@johnnyjm11 For a guy who wrote "you probably wasnt even born yet in 72" , your picking up my typo on Raiders is impressive. To help you, the proper phrasing would have been "you probably WEREN'T even born yet in '72." I'm not surprised that you have switched to minor side issues to avoid the basic issue - the Raider loss to the Steelers. As I said before, just suck it up and own it. The history book has already been written on this one.
@MARILYN19481 Yes and the longest journey begins with the first step. We're on firm ground with the Steel Curtain and #12 winning 4 SBs in 6 years. Today we have #7 that will hopefully get us Lombardi #7 in 2013.
psu68born--- There was no way the call was going against the Steelers, cause guess why--It was the CORRECT CALL!! 2 Weeks ago ESPN ran a 2 hour special on the Immac Reception. Their 75 million wort of Video equipment DISTINCTLY showed the ball hit Tatums RIGHT SHOULDER. They ran the play again and again, with Same Results. Nice try Shit4brains. LOL
@hammondeggs1995 Just an unintended by-product of the intended result. If you like the Steelers then you get a double bang for your buck. The smell of victory and the sound of the tune. Enjoy.
From Ref Magazines list of the 10 BEST calls of all time:
The question: Did the ball hit Fuqua or Tatum? If the ball touched Fuqua, Harris’s reception would have been illegal by the rules of the time.
For years, the mystery was unsolved.
Then, nearly 30 years later, a newspaper reporter sent Carnegie Mellon physics professor emeritus John Fetkovich the video of the game and asked him to determine who touched the ball.
He got to work immediately. First, Fetkovich tested the “coefficient of restitution” (or, to oversimplify it, the “bounciness”) of a football by throwing it repeatedly against a brick wall and measuring how far it rebounded. Then he determined how fast the ball was traveling both before and after it hit the player.
Since the video shows the ball rebounding away from the players just before their collision, he could phrase the question this way: Did the ball hit Tatum, who was running toward the ball, or Fuqua, who was running obliquely away from it?
Fetkovich determined the ball hit Tatum. “It would be clear that if the ball rebounds from Tatum, it would rebound faster and therefore go farther than if it rebounded from Fuqua,” he said.
His numbers show that, for the ball to rebound as far as it did, it had to ricochet off a player running toward it. Or, as University of Nebraska physics professor Timothy Gay put it, “Using the physics law of the conservation of momentum, it is only possible that the ball hit Tatum.” The officials, says Gay, “absolutely got the call right.”
"If a defensive player touches pass first, or simultaneously with or subsequent to its having been touched by only one eligible offensive player, then all offensive players become and remain eligible."
There is no question that Tatum touched the ball. Franco was eligible. Case closed. The Steelers won and have been winners ever since. You can almost feel bad for Oakland fans having to put up with such a crap organization - almost, but not quite.
@johnnyjm11 I was quoting the 1972 rule. FYI in 1972 I was married with 2 sons and a mortgage. I owned 4 Steeler season tickets and my whole family spent every Sunday watching the Steelers at Three Rivers Stadium or on TV. I said earlier that I was at this game and i know what I saw live and nothing since has ever changed that reality. The history books are going to say the Steelers beat The Raiaders as long as you live. You might as well suck it up and admit it.
hey huge raider fan.it wasnt the fact that franco caught it before it hitting the ground.at that time it was an illegal catch being that it deflected off another steelers player weather it was the helmet or hand.at that time another offensive could not recieve the ball if in fact it was already touched by another offensive player..so for the last 35 years you didnt know what the real aurgument was really even about. well anyways so much for opinions
Okay, first of all, at the time I was watching this I was a kid and a huge Raiders fan. That being said, I have to say that I believe that Franco actually caught the ball before it hit the ground. You have to notice that NONE of the Raider's players are signaling or even trying to say that it hit the ground. i know that might not be a lot to go on but that is what I have always based my opinion on. But it is just that, an opinion...
fuqua arrived at the last second and fuquas extended hand struck the ball,stopping an int,however his contact deflecting the ball and then franco touching it makes the play illegal. fuqua wanted to admit it,but was told to "keep it "imaculate". the end.everyone gets good calls and everyone gets bad calls.this was a bad call
make shit up? im not sure what you mean,there is no way anyone is so ignorant that they dont know what i was talking about,so i assume you are retarded. do some research.
