Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr
Amazing this play still causes debate
|
It shouldn't but there are other circumstances.
At the time of this game, the Steelers were nothings. In forty years they had won nothing... actually had only 3 better than 500 season before 72 as I recall. Bradshaw was not an established quarterback. He hadn't vanquished Terry Hanratty and later lost the starting job to Joe Gulliam. Franco Harris was a rookie.
In contrast the Raiders WERE something. They'd established a winning tradition and also a reputation for hard hitting bad guys. (Like in this play. Tatum wasn't playing the ball. He was, as usual, aiming to hit the receiver hard when the receiver was vulnerable.)
This game is commonly considering the turning point for the Steelers, where after years of being nobodies they showed they could win a playoff game (first time, in contrast to the Raiders) and went on the establish a tradition of winning, including 4 Super Bowl wins in 6 years.
Meanwhile the Raiders dropped from being considered among the best to being occasional pretenders to the throne. That change in the franchises fortunes, and especially the record setting heights the Steelers reached, and this game being considered the inflection point, are the reasons the play is still debated.
Years later John Madden claimed there wasn't an immediate touchdown signal and used that as the basis of his argument. Yet the films show the official trailing Harris signaled touchdown.
Basically the tough guy Raiders turned out to be a bunch of whining crybabies.