#ICYMI - Extended Classic: The Immaculate Reception

Gary O’Reilly and Chuck Nice turn to physics to unravel the mystery of the Immaculate Reception, the most famous, controversial play in NFL history. With Neil Tyson, QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, John Eric Goff, and sports writer Jim Brennan. Now with Chuck, Gary and John talking confirmation bias, preventing Deflategates, and football on the Moon. Don’t miss an episode of Playing with Science. Subscribe to our channels on: TuneIn: tunein.com/playingwithscience Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/playing-with-science/id1198280360 GooglePlay Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iimke5bwpoh2nb25swchmw6kzjq SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/startalk_playing-with-science Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/startalk/playing-with-science NOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free: https://www.startalkradio.net/all-access/extended-classic-the-immaculate-reception/

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:09Gary O'Reilly?

  I'm Gary O'Reilly

• 0:10Chuck Nice?

  And I'm Chuck Nice

• 0:11Gary O'Reilly?

  And we Are Playing With Science Today, we are talking about the most famous play in the history of American football

• 0:21Chuck Nice?

  So true

• 0:22Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah, isn't it? A play that still divides the opinions of sports fans almost half a century later. A play that is shrouded in more mysteries and conspiracy theories than a presidential election, yet, we can solve and explain those mysteries by using science. Oh, yes, we can. The immaculate reception was a moment of desperation in the final seconds of a postseason game that became the turning point in one NFL franchise's history whilst turning the other into a battle against the rest of the world that is still going on.

• 0:56Chuck Nice?

  And to bring in the physics and help unlock the core of science is Professor Eric Goff, who is a professor at Lynchburg College and the author of Gold Metal Physics, and a sports writer who is in studio with us, Jim Brennan.

• 1:10Gary O'Reilly?

  So, let's get some numbers straight, shall we? Seven and six, the score, Raiders up by one point. It is the fourth quarter. It's a fourth and down. There are 26 seconds left. There are men on the sidelines, built like mountains, who are too scared to watch. This is the point of adrenaline, this is the point of fear, it's the moment you live for, it is an AFC playoff game. And then it all happens. What do we do about that, Chuck?

• 1:43Chuck Nice?

  I'll tell you what we do about it. Let's take a listen to what actually happened.

• 2:21Speaker 02

  When you talk about Christmas miracles, here's a miracle of all miracles. Watch this one now. Bradshaw's lucky to even get rid of the ball. He shoots it out. Jack Tatum deflects it right into the hands of Harris. And he sets off, and the big 230-pound rookie slipped away from Warren and scored.

• 2:42Chuck Nice?

  Wow. You know what, it's still, I'm sorry, I mean, this game is god knows how long ago, but it's still exciting.

• 2:51Speaker 03

  There was nothing to see. The ball bounced off a couple guys, there was nothing to be seen after that. And then suddenly, there was something to be seen. Franco Harris comes out of the black.

• 3:00Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 3:01Speaker 03

  And just...

• 3:02Chuck Nice?

  And scores. It's amazing. It is really amazing. I mean, and...

• 3:06Gary O'Reilly?

  It has divided so many people, whether they Steelers or Raiders, but, as I said in the introduction, there is a way for us to solve this by the use of science. So the moment arrives, we have a ball hitting a player. Now, the argument depends on which side of the sidelines you're on.

• 3:28Chuck Nice?

  So, you know, the big controversy is, one, did the ball bounce off of Frenchie Fuqua, which would have, you know, caused one, that would have been an illegal play.

• 3:40Gary O'Reilly?

  Yes, and at that time...

• 3:41Chuck Nice?

  At that time, the ruling would have been, two offensive players touched the ball in succession. Therefore, the play is now dead, because that's an illegal catch. That rule no longer exists in football. You can actually tip the ball as much as you want now, and, you know, if five players tip the ball and the ball's still in the air, as long as it doesn't touch the ground, it's a live ball. You can pluck it out of the air and either run it into a touchdown, or run it back for pick six, it doesn't make a difference. But at that time, so, from a physics standpoint, Eric, here's the question. Is there a way to view this video, from the angles of incidence, looking at, like you said, the ball leaving his hand at about 50 miles an hour, are there scenarios that

• 4:25Chuck Nice?

  we can break down that would tell us the likelihood, maybe not definitively, but the likelihood of who that ball really bounced off of?

• 4:36Speaker 04

  Well, just to give you some numbers, so the pass took anywhere between 1.6 and 1.7 seconds to go from Bradshaw to the point of contact with the players. Now, you got Tatum and Fuqua there, and they're going to be moving toward the ball, because what's happening is they're having to transfer some momentum from themselves to the ball in order for it to get far enough for Harris to pick it up. If they were stationary, the ball's not going to bounce far enough for Harris to pick it up. So what happens is, you get the ball, it's going to slow down a little bit from air resistance after Bradshaw threw it, so maybe it's going about 46 miles an hour when it hits the player.

• 5:17Speaker 04

  When it rebounds, now I'm analyzing this video frame by frame, but the video is a little fuzzy, it's a little tough to tell the angles, it's going about 25 to 30 miles an hour on the rebound. So some of that energy has been lost with the collision. Now, what happens is, you got Tatum and Fuqua coming in, and they're going to hit the ball moving in the opposite direction of the ball, so they're giving it a good kick backwards. So that's going to give it enough of a kick to get to Frank O'Harris coming down. Now, that momentum transfer is tough to tell whether it's one or two players, how fast they're moving right before the impact.

• 5:57Speaker 04

  It could easily have been just Tatum hitting the ball, but it's really tough to tell from the video, and even from the physics analysis, whether or not Frenchie Fakua had enough of a play into the ball as well.

• 6:12Gary O'Reilly?

  So, let me hold you there, Eric. There was a professor of emeritus at Carnegie Mellon, John Fetkovich, in 2004, analyzed this thing back to front and back again, and he used brick walls, he replicated the trajectory and all sorts of things, and he came to the conclusion based, and I think he uses the term "conversation of momentum," which I've taken a shine to, that the ball must have bounced off of Tatum because it comes back down the field, rather than just bouncing up, because he was sort of working on the fact that... Fuqua goes laterally and Tatum's running

• 6:51Chuck Nice?

  Towards the ball.

• 6:52Gary O'Reilly?

  Towards the ball. So what sort of equation, if that's, if that's his analysis and research, are we dealing with in terms of why the ball bounced as far as it did? Because Fekkovich couldn't himself replicate that sort of bounce.

• 7:07Speaker 04

  Well, the, the brick wall means the stationary target I was talking about earlier. So if, if it had hit a player not moving, it would not have bounced far enough for Harris to have picked it up.

• 7:17Gary O'Reilly?

  Mm-hmm.

• 7:18Speaker 04

  So what, what you need is a linear momentum in the opposite direction of the football to kick it back.

• 7:25Gary O'Reilly?

  Right.

• 7:25Speaker 04

  So what, what happened was the player that's making contact with it, even though Fuqua's coming in laterally, if Tatum hits Fuqua slightly before the ball gets there, he can, he can direct Fuqua's linear momentum back toward the ball.

• 7:42Chuck Nice?

  Ah, ah, so therein lies the rub. The fact is that if the collision is with Fuqua, and then Fuqua collides with the ball, you'll get that same conservation of momentum, kicking the ball back to Franco Harris. So it's, it's possible that it still could have been Fuqua who hit the ball.

• 8:01Speaker 04

  I mean, it's definitely Tatum is the one responsible for the direction the ball's going to be deflected.

• 8:07Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 8:08Speaker 04

  But what's hard to tell in the video is whether he is making contact with Fuqua just as the ball's coming in.

