Football I got an E-mail from Fox Sports tonight...

**kysirsoze** · 03-20-2009, 12:47 AM

So a couple of months ago I was up late watching a "Best Damn" count down of the 50 most spectacular plays in football history. I don't normally take action in a case like this but I responded with an email, sure that it would fall on deaf ears. I wrote the following:

"You guys had the Immaculate Reception at #1 on your spectacular plays list. Then you said it was controversial because Franco Harris might have let the ball touch the ground. To my knowledge, few contest whether or not he caught the ball. The question is whether it was legal or not. At the time, in the NFL you couldn't catch a ball that had been tipped by a teammate. It was clearly tipped by the receiver before it falls into Harris' hands. The refs went with the touchdown because they knew security wouldn't be able to protect them from the unruly fans. It was a bogus play that doesn't belong on this list (at least not on top.)

For the record I am a Chiefs fan so if anyone should enjoy seeing the Raiders suffer it's me. However, misinformation bothers me more.

Stephen"

Tonight, I received a response:

[Stephen - Thanks for your email regarding the Immaculate Reception being in several of our "Top 50" shows. Please read our response.

First, you cannot call that play "bogus." If we did not include the play at all in our applicable "Top 50" shows, we probably would get thousands of emails asking where that play was. Until the NFL -- over 36 years later-- changes the outcome of the game and says that the Raiders officially won, it will still stand as a legitimate, yet controversial play.

Secondly, as you know, there are multiple controversies surrounding the "Immaculate Reception." There is nothing illegitimate about the controversy whether Franco Harris let the ball touch the ground. That is indeed one of the legitimate controversies. Obviously, if the ball did definitely touch the ground, and the referees saw it, the Frenchy Fuqua/Jack Tatum controversy would not have mattered, because it would have just been an incompletion.

In fact, in 1998, when NBC Sports re-broadcasted the TV version of the play for the first time in over 25 years, there was equal amount of talk on the 1998 NBC Sports broadcast about whether Franco Harris caught the ball as there was if the ball touched off Fuqua. This is because the TV cameras had different angles as the NFL Films camera crew. And many agreed that NBC's footage (which had not been seen since 1972) clearly showed that the ball only touched Tatum, making the reception legal. However, NBC's footage didn't shed anymore light onto whether the ball touched the ground when Harris caught it, adding more fuel to that fire of controversy.

You are correct that when the Immaculate Reception happened, the Tatum deflection was the most pressing controversy at the time, and was the Raiders' biggest beef. However, in 1978 the rule of deflections of forward passes in the NFL was changed, and in any of todays NFL games this would be deemed legal. This doesn't mean that the Tatum deflection would suddenly be deemed retroactively legal, but that specific controversy lost a little bit of its luster after the NFL rule change over 30 years ago.

The Immaculate Reception probably could have its own show if we talked about all the controversies involved (which also includes a couple possible illegal blocks after the ball was caught which obviously were not called). Unfortunately, we did not have time in the "Top 50" show to mention and analyze them all.

Thus, the Immaculate Reception will always be one of the most spectacular football plays ever, alongside "The Play" from Cal/Stanford. With the advent of Instant Replay today and 30 different camera angles capturing every play, never again will there be such legendary, spectacular, and mysterious plays in football.

The one thing I think we can agree on is that if the referees called the Immaculate Reception anything other than a touchdown, there would have been an immediate riot in Pittsburgh.

Thanks for being a fan of the show and please keep watching!

Regards,

BDSSP"

I've never written fox sports or ESPN before, but I was really impressed with the detail they went into rebutting my statements. Not only is it long, but it is also clearly in no way a form response. I may not agree totally with their points, but like I said, I was impressed.

Is this standard? I figure if anybody has sent off numerous fevered sports emails it's the people on this board.

**Buck** · 03-20-2009, 12:59 AM

Thats cool, but it still could be a form response.

I wonder how many people emailed about the same thing?

**kysirsoze** · 03-20-2009, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaCenterJunkie

Thats cool, but it still could be a form response.

I wonder how many people emailed about the same thing?

I thought that too but he goes through my email point for point and even quotes from it. I'm sure he used the same arguements in similar responses but it looks to me to be legit.

**007** · 03-20-2009, 01:11 AM

There is no way that was a form response. They touched on every concern. Really cool that they responded if you ask me. Even if it was to ultimately disagree with you.

**Kyle DeLexus** · 03-20-2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

There is no way that was a form response. They touched on every concern. Really cool that they responded if you ask me. Even if it was to ultimately disagree with you.

Thats why it's the Best Damn Sports Show Period

skky man · 03-20-2009, 04:09 AM

To bad they don't have any camera angles that show Lin Elliot makeing just one damn field goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**007** · 03-20-2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skky man

To bad they don't have any camera angles that show Lin Elliot makeing just one damn field goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bannable offense.

You said his name!!!!

EyePod · 03-20-2009, 05:38 AM

This is not standard.

skky man · 03-20-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

Bannable offense.

You said his name!!!!

My apologies I still have the taste of vomit in my mouth!

Kerberos · 03-20-2009, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skky man

To bad they don't have any camera angles that show Lin Elliot makeing just one damn field goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

Bannable offense.

You said his name!!!!

Nuthooks

skky man; that is the name of "He who shall not be mentioned" on Chiefs Planet board or ANY official Chiefs Planet functions.

It is possible you could be headed for banned camp.

skky man · 03-20-2009, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Nuthooks

skky man; that is the name of "He who shall not be mentioned" on Chiefs Planet board or ANY official Chiefs Planet functions.

It is possible you could be headed for banned camp.