@thedeviltroy Ya it you can look at that same video I just watched and say what you did you had to "make shit up" You can't see who the ball hit and niether can I. But we can both see which way the ball went and how farafter contact. If the ball did what you said there is no way it rebounds back almost 10 yards. It's so silly that you can even look at that vid and say what you did. and it is also very telling as to who i am talking to
@live2win100 make shit up huh? i was stating my opinion as i see it,the fact is this video has been gone over with a fine tooth comb for decades,to no conclusion. making all statements "opinion" by default. "no way" it could rebound 10 yards?(opinion) stick your hand on a helmet or shoulder pads and have a bullet pass bounce off of it,ten yards will come rather easy. its like arguing religion,all opinion. however yours is wrong. now move the tissue box,mama's bringin dinner down to the basement
Nice job..that seals this case shut for me...it was a steeler touchdown, no question. thanks!
lucy327rss 3 days ago
@johnnyjm11 For a guy who wrote "you probably wasnt even born yet in 72" , your picking up my typo on Raiders is impressive. To help you, the proper phrasing would have been "you probably WEREN'T even born yet in '72." I'm not surprised that you have switched to minor side issues to avoid the basic issue - the Raider loss to the Steelers. As I said before, just suck it up and own it. The history book has already been written on this one.
JimCou 1 week ago
Remember it took the Steelers 40 years to get to that 1st playoff game.
MARILYN19481 2 weeks ago
@MARILYN19481 Yes and the longest journey begins with the first step. We're on firm ground with the Steel Curtain and #12 winning 4 SBs in 6 years. Today we have #7 that will hopefully get us Lombardi #7 in 2013.
tjrxk7 16 hours ago
The Immaculate Deception
Stoolie33 1 month ago
itt hit the recieviers helmet im sure
Squinkism 1 month ago
you still cant tell shit even with the slo mo
tarutini 2 months ago 2
@tarutini Only if you don't want to. Look at the response video in freeze frame. But I don't think you'll see the proof you need wherever you look.
JimCou 2 months ago
look like this video was taken with a calculator
royreevesjr 2 months ago
@royreevesjr
You do realize the source video is from 1972, right? Of course you don't. Because you're just so damn witty.
KenrodimusPrime 1 month ago 2
there is no way that call was going against pittsburgh in pittsburgh especially
psu68born 2 months ago
psu68born--- There was no way the call was going against the Steelers, cause guess why--It was the CORRECT CALL!! 2 Weeks ago ESPN ran a 2 hour special on the Immac Reception. Their 75 million wort of Video equipment DISTINCTLY showed the ball hit Tatums RIGHT SHOULDER. They ran the play again and again, with Same Results. Nice try Shit4brains. LOL
SteelerGold1 1 week ago
it would lead me to believe it hit tatom first because of the height of the ball, then hit frenchy if thats even possible
ClevelandStorms 2 months ago
what is music?
Klng5hlt 2 months ago
@Klng5hlt Its just whatever music the TV net had on the clip but running in slo-mo.
JimCou 2 months ago
@Klng5hlt well its a creative alignment of notes played on an instrument arranged into a format that is pleasing to the composer and listeners
hammondeggs1995 2 months ago 6
@hammondeggs1995 Just an unintended by-product of the intended result. If you like the Steelers then you get a double bang for your buck. The smell of victory and the sound of the tune. Enjoy.
JimCou 2 months ago
@johnnyjm11
Now THAT is one butt-hurt little loser. Might want to ask Mom to put you in therapy.
chazbukowski 3 months ago
@chazbukowski why do i gotta be all that ,just cause I called you a shittsburg piece of shit.well if the shoe fits wear it .lol
johnnyjm11 1 week ago
From Ref Magazines list of the 10 BEST calls of all time:
The question: Did the ball hit Fuqua or Tatum? If the ball touched Fuqua, Harris’s reception would have been illegal by the rules of the time.
For years, the mystery was unsolved.
Then, nearly 30 years later, a newspaper reporter sent Carnegie Mellon physics professor emeritus John Fetkovich the video of the game and asked him to determine who touched the ball.
BurnTheBurka 3 months ago
Part 2
He got to work immediately. First, Fetkovich tested the “coefficient of restitution” (or, to oversimplify it, the “bounciness”) of a football by throwing it repeatedly against a brick wall and measuring how far it rebounded. Then he determined how fast the ball was traveling both before and after it hit the player.
BurnTheBurka 3 months ago
Since the video shows the ball rebounding away from the players just before their collision, he could phrase the question this way: Did the ball hit Tatum, who was running toward the ball, or Fuqua, who was running obliquely away from it?