• 8:15Chuck Nice?

  Gotcha.

• 8:16Speaker 04

  So, I mean, he could, he's definitely the one responsible for the way the ball is moving, but it's hard to tell whether Fuqua came in slightly before the ball or not.

• 8:25Chuck Nice?

  Okay, okay. So now what is the, what is the Newton's law involved in this particular? Is there an actual scientific term that, what is that?

• 8:36Speaker 04

  Sure. So conservation of linear momentum means that you add up all the little mass times velocities. So the ball has a mass and a velocity, Fuqua has a mass and a velocity, and so does Tatum. And as long as there's no external force at the time of that collision, and we take all the other forces as being really small compared to that, the size of that collision force with the ball and the pads, then the, the momentum coming in has got to match what's coming out. So if the ball's coming in with a certain momentum and the players, you know, the Tatum-Fuqua combination are coming in the other direction with a certain momentum, that sum total's gotta be the same before and after the collision. So with the ball going the other direction,

• 9:20Speaker 04

  that meant the net linear momentum was going back toward Harris.

• 9:23Gary O'Reilly?

  So it's almost like a Newton's cradle? In the sense you've got two objects coming in at one and then pop out the other end goes the ball into the welcoming hands of Franco Harris, or I got that wrong?

• 9:33Speaker 04

  No, you have it exactly right. A Newton's cradle would have those little metal spheres that some of the CEOs watch when they're kinda bored.

• 9:40Gary O'Reilly?

  Right.

• 9:40Speaker 04

  And so you got the ball coming in and it bounces off, another ball bounced off on the other end. That's exactly a linear momentum conservation sphere.

• 9:49Chuck Nice?

  You're talking about the clacking balls like that sit on a desk and one ball is on a pendulum, they're all on the pendulum, one swings, hits three other balls that stay in the exact same position and then the fourth ball on the very end takes off.

• 10:03Speaker 04

  That's right.

• 10:04Chuck Nice?

  And then that repeats itself back and forth, back and forth. That's what we're talking about here.

• 10:08Speaker 04

  That's right. You need to use some energy as well to analyze that, but that's exactly what happens.

• 10:12Gary O'Reilly?

  Would you, Eric, looking at it from your point of view as a physicist, as a sports fan, go with their decision on that moment?

• 10:18Speaker 04

  Sure. I mean, keep in mind the ball was also deflected with a downward trajectory, so it's heading toward the ground, so that makes it even tougher for the referees to see what's going on. And Harris is running with a full head of steam when he gets it. I mean, if he had been five yards farther back on the play, I mean, he's not gonna be able to catch that ball. So, you know, he's at the exact right place, moving at the right speed, and when that ball collides with him, he's at the right place at the right time to get it. So, you know, it's just a bang-bang play. I mean, the ball's only in the air about six tenths to seven tenths of a second after that deflection. That, you know, the referees have to divert their eyes from what's going on at the collision between Tatum and

• 11:03Speaker 04

  Fuqua. Now they have to follow the ball back to where Harris is, and he's already running and getting the ball. So, you know, we watch it in slow motion, it seems easy for us to see what's going on, but, you know, put yourself in the place of a referee with all that chaos going on trying to follow that play. It's a challenge.

• 11:21Chuck Nice?

  Absolutely, yeah, six tenths of a second, man, that's when you when you put it that way, you gotta be almost superhuman to look at that and get, you know, a really correct call. But with that in mind, when you said when you said everything had to be in the right place at the right time for for this play to even happen.

• 11:38Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah.

• 11:39Chuck Nice?

  That brings us to a clip where, you know, our own Neil deGrasse Tyson actually sat down with the quarterback of the New York Jets, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and, you know, asked him about this particular play.

• 11:50Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  We've been trying to poll quarterbacks on their knowledge or memory of or reaction to the famous immaculate reception. Do you do you guys talk, do you go in a back room and talk about that? Is it was it just a bit of inspiration? How does it land on you and your and your soul as an athlete?

• 12:07Speaker 06

  Um, I thought, I mean, it's amazing play, and I wish that I could get some of that luck, you know, because that, you know, it was a Terry Bradshaw.

• 12:22Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, Terry Bradshaw to Franco Harris, yeah.

• 12:26Speaker 06

  Off of somebody's shoulder or off the big head, and then he catches it basically on the ground and outruns four people. And I mean, there's so many amazing things that had to happen exactly right for that play to work.

• 12:39Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  You candidly recognize the role of luck in that?

• 12:43Speaker 06

  Yes, yes. I don't know if it was much of anything else, yes.

• 12:50Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Hence immaculate reception rather than skillful reception.

• 12:55Speaker 06

  Yes, exactly.

• 12:57Gary O'Reilly?

  Well, I think that's great. We've got a current NFL player with enough about him to respect the history, even though he kind of sits on, you know what, really lucky.

• 13:08Chuck Nice?

  Right. And speaking of luck, this is something I'd just like to ask every scientist. Do you believe in luck?

• 13:14Speaker 06

  No.

• 13:17Chuck Nice?

  I have yet to meet a scientist who says, "I believe in luck." Why not, man? Tell me. I mean, I know why most scientists answer this question, but I want to hear yours, because I just find it fascinating that I've yet to meet a scientist when you say, "Do you believe in luck?" I have not met one scientist who said, "Of course." Who doesn't?

• 13:34Speaker 04

  We're constrained by the laws of physics, and, I mean, luck is simply what the word we use for a low probability occurrence. I mean, if you win the lottery, you say you got lucky. Well, that's the word you're referring to hitting a one in a 50 million shot, or whatever the probability is. Somebody's going to hit it if you play all the numbers. So, you know, it's not a... It's just luck is just the word that we're using in the layman's sense to describe things that are very low probability and occurrence.

• 14:04Chuck Nice?

  Awesome. I like it.

• 14:07Gary O'Reilly?

  All right. So, no such thing as luck, but there is such a thing as a break. We are going to take a first one. Right. Two questions. Firstly, who was the head coach of the Raiders on the day of the Immaculate Reception? And secondly, how many Super Bowls did the Pittsburgh Steelers win on the back of the Immaculate Reception during, only during the decade of the 70s?

• 14:38Chuck Nice?

  Mm-hmm.

• 14:38Gary O'Reilly?

  Right. We are going to leave you a moment to think about that.

• 14:41Chuck Nice?

  And good luck thinking about that.

• 14:43Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah, no such thing. So, when we come back, we will have a rather special guest by the name of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, and we will be discussing some more science. We'll, of course, have Professor Eric Goff and Jim Brennan, who's with us in the studio, so do not go away.

• 15:06Gary O'Reilly?

  Welcome back. I'm Gary Reilly.

• 15:08Chuck Nice?

  And I'm Chuck Nice.

• 15:09Gary O'Reilly?

  And this is Playing with Science. And today, we are talking about the Immaculate Reception. But before we go on to the most... Probably the most important and famous player in NFL history answers two questions I set before the break. The coach of the Raiders on the day, the man himself, Mr. John Madden will be your answer for that one. And second question, how many Super Bowls do the Steelers win in the seventies post-Omakura reception? Count all, one, two, three, four, seventy-four, seventy-five, seventy-eight, and seventy-nine. Whoa.

• 15:47Chuck Nice?

  That's called a dynasty.

• 15:48Gary O'Reilly?

  That is definitely called a dynasty.

• 15:51Chuck Nice?

  Oh, the dynasty.

• 15:51Gary O'Reilly?

  And the steel curtain was locked down for sure.

• 15:54Chuck Nice?

  And Steeler Nation was born.

• 15:56Gary O'Reilly?

