Richmond: Richardson 5, Hart, Cumming 2, Bartlett, Balme, Bourke

 

 

BEST

St Kilda: Davis, Ditterich, Smith, Trott, Neale
Richmond: Green, Sheedy, Richardson, Stewart, Hart

 

 

Crowd: 102,494

 

 

 

To return to the www.footyalmanac.com.au  home page click HERE

 

Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.

 

Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help keep things ticking over please consider making your own contribution.

Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE
One-off financial contribution – CLICK HERE
Regular financial contribution (monthly EFT) – CLICK HERE