Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Barry Waller is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Alton, Il. USA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    832
    Rep Power
    25

    The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water

    Watching this show about the most unbelievable play in NFL history, that started t alk of replay and changed the rule book. Of course every RAider and Raider fan is screaming bloody murder to t his day, about what they say are t hree no calls on that play.

    They claim the NFL wanted them to lose and they got cheated, but as I look at this play, after so many years, so many times, some t hings sem clear.

    1. The Steelers did nothing intentionally deceptive or illegal, on that 4th and 10 play, they just got very very lucky, as lucky as anyone ever, especially since Franco Haris HAD to score on that play or time runs out. Now the Raiders? They actually DID intentionally cheat to win a game, with the fumbleroosky play, They Changed the rule on that deal too so it CAN'T happen again, as they did the rule on a touched ball, so one like the Immaculate reception would ALWAYS be good.

    2. Conspriracy theory One, that Frenchy Fuqua touched the ball.
    Fact: The film is unclear who touche the ball, and the way it went backwards t hat far, shows that the impetus was caused by Jack Tatum trying to make a knockout hit, rather t han just stop the reception, or even just tackle Fuqua after t he catch.
    If he does that, game over time runs out.

    Fact, even if Fuqua and Tatum both touched the ball, under old rule, still good, play continues. If called good by Referee with instant replay, video is clearly incomclusive. AND now under new rule, doesn't matter who touched the ball.

    3. Villapiano wasn't clipped. The video does clearly show a hit from the side, at most a very borderline foul, one that would be roundly criticized if it were to decide a game. You must have a clear cut clip to make tht call.

    Also with the ball going every which way, the greatest officials in the world would have a hard time having just the right view of that block, especially the umpire, who would have been the guy making that call from the middle of the field.

    It was no more a clip that Az Hakim on the Ike Bruce TD play in the SB win.

    And also, there is no assurance that the 6-2 220lb Villipiano, no doubt exhausted, so much that a weak block knocked him sideways, would have tackled the 6-2 230lb Harris, no doubt a much fresher player at that point.

    It would have taken a Mike Jones effort.

    4. "Harris trapped the ball" Again a very tough call for officials on such a play, and no evidence exists that it was a trap, or at least t hat the tip of t he ball touched t he ground. Once again that rule has been changed, the Bert Emmanual rule they call it. If ruled a catch, still a catch with replay, unless todays replays would show at least one clearer view.

    Again, the refs have a split second to be looking in the right direction, and once the ball flies backwards, I doubt if anyone but Harris even sees it.

    In retrospect, this never happens if Jack Tatum would have valued winning the game over trying to kill a receiver. Many times the big hit is NOT the right play, especially on the last play of t he game.

    With todays rules, Tatum would have been flagged on that play, for cer tain, but those old Raiders don't mention THAT.

    Yea, maybe there was offensive holding, maybe this maybe that, but it is t he Raiders hoping for some reprieve from officials on a play they blew or got unlucky on.

    That kind of argument, like on Brett Hull's Stanley Cup wInning goal NEVER flies far among fans or players. No one wants fate to be superceded by some official on a technicality.

    Does anyone look at any calls or non calls the REST of that game to see if one team got the best of it? I would bet the Raiders did a lot of illegal stuff that day, on purpose.

    In the playoffs, they mostly let the TEAMS decide the game, and that game was no different. There were THREE penalties for 20 yards total called that whole game, and I bet the Raiders LOVED it that way, at least till they lost

    The Raiders were the inferior team that year, playing on the road, and they were only ahead by stopping the Steelers twice in the red zone, and by scoring themselves on an improbable 30 yards run by Kenny Stabler.

    They have nothing but bad luck to blame for losing that game.

    I also want to tell the Tampa Bay Buccaneers something. You didn't LOSE the NFC Title game in 2000 to the Rams on that call on Emmanuel, like they keep whining about on NFL Network.

    It wasn't a scoring play, not even a first down. It came on 2nd and 22 with 40 seconds left, and I think they were out of time outs.

    Instead of 3rd and 10, it was 3rd and 22, and the Bucs failed on two more plays to even get a first down.

    They needed a TD, so even if it IS 3rd and 10 from the 23, with 40 seconds left, how is it some sure thing that sorry Tampa Offense would have gotten that score before time ran out, when they couldn't get 22 yards on two plays for a first down?

