Jump to content


Photo

Immaculate Reception Clip


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 wcuffnyg

wcuffnyg

    Second-Stringer

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 05 January 2008 - 09:36 PM

I just saw a clip of the "Immaculate Reception" from an angle I've never seen before. During the Jags-Steelers "non" playoff game(right now it's 21-7 Jags), NBC showed an end zone shot of the play from behind the Steeler offense in which you can clearly see Franco Harris grab the ball before it hits the turf. Have they ever shown it from that angle before? If not, how long have they been sittting on this footage?.

#2 Steviek

Steviek

    Starter

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 05 January 2008 - 09:44 PM

I just saw a clip of the "Immaculate Reception" from an angle I've never seen before. During the Jags-Steelers "non" playoff game(right now it's 21-7 Jags), NBC showed an end zone shot of the play from behind the Steeler offense in which you can clearly see Franco Harris grab the ball before it hits the turf. Have they ever shown it from that angle before? If not, how long have they been sittting on this footage?.

I have seen this footage before although it's rarely shown. The controversy was not whether Franco grabbed it before it hit the turf - that was never questioned. The issue was whether it was initially touched by the Steelers' Frenchy Fuqua, which, under the no "double touch" rule at that time, would not have been a legal reception by Harris. Even with the angle NBC showed, it's still not conclusive in my opinion.

#3 Bob Gill

Bob Gill

    Pro Bowler

  • PFRA Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 January 2008 - 09:56 PM

>Have they ever shown it from that angle before? If not, how long have they been sittting on this footage?


I saw that shot a couple of weeks ago, and had pretty much the same thought. But on further review, I do think I'd seen it before -- just not very often, and nowhere near as much as the not-very-good shot from about the 50-yard line, in which Harris catches the ball off-camera.

#4 JWL

JWL

    Pro Bowler

  • PFRA Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,839 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:09 PM

I've seen the play from tonight's angle only one other time. I don't understand this, as the shot we are all used to is very annoying in comparison.

#5 Guest_Bob Carroll_*

Guest_Bob Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2008 - 11:57 PM

I've seen the play from tonight's angle only one other time. I don't understand this, as the shot we are all used to is very annoying in comparison.





Bitch, bitch, bitch! The most-used shot has Harris running straight at the camers is far more dramatic than the tame "rear-view" shot. Don't mistake the fact that you've seen that shot before with a different view being more dramatic. Every fan hasn't been watching since the 1970s. The TV people will generally go with the more exciting shot. So would you if your job depended on such things.

#6 JWL

JWL

    Pro Bowler

  • PFRA Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,839 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:20 AM

Maybe it is more exciting. It depends on the viewer.
To me, an extreme jump cut is annoying.

#7 tnspro

tnspro

    Rookie

  • Forum Visitors
  • Pip
  • 30 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:25 AM

sigh, Bob, you are really something...not in a good way...I don't think that shot was 'tame' at all...very exciting to see the whole play actually! But your opinions are old and tired, mostly.

anyway,

We were talking about that shot as well. I never saw it! I was always under the impression that shot did not exist because of the controversy behind the play. Nice to see it though. VERY EXCITING :P

#8 Guest_Bob Carroll_*

Guest_Bob Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:20 AM

sigh, Bob, you are really something...not in a good way...I don't think that shot was 'tame' at all...very exciting to see the whole play actually! But your opinions are old and tired, mostly.

anyway,

We were talking about that shot as well. I never saw it! I was always under the impression that shot did not exist because of the controversy behind the play. Nice to see it though. VERY EXCITING :P





You're right. I'm old and tired. I'm old enough to sign my own name and tired of brats who hide behind a fictitious persona. When you get the courage to stand behind what you blather, I'll pay attention to your so-called thoughts.

#9 Ken Crippen

Ken Crippen

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 979 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 09:33 AM

sigh, Bob, you are really something...not in a good way...I don't think that shot was 'tame' at all...very exciting to see the whole play actually! But your opinions are old and tired, mostly.

anyway,

We were talking about that shot as well. I never saw it! I was always under the impression that shot did not exist because of the controversy behind the play. Nice to see it though. VERY EXCITING :P


If you have a problem with Bob, take it up with Bob offline and leave the rest of us out of it.

#10 Citizen

Citizen

    Veteran

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 10:10 AM

The original NBC footage of the play was shown for the first time since its original airing during halftime of the 1997 AFC championship game. NBC has dusted it off a couple of times since then.

It didn't do much to clarify whether the ball hit Fuqua*, but it did give the lie to Al Davis' and John Madden's ongoing claims that no official signaled touchdown until minutes later -- the back judge can clearly be seen signaling touchdown as soon as Harris crosses the goal line. Also, the angle from the opposite end zone leaves no doubt that Harris never came close to stepping out of bounds, another oft-repeated claim of Raider crybabies.

And yes, NBC's footage isn't as beautifully composed as Ernie Ernst's end-zone shot for NFL Films, but it's very exciting to see video of the play as it was telecast.