  Dun, dun, dun. Yeah, so that's, that's the answers to that dealt with. As I said before the break, we will have His Royal Highness Neil deGrasse Tyson joining us in the show. We still have Jim Brennan with us and of course Eric Goff, Professor of Physics at Lynchburg College, still all in the mix. So it's a rather crowded house. The whole thing about Omakura reception is that it sort of contains every facet of myth, theory, legend, conspiracy theory.

• 16:26Chuck Nice?

  Absolutely.

• 16:27Gary O'Reilly?

  Fact, science, and a little bit of sport thrown in. One of many of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Omakura reception is what happens after Franco Harris runs in this touchdown. That once the officials go to the dugout, the phone, and nobody knows who rang who, whether it comes from the press box or from the dugout. And that there was a replay with Art McNally, the supervisor from the NFL. People say total fabrication. Others say that, you know, McNally told them, what did you see? Then go with it. Just get your guys together and go with it. But it's just adds another layer to the myth, to the legend, to the mystery.

• 17:08Chuck Nice?

  Absolutely, absolutely. And then, you know, there's even one story and, you know, I'm, this is, I'm sure another fabrication.

• 17:14Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah.

• 17:15Chuck Nice?

  Where, you know, one of the officials called in that same press box that the phone call was to the police to see whether. Are there enough cops to get us out of here? Exactly. Like, are there enough cops to get us out of here? Well, you got six. We got six.

• 17:27Chuck Nice?

  Six cops will get you, oh, well, then it's six points for Pittsburgh. So, you know.

• 17:31Gary O'Reilly?

  And the thing is, they're saying that the Art McNally watches a TV replay. And that's how the whole game is decided. Now, that is what, uh, who's this from the Oakland Tribune, a guy called Joe Gordon.

• 17:43Chuck Nice?

  Okay.

• 17:43Gary O'Reilly?

  Who says that's a total fabrication. So I'm guessing a guy from the Oakland Tribune is in the press box at the time, so we've got to go with his opinion on that one.

• 17:52Chuck Nice?

  And by the way, I would think he would be a little biased towards Oakland, right?

• 17:55Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah.

• 17:55Chuck Nice?

  Yeah. So, I mean, that, that's pretty credible as far as I'm concerned.

• 17:58Gary O'Reilly?

  Jim, this happens in 1972. Instant replay doesn't come in until way, way later.

• 18:05Speaker 03

  We're barely in the television age in 1972.

• 18:07Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah. So it should have been the moment where everybody went, wow. This is what we can do with technology. We should be using it, incorporating it, but it doesn't.

• 18:18Speaker 03

  It goes what, 30 more years?

• 18:19Chuck Nice?

  It goes 30 more years. And would you think that that, that this play might have been part of the resistance to go? Because people were just like, see now, if you, if you had done that when you were supposed to, Oakland would have won, or what have you.

• 18:30Speaker 03

  It might have played an initial role, an infancy role in the, in replay, but, um, it wasn't till another 20 years later where they said, we're seeing at home what's going on on the field.

• 18:41Chuck Nice?

  Ah.

• 18:42Speaker 03

  Slow motion.

• 18:43Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 18:44Speaker 03

  Every, you know, every.

• 18:45Chuck Nice?

  Every little detail.

• 18:46Speaker 03

  Freeze frame.

• 18:47Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 18:47Speaker 03

  And it's embarrassing that we're not getting it right, official wise.

• 18:52Gary O'Reilly?

  Eric, Eric, if, because I don't know how many cameras in a game, maybe 20.

• 18:57Gary O'Reilly?

  As a physicist, you're looking at the geometry of those cameras, you'll be thinking, where do I get my best shots? Is there a kind of theory that allows the cameras to grab the best moments, to get the best analysis and not in the end undermine the officials?

• 19:12Chuck Nice?

  And by the way, and on, just as an addendum to that same question, Eric, do the cameras, because you're looking at it through a lens, do they distort the play and of what you're seeing on screen in any way, shape or form?

• 19:25Speaker 04

  Sure, I mean you see the little tiny cameras that are in the pylons in the end zone. And you know, when the ball is coming in very close, the closer it gets to the camera, then you can have a more of a, kind of a distorted look of the image. And absolutely, that plays a role. The cameras sometimes are moving. You have a camera on a guy wire over the field. And as the camera's moving, you have to take that into consideration when you're watching the replay. Sometimes you have a cameraman actually holding a camera moving. Even the ones that are stationary that are holding it with their hand can jiggle a little bit, and sometimes that can even influence the video that you see.

• 20:05Chuck Nice?

  Oh, wow.

• 20:05Gary O'Reilly?

  So, the one that's suspended is the spider cam. I know I didn't come up with that, man, don't look at me like that. Then you've got the steady cam, the big guy all braced in with the framework who's running along. How long do you think before we get drones? And as a physicist, are they going to be the answer for cameras and technology of the future?

• 20:26Speaker 04

  Well, everything else is becoming more and more automated, so I wouldn't be surprised if we start getting tracking devices in footballs, then the cameras that can track them, and maintain an actual image of the football throughout the play, which is what we didn't have any immaculate reception. You can't see the ball on the ground, or off, or slightly off.

• 20:44Chuck Nice?

  So, one of the things that comes about when people actually look at these plays is the fact that the instant replay, whether it existed then or not, which it didn't, but even if it did, it solved nothing. And it would have solved nothing. Because the people who look at it on one side, who are on one side, they think one thing. The people who are on another side, they think another thing.

• 21:05Gary O'Reilly?

  If you're a Steelers fan, it's the immaculate reception. If you're a Raiders fan...

• 21:10Chuck Nice?

  It's a rip-off!

• 21:11Gary O'Reilly?

  It's the immaculate deception.

• 21:13Chuck Nice?

  Yes!

• 21:13Gary O'Reilly?

  And this is the whole aspect of, you speak to one fan, you speak to players on one team, you get one answer and one answer only. Touchdown, why are we even arguing? You go to the other side, completely think. But this has some science involved in it.

• 21:28Chuck Nice?

  And that's why we have none other than Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson himself. And he's going to talk about the science of confirmation. is because normally we have Neil talking about astrophysics. But in my travels with Neil, what I have found out about him is he knows everything.

• 21:47Chuck Nice?

  He hates when I say that.

• 21:50Chuck Nice?

  Hey, but you know what Neil, you know, in the last segment, we heard you talk.

• 21:53Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Just to be clear Chuck, just because someone knows more than you doesn't mean they know everything.

• 21:58Chuck Nice?

  In my book it does.

• 22:01Chuck Nice?

  You know, so in the last segment, we we heard you talking to quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick. And you asked him, you know, you said we were polling quarterbacks about the immaculate reception. And then you said, it's it's funny that you just basically account this up to luck. You have no problem doing that. And he was like, I wish I could have had that kind of luck. So two things, one, I want to talk to you as a scientist. Do you believe in in luck as a scientist? Is there such a thing as luck?

• 22:33Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  I I'm a fan of the adage luck comes to the to the well prepared. So the people who are luckiest are the ones who not only see an opportunity, but exploit it and use it to their advantage, which then to others who did not see the opportunity, it comes across as something called luck. So another reason why we even think luck exists as a thing is there is no hardly any training in probability and statistics in our K through 12 educational system. And so we are woefully unprepared to understand statistics of things. Not only that, to understand things like the chances of winning a lottery ticket, the chances of of.

• 23:19Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And what's curious is the lottery in most states feeds the educational system.

• 23:27Chuck Nice?

  Which if you took advantage of the educational system, you would never play the lottery.