I don't know what happend! I will make no excuses I should be banned!

crispystl · 03-20-2009, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skky man

To bad they don't have any camera angles that show Lin Elliot makeing just one damn field goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Had he made one they would have! Please don't use that name it's blasphemy.

Sully · 03-20-2009, 07:04 AM

I think that some sports network should hire Hamas to respond to viewer emails.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-20-2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaCenterJunkie

Thats cool, but it still could be a form response.

I wonder how many people emailed about the same thing?

No, that was not a form response. It handled every objection and used similar language to the original email.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 03-20-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

There is no way that was a form response. They touched on every concern. Really cool that they responded if you ask me. Even if it was to ultimately disagree with you.

Yeah. Even if they sent that to the other 50 people who responded in a like wise fashion, they took some time in that response. It's surprising. And refreshing.

03-20-2009, 12:47 AM
kysirsoze SNAP THE ****ING BALL!!! Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: KCMO Casino cash: $3496946	I got an E-mail from Fox Sports tonight... So a couple of months ago I was up late watching a "Best Damn" count down of the 50 most spectacular plays in football history. I don't normally take action in a case like this but I responded with an email, sure that it would fall on deaf ears. I wrote the following: "You guys had the Immaculate Reception at #1 on your spectacular plays list. Then you said it was controversial because Franco Harris might have let the ball touch the ground. To my knowledge, few contest whether or not he caught the ball. The question is whether it was legal or not. At the time, in the NFL you couldn't catch a ball that had been tipped by a teammate. It was clearly tipped by the receiver before it falls into Harris' hands. The refs went with the touchdown because they knew security wouldn't be able to protect them from the unruly fans. It was a bogus play that doesn't belong on this list (at least not on top.) For the record I am a Chiefs fan so if anyone should enjoy seeing the Raiders suffer it's me. However, misinformation bothers me more. Stephen" Tonight, I received a response: [Stephen - Thanks for your email regarding the Immaculate Reception being in several of our "Top 50" shows. Please read our response. First, you cannot call that play "bogus." If we did not include the play at all in our applicable "Top 50" shows, we probably would get thousands of emails asking where that play was. Until the NFL -- over 36 years later-- changes the outcome of the game and says that the Raiders officially won, it will still stand as a legitimate, yet controversial play. Secondly, as you know, there are multiple controversies surrounding the "Immaculate Reception." There is nothing illegitimate about the controversy whether Franco Harris let the ball touch the ground. That is indeed one of the legitimate controversies. Obviously, if the ball did definitely touch the ground, and the referees saw it, the Frenchy Fuqua/Jack Tatum controversy would not have mattered, because it would have just been an incompletion. In fact, in 1998, when NBC Sports re-broadcasted the TV version of the play for the first time in over 25 years, there was equal amount of talk on the 1998 NBC Sports broadcast about whether Franco Harris caught the ball as there was if the ball touched off Fuqua. This is because the TV cameras had different angles as the NFL Films camera crew. And many agreed that NBC's footage (which had not been seen since 1972) clearly showed that the ball only touched Tatum, making the reception legal. However, NBC's footage didn't shed anymore light onto whether the ball touched the ground when Harris caught it, adding more fuel to that fire of controversy. You are correct that when the Immaculate Reception happened, the Tatum deflection was the most pressing controversy at the time, and was the Raiders' biggest beef. However, in 1978 the rule of deflections of forward passes in the NFL was changed, and in any of todays NFL games this would be deemed legal. This doesn't mean that the Tatum deflection would suddenly be deemed retroactively legal, but that specific controversy lost a little bit of its luster after the NFL rule change over 30 years ago. The Immaculate Reception probably could have its own show if we talked about all the controversies involved (which also includes a couple possible illegal blocks after the ball was caught which obviously were not called). Unfortunately, we did not have time in the "Top 50" show to mention and analyze them all. Thus, the Immaculate Reception will always be one of the most spectacular football plays ever, alongside "The Play" from Cal/Stanford. With the advent of Instant Replay today and 30 different camera angles capturing every play, never again will there be such legendary, spectacular, and mysterious plays in football. The one thing I think we can agree on is that if the referees called the Immaculate Reception anything other than a touchdown, there would have been an immediate riot in Pittsburgh. Thanks for being a fan of the show and please keep watching! Regards, BDSSP" I've never written fox sports or ESPN before, but I was really impressed with the detail they went into rebutting my statements. Not only is it long, but it is also clearly in no way a form response. I may not agree totally with their points, but like I said, I was impressed. Is this standard? I figure if anybody has sent off numerous fevered sports emails it's the people on this board.
Posts: 11,331

03-20-2009, 12:59 AM	#2
Buck Take a Chill Pill Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Carolina Casino cash: $8259900	Thats cool, but it still could be a form response. I wonder how many people emailed about the same thing?
Posts: 44,564

03-20-2009, 01:11 AM	#4
007 Shaken. Not stirred. Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Casino cash: $13950126 VARSITY	There is no way that was a form response. They touched on every concern. Really cool that they responded if you ask me. Even if it was to ultimately disagree with you. __________________ My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.
Posts: 65,557

03-20-2009, 04:09 AM	#6
skky man Starter Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $10004900	To bad they don't have any camera angles that show Lin Elliot makeing just one damn field goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 199

03-20-2009, 05:38 AM	#8
EyePod Forgetting 2013 season end. Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Around Casino cash: $9995735	This is not standard. __________________ I did not believe in Mahomes until week 1. I've been woke ever since. I'm on board this freight train.
Posts: 5,800

03-20-2009, 07:04 AM	#13
Sully It Goes On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $10026331	I think that some sports network should hire Hamas to respond to viewer emails. __________________ "And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car." - Tommy Lasorda
Posts: 18,295