Fetkovich determined the ball hit Tatum. “It would be clear that if the ball rebounds from Tatum, it would rebound faster and therefore go farther than if it rebounded from Fuqua,” he said.
BurnTheBurka 3 months ago
His numbers show that, for the ball to rebound as far as it did, it had to ricochet off a player running toward it. Or, as University of Nebraska physics professor Timothy Gay put it, “Using the physics law of the conservation of momentum, it is only possible that the ball hit Tatum.” The officials, says Gay, “absolutely got the call right.”
BurnTheBurka 3 months ago
@johnnyjm11 Here's what the rule actually said.
"If a defensive player touches pass first, or simultaneously with or subsequent to its having been touched by only one eligible offensive player, then all offensive players become and remain eligible."
There is no question that Tatum touched the ball. Franco was eligible. Case closed. The Steelers won and have been winners ever since. You can almost feel bad for Oakland fans having to put up with such a crap organization - almost, but not quite.
JimCou 3 months ago
@JimCou the rules were different back then ya lame,you probably wasnt even born yet in 72.
johnnyjm11 1 week ago
@johnnyjm11 I was quoting the 1972 rule. FYI in 1972 I was married with 2 sons and a mortgage. I owned 4 Steeler season tickets and my whole family spent every Sunday watching the Steelers at Three Rivers Stadium or on TV. I said earlier that I was at this game and i know what I saw live and nothing since has ever changed that reality. The history books are going to say the Steelers beat The Raiaders as long as you live. You might as well suck it up and admit it.
JimCou 1 week ago
hey huge raider fan.it wasnt the fact that franco caught it before it hitting the ground.at that time it was an illegal catch being that it deflected off another steelers player weather it was the helmet or hand.at that time another offensive could not recieve the ball if in fact it was already touched by another offensive player..so for the last 35 years you didnt know what the real aurgument was really even about. well anyways so much for opinions
johnnyjm11 3 months ago
Okay, first of all, at the time I was watching this I was a kid and a huge Raiders fan. That being said, I have to say that I believe that Franco actually caught the ball before it hit the ground. You have to notice that NONE of the Raider's players are signaling or even trying to say that it hit the ground. i know that might not be a lot to go on but that is what I have always based my opinion on. But it is just that, an opinion...
TheMusicChannel97 3 months ago
I could swear that ball bounced into Harris' hands.
SNight322 3 months ago
fuck oakland and their cunt team.
Varangian1915 3 months ago
Wah fucking wah raider fans. Get the fuck over it.
cochranexyz 4 months ago
The 1972 rule said that if Tatum touched the ball first or simultaneously with Fuqua, then Harris was an eligible receiver.
JimCou 4 months ago
its clearly an illegal play
campcayugaa 4 months ago
thanks for the post,this is a good video
cheeseballpictures 4 months ago
0:25 fuquas right arm extends blocking the ball.
cheeseballpictures 4 months ago
@cheeseballpictures clearly,you are correct sir
thedeviltroy 4 months ago
fuqua arrived at the last second and fuquas extended hand struck the ball,stopping an int,however his contact deflecting the ball and then franco touching it makes the play illegal. fuqua wanted to admit it,but was told to "keep it "imaculate". the end.everyone gets good calls and everyone gets bad calls.this was a bad call
thedeviltroy 5 months ago
@thedeviltroy Ya and you saw what I just saw only I'm not gonna make shit up
live2win100 4 months ago
Comment removed
cheeseballpictures 4 months ago
make shit up? im not sure what you mean,there is no way anyone is so ignorant that they dont know what i was talking about,so i assume you are retarded. do some research.
thedeviltroy 4 months ago
@thedeviltroy Ya it you can look at that same video I just watched and say what you did you had to "make shit up" You can't see who the ball hit and niether can I. But we can both see which way the ball went and how farafter contact. If the ball did what you said there is no way it rebounds back almost 10 yards. It's so silly that you can even look at that vid and say what you did. and it is also very telling as to who i am talking to
live2win100 4 months ago
@live2win100 make shit up huh? i was stating my opinion as i see it,the fact is this video has been gone over with a fine tooth comb for decades,to no conclusion. making all statements "opinion" by default. "no way" it could rebound 10 yards?(opinion) stick your hand on a helmet or shoulder pads and have a bullet pass bounce off of it,ten yards will come rather easy. its like arguing religion,all opinion. however yours is wrong. now move the tissue box,mama's bringin dinner down to the basement
thedeviltroy 4 months ago 4