*(IMO, no way did it bounce off anyone but Tatum. Fuqua was facing the Pittsburgh sideline when the ball arrived, meaning that it would have hit his left arm, and in all likelihood, boinged off to one side or the other. The fact that it bounced straight back toward the line of scrimmage almost certainly means it would have had to carom off something solid and flat that was parallel to the line of scrimmage -- for instance, the chestplate of Jack Tatum's shoulder pads. Thus ends my Warren Report on the NFL's version of the Zapruder film. ;-) )

#11 Kelly1105

Kelly1105

    Starter

  • PFRA Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Pa.

Posted 06 January 2008 - 10:44 AM

The original NBC footage of the play was shown for the first time since its original airing during halftime of the 1997 AFC championship game. NBC has dusted it off a couple of times since then.

It didn't do much to clarify whether the ball hit Fuqua*, but it did give the lie to Al Davis' and John Madden's ongoing claims that no official signaled touchdown until minutes later -- the back judge can clearly be seen signaling touchdown as soon as Harris crosses the goal line. Also, the angle from the opposite end zone leaves no doubt that Harris never came close to stepping out of bounds, another oft-repeated claim of Raider crybabies.

And yes, NBC's footage isn't as beautifully composed as Ernie Ernst's end-zone shot for NFL Films, but it's very exciting to see video of the play as it was telecast.

*(IMO, no way did it bounce off anyone but Tatum. Fuqua was facing the Pittsburgh sideline when the ball arrived, meaning that it would have hit his left arm, and in all likelihood, boinged off to one side or the other. The fact that it bounced straight back toward the line of scrimmage almost certainly means it would have had to carom off something solid and flat that was parallel to the line of scrimmage -- for instance, the chestplate of Jack Tatum's shoulder pads. Thus ends my Warren Report on the NFL's version of the Zapruder film. ;-) )





Your bounce theory is interesting however it only makes sense if the ball was round but since it is oblong and has a pointed end it doesn't work. You have to take account of the angle the ball hit and several other factors I have forgotten from my high school math classes...........I believe at some point the ball did touch Fuqua. However it may have touched him first and then Tatum, I think that would have made the catch legal. But at some point it did touch Fuqua.

It's funny you mention the Zapruder film because you would have thought that someone from NFL films or one of the networks would have done a frame by frame study. Or maybe they did and I missed it.

#12 Clark Heins

Clark Heins

    Starter

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2008 - 02:37 PM

The original NBC footage of the play was shown for the first time since its original airing during halftime of the 1997 AFC championship game. NBC has dusted it off a couple of times since then.

It didn't do much to clarify whether the ball hit Fuqua*, but it did give the lie to Al Davis' and John Madden's ongoing claims that no official signaled touchdown until minutes later -- the back judge can clearly be seen signaling touchdown as soon as Harris crosses the goal line. Also, the angle from the opposite end zone leaves no doubt that Harris never came close to stepping out of bounds, another oft-repeated claim of Raider crybabies.

And yes, NBC's footage isn't as beautifully composed as Ernie Ernst's end-zone shot for NFL Films, but it's very exciting to see video of the play as it was telecast.

*(IMO, no way did it bounce off anyone but Tatum. Fuqua was facing the Pittsburgh sideline when the ball arrived, meaning that it would have hit his left arm, and in all likelihood, boinged off to one side or the other. The fact that it bounced straight back toward the line of scrimmage almost certainly means it would have had to carom off something solid and flat that was parallel to the line of scrimmage -- for instance, the chestplate of Jack Tatum's shoulder pads. Thus ends my Warren Report on the NFL's version of the Zapruder film. ;-) )


Here are two of my all-time favorite quotes:

"Can't we all just get along together." Rodney King

""Frenchy, let it remain an Immaculate Reception." Art Rooney

#13 BD Sullivan

BD Sullivan

    All-Decade

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,615 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 03:33 PM

I can recall the NFL Films version where Al LoCasale (an Al Davis lackey) describes "what he heard." In his version, the refs got on the phone, and instead of asking the upstairs booth their call on the play, were asking how much security they had to get out of the stadium. When told it wasn't enough to avoid a mob pummeling, they announced that the TD was legit. Presumably, LoCasale and Davis then went out to sample some sour grapes.

#14 wcuffnyg

wcuffnyg

    Second-Stringer

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 06 January 2008 - 04:23 PM

I can recall the NFL Films version where Al LoCasale (an Al Davis lackey) describes "what he heard." In his version, the refs got on the phone, and instead of asking the upstairs booth their call on the play, were asking how much security they had to get out of the stadium. When told it wasn't enough to avoid a mob pummeling, they announced that the TD was legit. Presumably, LoCasale and Davis then went out to sample some sour grapes.

I have read in a couple of articles where there was question whether Franco caught it in the air. CBS did a piece where they asked Franco this. That's why I brought it up. In the NFL Films clip his hands go below the frame so you can't see the catch. In the side clip, there is a jump in the clip so you can't see it either. I like the endzone clip( nothing against the NFL Films clip), because it's the first time I've seen the whole play clearly from start to finish. And I saw the game when it originally broadcast back in '72 when I was, oh, five. So after 35 years, it was good to see a new perspective.