• 23:32Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Well, exactly. So it's in the lottery's best interest to make sure that they don't teach probability and statistics. Otherwise, no one would be playing the lottery. So, no, I'm not convinced that there's such a thing as luck. Just the random statistics that we interpret it as some kind of directed um reality.

• 23:51Gary O'Reilly?

  Can you Neil, design a play using a certain element of probabilities, thinking yeah, this is how we do it. In this particular part of the game, which is desperation time.

• 24:05Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yeah, so baseball does that all the time. That's why they'll swap out a batter for one who can bunt a little better. They'll swap out a runner. Who can run better on that pitcher. Uh so uh the the difference is baseball has all this dead time between plays. To discuss the statistics of these things. Uh in football, you don't quite get the full discussion time available to you. Um but uh you can in principle run something purely statistically based on the history. Of outcomes given a a situation. It's well known, for example, that teams should go for. If you haven't already covered this, uh they should go for uh first down on third down more often than they do.

• 24:51Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Uh be some of those times they will make first down and some of those they'll score the touchdown.

• 24:56Gary O'Reilly?

  But there are, there are definite times you're saying that the statistic, the statistical outcome. Favors going for third down, I mean going for fourth down and whatever, but the coach will not do it.

• 25:09Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Right, because it depends on the coach's awareness and sensitivity to the role of statistics. In their lives and in their decision making. And somebody, now, if you went everything by statistics. Then I guess you don't need a coach. So the coach might tell you, I don't want to speak for them, but I bet. They'll say, no, this is my life experience I'm invoking here. Well, that life experience is informed by some statistical history. Of outcomes given a situation, we get it. If they get it wrong, then we all become Monday morning quarterbacks. We're now Tuesday morning quarterbacks. If they, if they get it right, then everyone praises their insight and their ingenuity.

• 25:48Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And again, this is the, this is where people will interpret luck as skill, when in fact it would have really just been luck.

• 25:55Gary O'Reilly?

  Got you. So we get to the philosophical question.

• 25:58Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Statistics of the situation, uh uh working out the full statistical distributions of outcomes.

• 26:03Gary O'Reilly?

  All right. So if we get to the philosophical point where. Is the game better for the human error? Or do we take human error out and just take a computer on the sideline? And just punch in an algorithm and off we go?

• 26:15Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  I gotta say, of course, baseball has passed that. And I kinda miss the, the coach kicking dirt on the shoes of the umpire. And you know, just all in the face like this. We've seen these, a, a little bit of me misses that. I don't know why. It's kinda perverse, actually. Uh, cause you want the truth to manifest. And ideally that way, but I, I, I don't know. I'm, I'm, for me.

• 26:43Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Sport is human and decision making is human. And why, why do you, you know?

• 26:51Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  If everything were just the judgment of a referee. Um, excuse me, if there were no judgments of referees, everything was camera determined. Like I said, you wouldn't need the referee.

• 27:00Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah. And it's funny, but-

• 27:02Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Even some human element, I got one, here you go.

• 27:04Gary O'Reilly?

  Dad.

• 27:05Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Uh, every fifth play is the opposite of what the referee calls. How about that? You just throw in.

• 27:13Gary O'Reilly?

  You're messing with things now. Now you are playing with science. Now you see?

• 27:18Chuck Nice?

  The ran, the random bizarro call. Random bizarro call. Alright, so now let me ask you this. Let's talk about this for a second, Neil. And, uh, this is one of the main reasons we wanted to have you is because when you look at this play, which is probably the most iconic play in football history ever.

• 27:35Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah.

• 27:36Chuck Nice?

  Okay, uh, everybody knows it. And I think it's because it is still to this day, the most controversial football play. Despite the fact that it's been books written, there's been countless interviews done. There's been, um, um, analysis, uh, conducted ad infinitum. But what happens is irrespective of whatever the data may say, the people on one side who actually think that this was a good play, they come out seeing the video, seeing all the explanations and they say, it's a good play. The people on the other side who say that the Oakland Raiders were ripped off and that this should have never happened, they come out saying, it should have never happened.

• 28:19Chuck Nice?

  They're all looking at the exact same thing. And, and this is what I, I wanted to get to you about. Who, what is that? And do we see that, one, in science? And, uh, and, uh, you know, where else do we see that?

• 28:33Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  So yeah, so this is, as you had hinted earlier, it's a form of confirmation bias, which is a very human thing. There are things we want to be true, and we will create a bubble around ourselves, receiving information that supports what we want to be true. And that bubble is kind of, is bulletproof against any piece of data, any thought, any commentary that might undermine your belief that it's true. And so, it's so you have a filtering mechanism for information, and it's, and it's, in many cases, it's highly subliminal. You think you're making rational decisions, but in fact, you're not. And so, this, so,

• 29:16Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  now what you would need, in the case of the immaculate reception, is you invite in a space alien, who doesn't really care, doesn't even understand anything, to say, "What does this look like to you?" They, "Boy, that was an awesome catch!" Then, we're pretty good on that. Yeah. But if the, if the alien says, "Wait a minute, that ball touched the ground, it shouldn't have..." Uh, that, so, what you want is an unbiased observer. And, and space alien would be an extreme, limiting case of that. It would. But, an unbiased observer will have less, will be less susceptible to confirmation bias. And in science, of course, we, we, we know all about, that's, confirmation bias

• 29:56Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  is one of many, many biases. There's a whole Google page, a Wiki page, very nicely prepared, talking about all the cognitive biases that we are victims of as humans. In science, we have slightly more awareness of that possibility within us, but there's still the risk that our scientific results can have the bias of what we want. And so, that's why, it's, a scientific result is not true until there's verification from competing factions. And I put out a result, and the press runs towards, "Oh, new understanding of the universe!" No, that is an understanding of the universe, waiting for confirmation. And once someone

• 30:37Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  else does it, who has no risk of the same kind of bias I might have put in, someone who's a competing researcher, of all manner of people, someone from another country with a different voltage out of the, out of the wall that powers the apparatus, if we all start getting the same result, then we know I was on to something, and I was not subject to bias. But if people start getting different results from me... Then people start looking to me and say, are you biased? Was there a blunder? And that's a demerit in my scientific standing. So we don't want to ever be victims of our own bias. We want to be the most critical viewers of our own work so that no one else puts it in our face.

• 31:21Chuck Nice?

  Gotcha. Very, very cool. Very cool. So now, speaking of confirmation bias, uh, I'm sure you've seen the immaculate reception. Could you, once and for all, settle this subject for us?

• 31:36Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  So here's, here's my reply. By the way, in the Pittsburgh airport,

• 31:39Chuck Nice?

  Yeah.

• 31:39Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  there's a mannequin of Franco Harris.

• 31:42Chuck Nice?

  Yes.

• 31:43Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Yep. Grabbing the ball right just before it's touching the ground.

• 31:47Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 31:48Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  And like, there it is, like there in the airport. And so, so it's, it's not only, um, it was not only a football play. It is now legend and elevated to the level of shrines.

• 32:01Chuck Nice?

  Yeah. Yeah.

• 32:03Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  That's what that was. Um, so I think it's one of these plays where if it was not legit, it's so much more amazing and fun if it were, so let's just keep it that way.

• 32:18Chuck Nice?

  Gotcha. Gotcha. You should run for office.

• 32:24Chuck Nice?

  Hey Neil, thanks so much for joining us and lending your voice to this very important 44-year-old controversy.

• 32:31Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  Man, it's been that long, because I remember it.

• 32:32Chuck Nice?

  I think it's been that long. I think it's been that long.

• 32:35Gary O'Reilly?

  Thank you, as always.

• 32:37Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  All right, guys, we'll catch you on another time.

• 32:39Chuck Nice?

  All right, buddy.

• 32:40Gary O'Reilly?

  Look forward to it.

