Football I got an E-mail from Fox Sports tonight... - Page 2

**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.

bowener · 03-20-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

Bannable offense.

You said his name!!!!

Why is his name not stricken from the CP texts for life? Cant we replace it with something more fitting?

Hog's Gone Fishin · 03-20-2009, 08:47 AM

You should have responded back suggesting they take a large gulp of anti-freeze

**Kyle DeLexus** · 03-20-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

You should have responded back suggesting they take a large gulp of anti-freeze

I would have probably replied back with a simple "so how long have you been an intern there?"

Reerun_KC · 03-20-2009, 09:56 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah or Marty growing a ****ing brain in the playoffs...

**TinyEvel** · 03-20-2009, 09:58 AM

I bet it was written by a sports-nerd intern. Someone with a lot of time and really into it.

**DaFace** · 03-20-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowener

Why is his name not stricken from the CP texts for life? Cant we replace it with something more fitting?

It is, but not when it's misspelled. I took care of that.

**Kyle DeLexus** · 03-20-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MWagg72

I would have probably replied back with a simple "so how long have you been an intern there?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyEvel

I bet it was written by a sports-nerd intern. Someone with a lot of time and really into it.

Great minds and all that other stuff.

Crashride · 03-20-2009, 10:23 AM

Cool points for them

Chief Henry · 03-20-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skky man

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

That game is one of the lowpoints in my life.....aahhhhhgggg

**Kyle DeLexus** · 03-20-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Henry

That game is one of the lowpoints in my life.....aahhhhhgggg

Your life must be pretty damn good then if a game is one of the lowpoints. Not to mention a game you weren't even a part of, except as a fan.

**kysirsoze** · 03-20-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyEvel

I bet it was written by a sports-nerd intern. Someone with a lot of time and really into it.

What??? I thought this was from Tom Arnold himself!!!

03-20-2009, 12:47 AM
kysirsoze SNAP THE ****ING BALL!!! Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: KCMO Casino cash: $3216946	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: 11,404

03-20-2009, 08:47 AM	#17
Hog's Gone Fishin Fish are scared of me Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1180477	You should have responded back suggesting they take a large gulp of anti-freeze
Posts: 40,485

03-20-2009, 09:58 AM	#20
TinyEvel Just a li'l Evel Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Bald. Goatee. Jorts. Casino cash: $5187131	I bet it was written by a sports-nerd intern. Someone with a lot of time and really into it.
Posts: 11,823

03-20-2009, 10:23 AM	#23
Crashride We got DANCERS in tampa Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Tampa, FL Casino cash: $10004900	Cool points for them
Posts: 1,964