Anniversary: Immaculate Reception

[Brad K]

Dec 23 1972

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIXFKrrUhA

[BaseballMan]

You mean the Immaculate Deception.

[Ragnar]

Ball hit the ground.

[low]

Yup, ball hit the ground.

[pilight]

Doesn't matter if the ball hit the ground. No defender touched it, so under the rules at that time only Fuqua was eligible to catch it after the deflection.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Any call that makes a California team lose is ALWAYS the correct call.

[RchW]

LOL it didn't hit the ground and it was deflected by Tatum.

[Cobra Mgr]

Amazing this play still causes debate

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Amazing this play still causes debate

Why wouldn't it? Raiders were up 7-6 and the game was over. The chances of winning that game for the Steelers as Terry dropped back to pass were infinitesimal. Of course Raiders fans have to grasp at something. They're in denial.

I was just joking with my comment because I know it causes debate.

Pause it and go to the 1:18 mark in that video. It looks like there might be some green between the ball and where Franco caught it, but nothing conclusive.

Did the defender touch the ball or just the WR? No way you can say either way from that video. But anyone that isn't a Raiders fan can see the defender had an impact on the way the ball came out. But did he touch the ball, or just the defender?

It would be like me, as a Cowboys fan, complaining about a similar incident in Super Bowl V.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNW8xp2y0g

At the 1:15 mark is the play. We know the Colts player touched it. But did #20 on the Cowboys touch it? If not, the play is dead. But the call was that he did and there is no way to know for sure, so I believe the right call was made. Just like with the Immaculate reception.

[Brad K]

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.

[Cobra Mgr]

I know the history of the play guys. I've seen replays & docus on it for years & done research myself. Like I said, it is amazing 45+ yrs later it still sparks debate. People make definitive conclusions about it when there is nothing conclusive about it. I've seen nothing nor heard any argument that would lead me to say one way or the other. And I don't know how anyone else could that wasn't a neutral party on the field live.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

Good post. I agree with all but the bold. Up until the mid 80s the Raiders were still the most winningest team in any sport. Then went on to win 3 more Super bowls in the next 11 years.

I don't know why Madden would say that, sour grapes? Clearly the ref signaled TD. But much worse than that were the comments made by Al Davis. He's an embarrassment.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Good post. I agree with all but the bold. Up until the mid 80s the Raiders were still the most winningest team in any sport. Then went on to win 3 more Super bowls in the next 11 years.

I don't know why Madden would say that, sour grapes? Clearly the ref signaled TD. But much worse than that were the comments made by Al Davis. He's an embarrassment.

It was also the beginning of a great rivalry. Steeler/Raider games in the 70's and early 80's were must see football. Those were some tough, nasty defenses and they just seemed to despise each other on the field.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I don't know why Madden would say that, sour grapes? Clearly the ref signaled TD. But much worse than that were the comments made by Al Davis. He's an embarrassment.

I don't think Madden was talking about the ref signaling the td as much as he was more likely talking about how the officials had to get together before finally making the call. I know its a common scene now but back then i don't believe they discussed or reviewed calls that much. If my memory is correct, i think the nfl still didn't review calls when Mike Renfro made his td catch against the steelers in the 1979 AFC championship game that was ruled incomplete.

[swoboda]

1. It was incredible to watch on live TV while it happened.
2. Couldn't believe that last Raider closing in on Franco on the sideline couldn't catch him
3. How you view that play pretty much depends on which team you root for.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by swoboda

3. How you view that play pretty much depends on which team you root for.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I know the history of the play guys. I've seen replays & docus on it for years & done research myself. Like I said, it is amazing 45+ yrs later it still sparks debate. People make definitive conclusions about it when there is nothing conclusive about it. I've seen nothing nor heard any argument that would lead me to say one way or the other. And I don't know how anyone else could that wasn't a neutral party on the field live.

Its not a matter of there being nothing conclusive one way or another. Fact is there is nothing to contradict what happened as called by the announcers as it happened. And in their contemporaneous commentary on the replays. They called what they saw. Ball hit Tatum and Harris caught it in the air. The concept of excited utterance comes to mind.

The Raiders to a man chased Harris. Not something they would do if they knew it was an illegal catch or if the ball hit the ground. We see the opposite all the time. Guy grabs a loose ball after a "fumble" and runs for the end zone while everyone else stands around knowing it was an incomplete pass.

The play happened as called by the announcers and as perceived by the players on the field. All that opposes that is theories with no supporting evidence let alone proof.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Its not a matter of there being nothing conclusive one way or another. Fact is there is nothing to contradict what happened as called by the announcers as it happened.

There is nothing tangible to support what they called either.

And in their contemporaneous commentary on the replays. They called what they saw. Ball hit Tatum and Harris caught it in the air. The concept of excited utterance comes to mind.

And if the naked eye could see exactly what happens with supreme athletes at full speed we wouldn't need replay.

The Raiders to a man chased Harris. Not something they would do if they knew it was an illegal catch or if the ball hit the ground.

Uh, yeah they would. That's why there is the old cliche' "play until the whistle". They are taught to assume nothing.

We see the opposite all the time. Guy grabs a loose ball after a "fumble" and runs for the end zone while everyone else stands around knowing it was an incomplete pass.

When it is obvious, yes. When its close, again, they play until the whistle. In fact, a lot of times what happens isn't obvious. That is why NFL refs are told not to blow their whistle too early less they cost a team a turnover. Ask the Saints and Bucs about that. You act as if athletes know exactly what happens in real time. If they did, JR Smith wouldn't have tried to dribble out the clock. Plays like this wouldn't happen.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Its not a matter of there being nothing conclusive one way or another. Fact is there is nothing to contradict what happened as called by the announcers as it happened. And in their contemporaneous commentary on the replays. They called what they saw. Ball hit Tatum and Harris caught it in the air. The concept of excited utterance comes to mind.

The Raiders to a man chased Harris. Not something they would do if they knew it was an illegal catch or if the ball hit the ground. We see the opposite all the time. Guy grabs a loose ball after a "fumble" and runs for the end zone while everyone else stands around knowing it was an incomplete pass.

The play happened as called by the announcers and as perceived by the players on the field. All that opposes that is theories with no supporting evidence let alone proof.

So whatever the announcers say is the correct call? Um so why do we have play reviews?
So what if players stand around. It probably means they are not coached right. Most coaches teach players to go until they hear the whistle. Not stand around cause they THINK the play is over.
Makes no difference if the ball hit the ground or not till the whistle blows.

[Brad K]

Could have. Might have. Conspiracy theory stuff.

Makes as much sense as... The officials were of the age when as children they were required to receive vaccinations and the effects of vaccinations in combination with drinking water with added Fluoride resulted in a weakened mental state so that activation of the HAARP mind control beam caused them to rule in favor of the Steelers. And, as "never winners" the Steelers were logical recipients of a win under the "each according to his need" philosophy promoted by the deep state of socialists within NFL management.