• 32:40Chuck Nice?

  Thanks a lot.

• 32:41Gary O'Reilly?

  So confirmation from the voice, the designated voice of the universe.

• 32:45Chuck Nice?

  Yes.

• 32:45Gary O'Reilly?

  It's in. We are going to take another break. So question time. John Fuqua, the intended receiver for Terry Bradshaw's pass, has a middle name. What is his middle name? Right, have a think about that. The next question, the chief official on the day, the number one referee. What was his name? Yeah, right. Little brain teaser for you. We will have the answers when we come back. Get thinking. See you shortly.

• 33:22Gary O'Reilly?

  Welcome back, I'm Gary O'Reilly.

• 33:24Chuck Nice?

  And I'm Chuck Nice.

• 33:25Gary O'Reilly?

  And this is Playing with Science. Yes, it is. And we've been talking about The Immaculate Reception, the most famous play in NFL history.

• 33:33Chuck Nice?

  Certainly is.

• 33:34Gary O'Reilly?

  And it has already caused a number of debates, some of which have not been settled, some of which have. Right, two questions before the break. Here are your answers. I asked you, the nickname of John Fuqua from the Steelers, Frenchy.

• 33:51Chuck Nice?

  Frenchy.

• 33:51Gary O'Reilly?

  Always known as Frenchy. And the chief official, the senior man, the head, Honcho, the big cheese, whichever you want to call him, Fred Swearingen was the man on the other end of the phone to NFL supervisor Art McNally.

• 34:07Chuck Nice?

  What a perfect name for a referee. I swear, that was the call. I swear. Swearingen.

• 34:14Gary O'Reilly?

  You're always gonna find the humor, aren't you?

• 34:15Chuck Nice?

  I'm going, I can't help it.

• 34:16Gary O'Reilly?

  Of course, why should you? Right, now let's turn towards, and we are nearly 50 years on from The Immaculate Reception, the legacy of this play.

• 34:27Chuck Nice?

  Yeah.

• 34:28Gary O'Reilly?

  I said in the introduction, it was the turning point for the Steelers and their franchise in the 70s.

• 34:34Chuck Nice?

  Absolutely.

• 34:34Gary O'Reilly?

  It turned the Raiders fans, the club, into Raiders versus not just the NFL, but the world.

• 34:41Chuck Nice?

  Absolutely.

• 34:41Gary O'Reilly?

  And that battle is still raging right now, but it's given us so many other legacies and thoughts with the change of the rules, instant replays, and all sorts of other things, as well as debates.

• 34:54Chuck Nice?

  Absolutely. I mean, I think one of the enduring legacies is just the fact that it's still such an iconic play, which, I don't know, Jim, maybe you, from a writer's standpoint, I kind of feel like the name itself had a big part in us remembering this play. I mean, not too many plays get a name. Like, I remember, what was it, the San Francisco Super Bowl, where Montana, they called it "The Catch."

• 35:21Gary O'Reilly?

  Right.

• 35:21Chuck Nice?

  Never caught on. The catch never caught on. You know?

• 35:25Speaker 03

  And you had the one with the Giants over the Patriots where Tyree coated on his head.

• 35:29Chuck Nice?

  On his head?

• 35:30Speaker 03

  Which is ridiculous.

• 35:31Chuck Nice?

  Right. And no one's ever even named that. Like, they never even named it. Like Helmet Catch, or, you know what I mean?

• 35:37Speaker 03

  Catch forty-two, I think they called it.

• 35:38Chuck Nice?

  Catch forty-two, yeah. What a lousy name. No wonder nobody, nobody is like, you know. Also, too, there wasn't any, there was some controversy surrounding that catch, too. Whether or not he acts, whether or not it, the ball hit the ground. It was all about did it touch the ground.

• 35:53Gary O'Reilly?

  You asked about the phrase. Here we go. The phrase was first used on air by Myron Cope.

• 35:58Chuck Nice?

  Myron Cope?

• 35:59Gary O'Reilly?

  Yes, a Pittsburgh sportscaster who was reporting on the Steelers' victory. And a Pittsburgh woman, Sharon Lovosky, called Cope the night of the game and suggested the name who, that was coined

• 36:10Chuck Nice?

  Go ahead.

• 36:10Gary O'Reilly?

  by one of her friend, Michael Ord. So, Cope says it, Ord comes up with it, and the rest you know is.

• 36:18Chuck Nice?

  His history. Yeah. And that makes sense, you know. So, you know, here's the thing about this that I find fascinating. Here we are, all these years later. We put out on Twitter and Facebook, you know, just kind of an alert. Like, hey, guys, if you're a fan of the Immaculate Reception, give us your, give us your thoughts.

• 36:37Gary O'Reilly?

  Join in.

• 36:38Chuck Nice?

  That's all we said. Give us your, I have five pages, five pages of quotes and thoughts from people online. Here's Warren Bush from Facebook says, "It was terribly exciting, the play, leading up to the catch. It was an amazing day to watch this happen, to tell whether or not the ball touched the ground during the catch or not. Today, we have so many camera angles with so much detail, they can analyze whether a catch was complete or incomplete with incredible precision. There is simply no way to tell if this catch was complete or incomplete by the video that's on hand. However, if you check out the statue in the Pittsburgh airport, I think it puts all doubts to rest." Okay, so clearly, he's a-

• 37:19Gary O'Reilly?

  Does he mean the one of George Washington?

• 37:22Gary O'Reilly?

  Or is it the one of Franco Harris?

• 37:25Chuck Nice?

  Yeah. So, here's another guy. Chris Larson from Facebook says this. It's Schrodinger's ball.

• 37:32Gary O'Reilly?

  Oh.

• 37:33Chuck Nice?

  Look at this guy getting a little, little fit. You like that one, Eric? Schrodinger's ball, that's what he says.

• 37:40Speaker 03

  Cuter than Schrodinger's cat, I guess.

• 37:44Chuck Nice?

  He says-

• 37:44Gary O'Reilly?

  Go on, explain. So, Eric, please, before you go on, explain that whole phraseology.

• 37:49Chuck Nice?

  Schrodinger, uh, give us the Schrodinger analogy.

• 37:54Speaker 04

  Well, the Schrödinger's cat idea was that you could have a cat simultaneously be in an alive and dead state. This was something that was kicked around during the early days of quantum mechanics, not knowing something and having only probabilistic interpretations. So I think the football is the same idea. You know, was it above the ground or was it touching the ground?

• 38:16Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 38:17Speaker 04

  The idea.

• 38:18Chuck Nice?

  Right. Was it touched, was it not touched by the offensive player? So that's the Schrödinger's ball.

• 38:22Gary O'Reilly?

  So we add that to the list of conspiracy theories.

• 38:24Chuck Nice?

  Yes, exactly. And he says, "It was both a catch and not a catch at the same time. Get over it." Schrödinger's ball. Chris Larson said that. Here's a really cool, I gotta give you guys the coolest, we got a little Twitter response, and I think it's the coolest Twitter response that we got on the whole thing. This is from Mark Cuban. And, yes.

• 38:47Gary O'Reilly?

  That Mark.

• 38:48Chuck Nice?

  That Mark Cuban. Billionaire NBA franchise owner Mark Cuban actually said this. "I remember that moment. I was upset, thinking we would lose. Went out to shoot some baskets, of course, and then came screaming into the room once I found out that they had won." So, how cool is that?

• 39:11Gary O'Reilly?

  But see, that's it.

• 39:12Speaker 04

  A fan is born.

• 39:14Gary O'Reilly?

  All right, the players, the players will be upset or exhilarated, euphoric, but the ripple effect of this 26 seconds has been amazing, and it's still finding its way out into the universe. So, so the thing is, Jim, there was a guy who has the ball from the immaculate reception.

• 39:42Chuck Nice?

  Oh.

• 39:43Gary O'Reilly?

  And he dives into a ruck of people after the point after, grabs it, and he's still got it, and it's locked in a safety vault, and he lives in Pittsburgh, and it goes to the Hall of Fame every now and again. And it's that sort of stuff that you just, is bonkers, but it touches people on such a level.

• 39:59Speaker 03

  Why do we follow sports? It's just, it's the hair standing up on the back of your neck, and artifacts, you know, baseballs, certain things, you know, we keep.

• 40:10Speaker 03

  For for cape see yeah for um keepsakes.

• 40:13Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah.

• 40:13Speaker 03

  But uh it's because we remember the moment. It's not the it's not the ball.

• 40:18Gary O'Reilly?

  Did we see this franchise coming, the Steelers franchise before this particular game?

• 40:24Speaker 03

  They were awful.

• 40:25Gary O'Reilly?

  That good?

• 40:25Speaker 03

  In in I think it was sixty nine uh Bradshaw was benched.

• 40:30Gary O'Reilly?

  Wow.

• 40:30Speaker 03

  Um and he was almost cut, I believe. Maybe that's too strong. But they were just horrendous. And um this changed their fortune. The Raiders were like the uh, you know, they were like uh not America's team. They were like the anti-Americas team, which.

• 40:46Chuck Nice?

  I think they still are.

• 40:47Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a watershed moment for the Steelers.

• 40:52Speaker 03

  Twisted the fates of both teams, yeah.

• 40:53Gary O'Reilly?

  Amazing, because the the the prize of beating the Raiders on the day is a game against the Miami Dolphins. Now, Eric, you have a little bit of trivia that's attached to this particular day in Pittsburgh history.

• 41:08Speaker 04

  So the the game against Miami was played in Three Rivers Stadium.

• 41:12Gary O'Reilly?

  Right.

• 41:13Speaker 04

  Uh which was odd because Miami was undefeated at the time. And the the Pittsburgh Steelers lost twenty one to seventeen. But that that same day uh that Pittsburgh and everyone else in the the sports world and the world in general lost Roberto Clemente to a plane crash. He was on his way to Nicaragua to help uh victims of an earthquake. And it was just it was a sad day.

• 41:36Chuck Nice?

  Sad sad day. Sad day.

• 41:39Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah.

• 41:39Speaker 04

  Just just thirty eight years old and uh he had he had his last hit in Major League Baseball was his three thousandth hit. So uh he finished with three thousand on the nose and uh uh the thirty first of December in seventy two is a is a just an awful day in Pittsburgh history.

• 41:54Gary O'Reilly?

  Wow, the magic of the numbers. He because I'm sure his own personal targets would have included three thousand.

• 42:00Chuck Nice?

  Yeah.

• 42:01Gary O'Reilly?

  And there he he achieves it thinking, what else can I achieve? And then it's dramatically taken away. What a what a sad day.

• 42:08Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, you know, and it's funny because uh when you talk about sad days and you were talking about legacies. I I actually transcribed. I sat and I listened to some of these uh comments that these players made after this game.

• 42:23Gary O'Reilly?

  Hmm.

• 42:23Chuck Nice?

  And it's fascinating.

• 42:26Chuck Nice?

  The, the, the, the kind of, I don't wanna call it sour grapes, you know.

• 42:31Gary O'Reilly?

  But it's sour grapes.

• 42:32Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, but these guys, I mean, this really had an effect on them. Okay, so listen to, uh, Phil, uh, Villopiano, who was the linebacker for the Oakland Raiders, uh, during that. These are his exact words, okay? I'm, I'm not making any of this up and I did not embellish at all. I'm not paraphrasing.

• 42:50Gary O'Reilly?

  Okay.

• 42:50Chuck Nice?

  All right, here it goes. Terry Bradshaw took the snap. I looked at him, I looked at Franco, I looked back at him again. Franco's doing nothing. He missed his block. Bradshaw scrambles out of the way. Franco comes jogging down the field, half speed. He's my man, so I'm jogging half speed with him. I saw Bradshaw throw the ball. I shot over to help make the tackle. Meanwhile, Franco had just drifted over there somewhere and it goes right to him. Had I been as lazy as Franco, that ball would have come to me waist high. Now I spin around, I can still make the play. Nick Macon, no one would ever remember this guy, their tight end. Smart player, dives in the back of my legs.

• 43:35Chuck Nice?

  What's he got to lose? They're gonna lose the game anyway. The biggest clip ever, no clip call. I remember laying on the ground, watching Franco turn down the sideline, just not believing. Just can't believe what happened. That's an angry dude.

• 43:52Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah, and you don't need a linebacker that's angry.

• 43:58Chuck Nice?

  It's so, it's so funny, like so many fakes.

• 44:00Gary O'Reilly?

  See, that would have been in the locker room, just after, and the, the, the adrenaline and the, and the anger will just be festering. Terrible.

• 44:09Chuck Nice?

  Saying if I was as lazy as he had been.

• 44:11Gary O'Reilly?

  Oh, yeah. Oh, no, you don't hold back. At that moment, you don't care at all as an athlete that's just lost a game like this, so you just let it all out, maybe.

• 44:20Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, it's funny, you know, Jack Tatum, who, you know, of course, he's at the center of the controversy. Here's a guy, you know, whether did you touch the ball? Did you not? Now, uh, originally, Tatum were, immediately after, he said, you know, hey.

• 44:37Chuck Nice?

  You know, uh, I, I didn't touch the ball. But then, uh, there's other interviews where you hear him say, I really couldn't tell you if I hit the ball or not. So, you know, it's, here's a guy who, you know, uh, once again, uh, you know, so many fates turned on this game that I think the one that really, the quote that got me the most was Frenchie Fuqua, who was the guy who Franco Harris kind of supplanted as the savior of Pittsburgh.

• 45:05Gary O'Reilly?

  Yep.

• 45:05Chuck Nice?

  Cause you know, Frenchie was the guy that everybody was looking to, to be the big hero. This is what he actually said years after this game, years and years after this game. He says, it was my opportunity to be a hero, to be lifted up on everybody's shoulders. I'm looking in, I'm looking into, uh, uh, Bradshaw's blue eyes the whole time. I know he's gonna throw it to me. He ducks, he comes up, he throws the ball. Well, I look to the sideline and he runs down the sideline with my hundreds of thousands of dollars that I would have made if I would have caught that ball and scored. I'm saying to myself, God, I blew it.

• 45:46Gary O'Reilly?

  Oh.

• 45:48Chuck Nice?

  How messed up is that, man?

• 45:49Gary O'Reilly?

  Well, let me, how, how do you spell team again? Is it the one with the I in it?

• 45:53Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, team is the one with the I in it and the hundreds of thousands of dollars lost.

• 45:57Gary O'Reilly?

  But then again, just afterwards, he, he said that he'd spoken to one person and one person only, Frenchie, and that was the old owner, Art Rooney. And he said, I told him what happened and Rooney's reply was, Frenchie, just keep it immaculate. So he's never spoken about that again, in terms of what actually happened.

• 46:16Chuck Nice?

  Wow. Yeah, well, it doesn't seem like it's a happy memory for him anyway, so.

• 46:20Gary O'Reilly?

  He's, he's monetized that whole event, hasn't he?

• 46:23Chuck Nice?

  Oh, without a doubt.

• 46:25Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah, for sure.

• 46:26Chuck Nice?

  Well, this has been fun.

• 46:27Gary O'Reilly?

  Yeah.

• 46:27Chuck Nice?

  I, I've, I've really enjoyed this, I mean, little walk down memory lane, not that I was there.

• 46:33Gary O'Reilly?

  Okay, let's do just a, the straw poll. Your opinion, was it or not?

• 46:37Chuck Nice?

  Um, I, I think Tatum, it, it went off his shoulder pads. I don't think Fuqua touched it. I think it went off of Tatum and then, and it's, the play is what it is. Immaculate. Immaculate.

• 46:46Gary O'Reilly?

  Eric.

• 46:48Speaker 04

  As a scientist, I don't have enough data to make a perfect assessment. So I'm gonna, I'm gonna say I just don't have a gut feeling on it.

• 46:57Chuck Nice?

  All right, all right. That was very scientific of you, Eric.

• 47:00Gary O'Reilly?

  I cannot deny the man his principles and he stuck with it. I think it's a touchdown. I cannot rule on Franco Harris because I don't think anyone can, apart from the man himself.

• 47:09Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, there you have it.

• 47:10Gary O'Reilly?

  And what we do say is, all respect to the officials, because they call it. Basically, there and then in real time.

• 47:18Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, it's a tough job, tough job. I'll never forget in high school, we used to do a thing where a ref would make a bad call and everybody would chant, "The ref beats his wife, the ref beats his wife." Now, that means nothing here. I just thought I'd share that.

• 47:32Gary O'Reilly?

  Thank you for sharing. Professor Eric Goff, thank you so much for your insight into the physics of the Immaculate Reception. Jim Brennan, thank you for being in the studio. It's been absolute pleasure for memories and thoughts. I'm Gary O'Reilly.

• 47:47Chuck Nice?

  I'm Chuck Nice.

• 47:48Gary O'Reilly?

  And this has been Playing with Science. If you have a thought on the Immaculate Reception, don't keep it to yourself. Share it with us. If it's an immaculate deception, then there's nothing gonna change your mind. We look forward to your company soon. Bye for now.

• 48:05Gary O'Reilly?

  Welcome back and thanks for sticking with us, as of course is our extended version of The Immaculate Reception. Right, let's get to it Chuck, with the good Professor Eric Goff.

• 48:13Chuck Nice?

  Hey Professor, how are you?

• 48:15Gary O'Reilly?

  Mm, hi.

• 48:16Speaker 04

  I'm doing great. How are you Chuck and Gary?

• 48:17Chuck Nice?

  We are good to have you.

• 48:19Gary O'Reilly?

  Right.

• 48:19Chuck Nice?

  And once again, of course, the author of Gold Medal Physics, as Gary said, the stocking stuffer of all time.

• 48:26Gary O'Reilly?

  Yes.

• 48:26Chuck Nice?

  So go get your stocking stuffed.

• 48:29Gary O'Reilly?

  I'll get better than that.

• 48:30Chuck Nice?

  I just love saying that. I don't know why. But anyway, you know, so this is still, and I don't know if you can speak to this or not, Professor, but whether it's sports or politics or anything, it seems as though confirmation bias, just you can't get away from it. The great thing about this play is, I don't care, you know, we're coming up on the anniversary. And people who watch this, it's been analyzed every single kind of way possible. And the people who are Pittsburgh fans are saying it's the greatest play of all time. And a lot of other people are saying.

• 49:05Gary O'Reilly?

  Silver and black.

• 49:06Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, they're just like.

• 49:07Gary O'Reilly?

  The Raider Nation.

• 49:08Chuck Nice?

  Is.

• 49:08Gary O'Reilly?

  It's just playing to their mantra.

• 49:10Chuck Nice?

  They're saying this is.

• 49:11Gary O'Reilly?

  Everybody hates us.

• 49:12Chuck Nice?

  We were ripped off and this is why, you know, they didn't want us to have it and, you know, the conspira. So can, I don't know if you could speak to that, uh, in, in terms of from a scientific standpoint, or just from a sports standpoint.

• 49:24Speaker 04

  Well, I think confirmation bias kind of hits all of us from time to time. I mean, we, first of all, we don't want to be, uh, seen as wrong. Uh, we don't like to admit we're wrong. And sometimes even with data staring us in the face that says we're wrong, we like to spin it in a direction that maybe makes it look like either there's something wrong with the data or the video's a little off or somebody was, uh, there's some conspiracy that somebody's trying to suppress something. So, uh, we tend to hold on to the, those visceral beliefs that we have. And sometimes even science has trouble, uh, prying you out of your, your beliefs and giving you something a little more realistic.

• 50:01Chuck Nice?

  That was my next question. How do you avoid that in science? You're doing research, okay? You want your research to work. How do you, as a scientist, um, avoid confirmation bias? And avoid the temptation to spin something so that, hey, so that all my work isn't in vain?

• 50:21Speaker 04

  Well, good ethical science is done with the idea of just learning how the universe works. And one of the greatest things that can happen is, is sometimes we learn we're wrong about something. And, you know, that's how we learn something. If we have a preconceived notion for how something works and we find out that that's not how it works, that's really exciting because that means we've learned something. Uh, if we never change our current beliefs or never change our current understanding of the universe, we're going to spend the rest of our lives not learning anything. So that's kind of boring.

• 50:50Chuck Nice?

  So are you saying that as a scientist, it's actually a good thing to be wrong? That you celebrate being wrong? Because I'm going to tell you what most people think about being wrong. I'm the scientist, I get my findings. I'm going to back up off the mic so that this is what you hear in the laboratory.

• 51:12Speaker 07

  God damn it, guys, I'm fighting for my life. I can't go wasting my whole life. I just get God damn.

• 51:21Chuck Nice?

  You know, you know, I'm just saying.

• 51:22Gary O'Reilly?

  You need a nap. You do, you need a nap.

• 51:26Chuck Nice?

  I mean, you know.

• 51:28Speaker 04

  What was it? Edison, I think, is the one that said, you know, he found 2,000 ways not to build a light bulb. I mean, he failed and failed and failed. And then finally figured it out how to do it. And now, you know, nobody else takes 2,000 failures to do it. So, you know, there's value in finding how to do something wrong. You know, you stumble and you you you try to learn something and maybe you don't learn it very well and you you're mistaken in your experiments or whatever. But you start learning how to do things better and improving your technique in the future. And then you finally learn something and it's really cool.

• 52:00Chuck Nice?

  By the way, I don't know how you knew this, but I was doing an impression of Edison. So.

• 52:05Speaker 04

  Oh, yeah. I could tell. Good old Thomas Edison.

• 52:11Gary O'Reilly?

  Not a professor for nothing. He knows this stuff. Just knows this stuff.

• 52:14Speaker 04

  It was the accent that did it.

• 52:16Gary O'Reilly?

  Ah, always that. Right. First question. Our good friend and obvious avid listener, of which we thank him, James Thompson, comes up with on Twitter, can science develop an airless football conforming to all official specifications, thus ending future deflategate worries?

• 52:36Speaker 04

  Wow.

• 52:37Gary O'Reilly?

  Dun dun. So, Professor, is it possible? Do we have the science, the technology, the wherewithal to create such a ball?

• 52:45Chuck Nice?

  An airless football. Wow.

• 52:47Speaker 04

  Well, I'm not sure we'd want to create an airless football. I mean, when you go to kick off a ball, or you're gonna punt it, the main idea is, is that the foot goes into the ball a good chunk, and you compress the air inside of that ball, and then you get this springy effect where the air releases, and the ball comes off of your foot. And that force of interaction between the foot and the ball might average four or 500 pounds, but it could get close to a ton on a very, very short time scale. And that comes about through that compressed air. So, you know, trying to figure out how you would design a ball where you could get that same kind of springy effect without air is gonna be challenging.