#15 Kelly1105

Kelly1105

    Starter

  • PFRA Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Pa.

Posted 06 January 2008 - 04:34 PM

I have read in a couple of articles where there was question whether Franco caught it in the air. CBS did a piece where they asked Franco this. That's why I brought it up. In the NFL Films clip his hands go below the frame so you can't see the catch. In the side clip, there is a jump in the clip so you can't see it either. I like the endzone clip( nothing against the NFL Films clip), because it's the first time I've seen the whole play clearly from start to finish. And I saw the game when it originally broadcast back in '72 when I was, oh, five. So after 35 years, it was good to see a new perspective.



That was the first time I saw the play at that angle myself and I to was about 5 when the game was played. I know it was on but I was probably distracted by my Planet of the Apes Treehouse to have fully grasp the significance of the play.

#16 Guest_Bob Carroll_*

Guest_Bob Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2008 - 08:23 PM

That was the first time I saw the play at that angle myself and I to was about 5 when the game was played. I know it was on but I was probably distracted by my Planet of the Apes Treehouse to have fully grasp the significance of the play.




I wrote a column for Pro Football Weekly explaining how the Immaculate Reception almost killed me. As the game was ending, I gave up. My wife and mother-in-law stayed in front of the TV, but I went upstairs to the bathroom to attend to a problem that had made the whole fourth quarter uncomfortable. I had barely sat down when shouts, cheers, and screams of joy erupted from the livingroom below. I've never been good at multi-tasking. Starting down the stairs while pulling up my trousers proved beyond me. For a brief second I found myself unattached to anything but thin air. Somehow my right hand interceptrd the railing, and instead of cartwheeling down the stairs, I bounced against the wall and banged my knee. Only later, after celebrating the Steeler victory, did it occur to me that Franco's catch nearly broke my neck.

#17 JohnR

JohnR

    Starter

  • PFRA Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2008 - 09:33 PM

I was 12 & a Raider fan. It was the first playoff game I ever watched & I recall staring at the TV in disbelief for about 20 minutes after the game ended. I was hooked as a Ken Stabler fan from then on. I wish they'd show his TD run whenever they show that play. What about context?

#18 Gabe

Gabe

    Starter

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincoln, NE

Posted 06 January 2008 - 09:34 PM

Thus ends my Warren Report on the NFL's version of the Zapruder film. ;-) )



You just reminded me of the Super Bowl V highlights film in which NFL Films replayed in slow motion the trajectory of the ball after it was tipped by Eddie Hinton and then, allegedly, Mel Renfro before being caught by John Mackey for a score. During the slow motion replay, John Facenda advises the viewer to notice that the spiral changes after being tipped by Renfro, proof that Renfro did in fact touch the ball. I have not been able to see the change in trajectory as described by Facenda, though I don't question that Renfro may have touched the ball on that play.

Another NFL Films version of the Zapruder film is the frame by frame reproduction of Bart Starr's sneak on the Ice Bowl that may or may not show that Kramer starting a fraction of a second before the ball was snapped. It strikes me as funny that even with these slow motion and frame by frame enhancements being inconclusive, someone will always blame the officials for missing a so-called obvious call.

As for the Immaculate Reception, it remains one of the most amazing plays I've ever seen. It was really a mundane 4th down incompletion, with nothing spectacular about Bradshaw' pass or Tatum's hit on Fuqua. I was in fact getting out of my seat to leave the room when Harris caught the ball. It went from mundane - up until that point, the game had been pretty boring- to exciting very quickly. Although it was not clear whether the ball had been touched by Tatum or Fuqua first, I remember thinking at the time that a play as amazing as that would only be called back if the officials knew with certainty that the ball had touched Fuqua and not Tatum.

#19 Citizen

Citizen

    Veteran

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 09:46 AM

I was 12 & a Raider fan. It was the first playoff game I ever watched & I recall staring at the TV in disbelief for about 20 minutes after the game ended. I was hooked as a Ken Stabler fan from then on. I wish they'd show his TD run whenever they show that play. What about context?


You're right, that's the play that's always forgotten when this game is discussed. I still don't know how a slowpoke like Stabler got outside the Steeler pass rush and made it 30 yards to the end zone.

It always amuses me when this is referred to as one of the all-time great games. The ending was unbelievable, breathtaking, pick your superlative. But up until Stabler put the Raiders ahead, the game was pretty humdrum.

#20 BD Sullivan

BD Sullivan

    All-Decade

  • Forum Visitors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,615 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 10:18 AM

I'm guessing the game was before Stabler's knees truly went to Hell. What seems odd is that in the first 58 minutes and 47 seconds preceding his run, the only scores were two Roy Gerela field goals. Had the Steelers held the Raiders on that drive, they would have run out the clock for a 6-0 win, and journalists would have talked about how dull the game was--no doubt comparing it to the 5-0 Cowboy win over the Lions two years earlier.

Interestingly, in the NYT article the day after the game was this note: "John Madden, in his post-game comments, indicated from his view, the football had indeed touched Tatum." That sounds much different than the 2007-08 Madden version that buys into the whining about how it "might have" hit Fuqua.