    It's nonsense that the Bics continue to think t hat call cost them the game they would have won. I say they would have just lost differently.

    Barry Waller

  2. #2
    gap's Avatar
    gap
    gap is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Waller View Post

    4. "Harris trapped the ball" Again a very tough call for officials on such a play, and no evidence (that we have the ability to see today) exists that it was a trap, or at least t hat the tip of t he ball touched t he ground. Once again that rule has been changed, the Bert Emmanual rule they call it. If ruled a catch, still a catch with replay, unless todays replays would show at least one clearer view.
    This needs to be corrected.

    Back a few years ago, before Instant Replay was reinstated, there was a 9er fan that had a website devoted to reinstatingin IR. Someone sent him raw footage (the part that is edited out before it displays on your screen) of the Immaculate Deception. It showed the edge of the screen that most TVs of that era chopped off. The tip of the ball was clearly on the ground as Harris' hands were grabbing the ball on both sides. Could this have been seen by a ref? No one realy knows, but I have seen them call closer. And considering that was the "live" ball, there is no valid reason that one of the officials did not have their eye on the play.


    gap

  3. #3
    Barry Waller is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Alton, Il. USA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    832
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water

    Yea, right, officials always see everything, with their super vision, as far as the top of the ball on the ground, one would have to have a field level camera on the ground to see if there was a millimeter under that ball.

    It was NOT a clear "trap" at al, and with the Emmanuel rule, it might have been a catch now even if it did.

    The Raiders were just hoping to be SAVED by the refs, who called nothing the whole game l

    To say that umpire or side judge who could have possibly been responsible for that call would follow that ball as it ricocheted off Tatums shoulder 10 yards backwards, SHOULD have, in that split second, eyes having to quickly find the ball at all, maybe through some players, is ludicrous.

    Again, all they had to do was let Fuqua catch the ball in bounds and tackle him, not go for the kill shot.

    Or tackle Franco before he scored maybe, instead of letting him still arm that last guy to the ground.

    Or score more than ONE TD in the whole game.

    They have no beef, none at all, and film seen years later has nothing to do with what was SEEN, and you cannot call what you don't see.


    The Rams have a far bigger beef with the SB against New England, but those complainst never seem to get on any TV program on NFL network. Just the TD return play for NE, where the LB Vrabel smashed his forarm against Warners facemask was enough, let alone blatant holding and illegal contact every pass play, or the clear intentional grounding on Brady at the end that went uncalled. Plus Leonard Little getting tackled all day.
    Barry Waller

  4. #4
    SavageRam's Avatar
    SavageRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    413
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water

    This reminds me of "The Tuck Rule Game." The Patriots should not have even been in SB36.

    BTW, it's funny the tuck rule was removed by the rules committee this year. I guess that means Brady really did fumble the ball in the 2001 playoff game (again) against the Raiders.

    The Raiders must have the worst luck in NFL history.
    Last edited by SavageRam; -03-23-2013 at 08:23 PM.

  5. #5
    jmk321's Avatar
    jmk321 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    albany
    Posts
    591
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water

    People could complain about a lot of the plays on the list. Pats fan could complain about holding on the helmet catch and Bills fans can complain about a forward lateral on the Titans kick return TD.

  6. #6
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Waller View Post
    Conspriracy theory One, that Frenchy Fuqua touched the ball.
    Fact: The film is unclear who touche the ball, and the way it went backwards t hat far, shows that the impetus was caused by Jack Tatum trying to make a knockout hit, rather t han just stop the reception, or even just tackle Fuqua after t he catch.
    IMO, the Immaculate Reception is the most incredible play in NFL history, and I don't care about any of the controversy. It happened, and it's forever a part of folk history.

    That said, I have always found it interesting that Fuqua has said he knows who touched the ball first, but will never tell, apparently because Art Rooney told him to "keep it immaculate".

Similar Threads

  1. Frazier gets warm reception
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: -01-16-2009, 03:00 AM
  2. Fans have complaints, Rams coaches have answers
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -09-12-2007, 12:53 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: -06-20-2007, 08:09 AM
  4. No complaints about Bruce's contract now?
    By ramsbruce in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: -03-12-2006, 02:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •