Talk:Immaculate Reception

message: First: http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs98/news/1999/990106/01030879.html (citation 23) does not support that "Fuqua knows exactly what happened that day but will never tell" - in fact the citation seems dubious for use here since it says the key point is if the football touched Fuqua, which is actually irrelevant. It only matters if it touched Tatum or not.
Second: The entire controversy section gets into physics and really oversimplifies despite it's complexity.  Since Tatum was travelling the direction the ball bounced and Fuqua was travelling perpendicular to this, Tatum clearly imparted momentum to the football, that is obvious. But the article is written as if Tatum could not possibly have imparted this momentum except by touching the football, even though he could have done it by ramming into Fuqua's body while Fuqua was touching the ball.
Statalyzer (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Issues

message: This article could use an image of the play.  Perhaps even a diagram. KyuuA4 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I've never heard of the uncited comment by Tatum that the ball did not bounce off of him.  I don't have a source, but I recall reading that he said, years later, that it happened so fast that he couldn't recall whether he had struck the ball or not.  There is the possibility that he does in fact know, but is denying it simply to avoid controversy.  This would be a good quote to hunt down.
Second, the Madden quote was from a Monday Night Football game on the 30-year anniversary of the Immaculate Reception, a game between the Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers on December 23, 2002.  He stated the opinion mentioned in the article when asked by Al Michaels for his thoughts on the Immaculate Reception.  He may have said this at other occasions as well but this is the one time he said it that I remember.
Villapiano was definitely clipped; there is absolutely clear video evidence for this.  I don't know how you're supposed to cite that though.
-- Was it Villapiano or Ted Hendricks?  I remember that "half-speed" quote, and I'm almost certain Hendricks is saying it.  The next part of the quote is "Now, I STILL can make the play, when the tight end -- smart player -- comes from behind and clips me ... "
Lastly, though this may be more of a personal beef . . . LoCasale's comments were said either as a joke or out of bitterness.  It should be presented as such in the article so someone doesn't think that he said so as a legitimate source to the events that transpired.
By the way, does anyone feel like the Post-Gazette article about the CMU physics professor could or should be moved into the Controversy section?
-Mithunc 11:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Why is the 1978 The Holy Roller Oakland Raiders play vs. San Diego Chargers claimed as the "Immaculate Deception?"  This article also claims the title in the first paragraph.  Which is it??  216.170.144.208 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immaculate Deception mentioned twice 

message: The name of the violation may (or may not) have been "double touching," a term employed by John Madden when discussing the play on Sunday Night Football on December 30, 2007.71.142.101.10 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Violation 

message: The verbiage in this quote hardly strikes me as encyclopedic:
:The play itself would start another, rather unique rivalry between the Raiders and the rest of the league, as Oakland fans have long thought that the league has wanted to screw the Raiders (and specifically Al Davis) over. NFL Network in 2007 ranked the "Raiders versus the World" as the biggest feud in NFL history[20].
I am sure there is a better way of expressing this concept than the slang term "screw . . . over." --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic Tone 

message: The current article contains the (unsourced) line, "It was later said that Swearingen was scared of backlash from the Steelers fans if he had ruled the other way." So what? Just about anything could be "later said" about the play. Absent any evidence that Swearingen was scared or acted scared or said he was scared, or even that the accusation was made at the time, it all just sounds like sour grapes, part of a good story that the Raiders and their fans tell, but not really something that belongs in an encyclopedia. I lean toward removing this sentence, but then I'm a Steelers fan, so I'd thought I'd put this out here for comment before yanking it. --Froggy88 (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It was later said..." 

message: :Having looked at the film clips of the play over and over again recently (in the hopes of someday making a diagram for use here), I accumulated a bunch of miscellaneous observations that don't belong in the article, but which I thought might interest someone. First it's amazing how much misinformation on the basic facts there is out there regarding the Immaculate Reception.  There are articles out there that state: 1) that Barry Pearson was running a post pattern; 2) that he was open but Bradshaw didn't see him; and 3) that Tatum broke off from covering him to go after Frenchy.  Score 0 for 3 on those "facts."  McMakin was the guy running the deep pattern from right to left, who Tatum left off covering in order to go after Frenchy and the ball.  Pearson was running a down and in across the middle of the field from left to right, about 15 yards downfield.  He was covered (and covered pretty well, as far as I can see) by Willie Brown, at least I think it was Brown.  I don't know whether Pearson was the primary receiver, as the article states, but he would have been the natural target for just picking up the first down.  The other receiver out there for the Steelers was Ron Shanklin, who was running a deep route to the right and was well covered by George Atkinson.  (That's some defensive backfield that the Raiders had in those days.)
:Then there's Villapiano.  He says (besides saying that he's sure that the ball bounced off of Fuqua): 1) that Franco was just lazily jogging half speed up the field; 2) that because he (Villipiano) was running toward the play the ricocheting ball bounced over him and to that laggard Franco; and 3) that as he was on his way to tackle Franco McMakin gave him "the biggest clip ever."  Give him 0.5 out of 3.  Actually it was Villapiano, not Franco, who slowed up when he saw that the ball was going beyond him.  Until then Villapiano was right on Franco's heels.  Once he slowed up there was no way that the deflected ball was going to go over his head.  However, because Franco had to veer to his left to make the catch, Villipiano was able to recover somewhat, that is until McMakin blocked him.  It's not clear to me if this was a clip (maybe I'm just biased), but it's certainly not a blatant one.  McMakin initially makes contact with the side of Villipiano, though as he fell to the ground it looks as though he might have made contact with the back of Villipiano's right leg.  Even without the block I'm not sure that Villipiano would have been able to catch Harris.  He was not nearly as well positioned as Warren, who had the angle on Franco.  
:Finally, talk about your premature celebrations, not only did Warren raise his arms in triumph after Tatum's hit, but linebacker Gerald Irons stood there looking at Tatum and Fuqua, clapping his hands, until Harris was almost past him.  By the time he realized that something was going on, he was out of the play.  Had he kept his eye on the ball, he probably would have been in the best position to tackle Harris.  At the very least he would have slowed him up. - Froggy88 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odds and Ends 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:ImmaculateReceptionStatue.jpg.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The current article states that time ran out as Franco Harris scored the winning touchdown. In fact, there was 5 seconds remaining when he scored. NBC feed confirms this with Curt Gowdy stating 5 seconds remaining after the play. I clocked the time on the NBC feed from start of play (with 22 seconds remaining), until the score, and I count 15 seconds. It's possible that an additional 2 seconds ran off for the official scorer to stop the clock, but time did not run out on this play. I will put up citation needed so someone can offer citation to substantiate time running out. Otherwise, at some point the article should state 5 seconds were remaining after this play.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3A75:DA00:44CF:D380:D525:D243 (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Remaining After Play 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Immaculate Reception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217135452/http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/threerivers/reception.html to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/threerivers/reception.html
*Added  tag to http://personals.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1997/12/21/1997-12-21_steel_of_the_century__twenty.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article introduces it as "one of the greatest plays", but the first i've ever heard of it is when fans voted it the greatest play, if the distinction is notable enough and this source reliable enough for Wikipedia:
msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/immaculate-reception-voted-greatest-moment-in-nfl-history/ar-BBZzKzI?ocid=spartandhp
96.244.220.178 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  one of the greatest plays 

message: Not a football guy so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the diagram :File:Immaculate Reception diagram.png not jibe with the statement that "the Pittsburgh Steelers faced fourth-and-10 on their own 40-yard line"? The diagram shows the pass being made from the fifty yard line. Since there wasn't a QB scramble, this is not possible? It would have been consistent with the play starting at the Raiders 40, I think Herostratus (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram and text don't match