• 53:31Gary O'Reilly?

  It's it's better for the imperfections. In the sense, yeah, isn't that one of, it's one of those wonderful things that it's all better because there are imperfections, like the laces outside make their talk and all the rest of it. So also if you, once it hits the ground, it may not bounce and it, well, bounce is weird anyway because of its shape, but it won't bounce in the same way. It will have a lower bounce and it will, obviously forces involved in that.

• 53:55Speaker 04

  That, that's right. You have this delicious proliellipsoid that the football is shaped in and then you get this nice bounce off of the nose or the side and you get these strange bounces. But the bounces come about through compressions of the ball, in which case the air gets compressed and then springs back out. I mean, just try to imagine playing soccer, Gary, where you've got a ball that doesn't have air in it. I mean, it's kind of a solid, I don't think you'd want to do that.

• 54:20Chuck Nice?

  That's called my childhood. What are you guys talking about?

• 54:22Gary O'Reilly?

  No, if you, you're not able to kick it, you won't be able to do all the things that you're supposed to and can do with it. You'd, you'd just, basically you would destroy the game.

• 54:30Chuck Nice?

  How about this? A revolutionary that not yet existing foam that has the same weight as air, but yet has the spring and memory of, uh, uh, the ball itself.

• 54:44Gary O'Reilly?

  Flubber.

• 54:45Chuck Nice?

  Flubber.

• 54:47Gary O'Reilly?

  Flubber.

• 54:47Chuck Nice?

  Density, same density as air, but okay, yes.

• 54:51Speaker 04

  I mean, you, you could try that. I mean, the, the trick is going to be getting that, that springiness in the material to give you the kind of large forces you need over just a small amount of the ball. Cause right now you take advantage of the entire ball with the air contained within it.

• 55:06Chuck Nice?

  Hmm. Interesting. So basically air is the best thing, you know?

• 55:11Speaker 04

  It's cheap.

• 55:12Chuck Nice?

  It's cheap.

• 55:13Gary O'Reilly?

  We, we prefer inexpensive professor to cheap. Um, so I mean, the fact that you can deform or be it for fractions of a second, as the professor was explaining, when you're punting, that just adds to the magic of everything that goes on within the physics. I mean, what, what is the ideal pressure? Can we overinflate a football, would you say?

• 55:33Chuck Nice?

  Hmm. Well, if you're Tom Brady, regulation is overinflated. Hi-yo.

• 55:40Chuck Nice?

  Hiyo.

• 55:41Speaker 04

  We're under in play, right?

• 55:43Chuck Nice?

  Well, I'm saying if it, yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

• 55:45Speaker 04

  The, I mean, I think that the rules in the NFL state 12 and a half to 13 and a half PSI.

• 55:51Chuck Nice?

  Right.

• 55:52Speaker 04

  Now, keep in mind, that's the gauge pressure. So we all experience something like 14.7 PSI of atmospheric pressure. So you got about, you know, on the square inch of your skin, you have the weight of a bowling ball from the air acting. And luckily, we've evolved in this atmosphere. So we've got about that much pressure from our cells on the inside that balance it. But the thing with the ball, it's like a tire. You have this rigidity in the material that allows you to keep a pressure 12 and a half to 13 and a half PSI above the atmospheric pressure. So the ball feels nice and tight, the, the material around it's nice and rigid.

• 56:30Chuck Nice?

  Well, unless you're Tom Brady, in which case you like your balls soft. So. Still riding the Brady mobile, aren't you? Hey. You are driving it into the ground. I am through the ground. I'll come out in China if I have to. Okay. Hey, why don't we go to another question before I get myself in trouble? Um, this is Ghosty and Ghosty comes to us from Twitter at Ghost250UK. I want to, or 2501UK. I wonder if he's actually from the UK, Gary? Ah, of course. Okay. So, uh, it says, if a top NFL player can throw a ball 100 yards on earth, how far could he throw on the moon? And he puts in parentheses, wearing a spacesuit.

• 57:13Chuck Nice?

  I'm not sure. I guess that would limit mobility, but I'm gonna lose that part. Cause. No, no, to put him in the spacesuit, but don't forget with the gravitational difference. Yeah, I know, but that's a lot to figure out. But you know what, Eric, you're. The movement, wouldn't it? Yeah, you're a physicist. Come on, let's have the, let's have the good guy deal with it. In the spacesuit. Yeah.

• 57:30Speaker 04

  So the moon's gravitational tug is about one-sixth of what it is on the earth. So. If you could get the moon suit to have you a gloved hand so that you could actually throw it with the same technique that you throw it on the earth, which would be challenging. You're talking about six times farther, you also don't have an atmosphere, so you reduce the drag, and when you first throw the ball, you get about a third the weight of the ball in the air drag. So you're gonna get a, you know, you get about six times farther, so you're talking about 600 yards, and then maybe you get another 10 or 20% distance in that with the lack of atmosphere. So, you know, maybe you get something close to 700 yards of the throw.

• 58:13Chuck Nice?

  Field's gonna have to be a thousand yards long. Yeah, that's pretty cool, man. So now let me ask you this, what would it take for you to throw the ball so that would orbit the moon? Or is that too much to figure out right now?

• 58:26Speaker 04

  Well, you're gonna need the escape velocity of the moon, so you're gonna need the, you know, from the earth, it's about 11 kilometers per second, and you're gonna have a, what is there, a square root of G in there, so you're gonna have to take that down to a sixth, and so you're gonna have to do about a third or something of the launch speed to get this thing into orbit. But I don't think we're gonna get people throwing kilometer per second footballs up on the moon.

• 58:53Chuck Nice?

  Yeah, I'm with you on that. It's a serious arm. Maybe get Aaron Rodgers up there. Well, you know, I don't know, Carson Wentz might be able to do it, I'm just saying. Oh, it's all about the Eagles, isn't it? It's all about the Eagles. No, listen.

• 59:04Speaker 04

  You know the Eagles can't fly on the moon, because there's no air, right?

• 59:07Chuck Nice?

  Ta-da! Yeah. Grounded. They can't fly on the moon, but they could still beat Dallas and the New York Giants. Ooh, I don't care where they play them, alright. It's okay, Professor. He hasn't been able to sing that song for some time, so just gonna let him have that. I never gloat, okay? We're having a great season, I never gloat, okay? I'm gonna leave it at that, alright? Okay. Yeah, right. Everybody thinks Eagles fans are the worst, you know, but I'm just saying, you know, it feels good to win, and we don't know what to do with that, alright? Seriously. Like, the prettiest girl in school just said hello to me, what am I gonna do? Alright? Am I gonna pull a Louis CK? I don't think so. I don't know what I'm gonna do. Alright, I just keep talking now, because I'm nervous.

• 59:49Chuck Nice?

  Moving on. There you go.

• 59:52Gary O'Reilly?

  Professor, I think someone feels better now.

• 59:55Chuck Nice?

  Hey, you know what? We're out of time.

• 59:56Gary O'Reilly?

  Someone feels better now.

• 59:57Chuck Nice?

  What do you know? We're out of time.

• 59:59Gary O'Reilly?

  What if the producer had that happen?

• 1:00:04Gary O'Reilly?

  Professor, thank you so much just for your patience with our Eagles. Right, it's been fabulous to have Professor Eric Goff answer your questions. The pleasure was ours as always, and thank you to our listeners for your questions. It's been Playing with Science and an extended and revisited version of our Immaculate Reception. So I hope you've enjoyed that. Until next time, from Gary O'Reilly and... And Chuck Nice. We'll see you all soon. Bye bye.