Tennessee Volunteers outlast the Kentucky Wildcats in 4 OTs, 52-50: initial post-game ramblin's

by Joel on Nov 24, 2007 6:59 PM EST in Tennessee Volunteer Football Comment 8 comments

Commence the fifteen minutes of immediate post-game stream of consciousness! Woo!

Wow. I could probably say just that for 15 minutes. Just ask my family and my Boston Terrier, who got so frightened at one of my outbursts that she became incontinent. Carpet cleaner, somebody, quick. She was wise enough to leave after doing the deed, so, you know, good dog and all that.

First off, congratulations to the Kentucky Wildcats for a fantastic game. We had y'all down and pretty much beaten in the first half, but you rallied and made it a game. And what a game it was. One I will never forget.

Stealing from Peter's instant reaction posts now:

The outcome was: indeed, like Everest, K2, and Mars, all wrapped up into one, just not for the Kentucky fans. Putting enough discernible distance between the Vols and the 'Cats for society to permit one of them to claim they were better on this day was a feat requiring enormous effort and dedication. Consequences? The SEC Championship. We're going to Atlanta despite the Cal, Florida, and Alabama debacles. We're spending the week plotting revenge on the LSU Tigers for 2001, when they trampled the rose clinched between Casey Clausen's teeth.

The Offensive MVP was: Tie. Erik Ainge and Arian Foster. We needed both today like no other day. Arian, for grinding out both yards and clock, and Ainge for finding the right receiver and making the big play when Foster's efforts alone weren't enough to get us first downs. Bravo to you both.

The Defensive MVP was: Jerod Mayo. All game, you could see him adjusting to what Andre Woodson was doing and barking out instructions, conveying his knowledge and experience to the rest of the defense. No wait, what about Ricardo Kemp? Where in the world has he been all year? The guy was an absolute monster, getting at least a couple of really huge sacks. Dude. Dude. Really, though, this was a team effort. Got the stops when we needed them.

The offensive Offensive Player of the Week: Lucas Taylor. Sorry, buddy, love ya, but today wasn't your best. At least three drops I can remember in key situations. Still, you went for over 100 yards, I think, and we needed everyone of them, so woo for you, too.

The offensive Defensive Player of the Week: Hmm. Rico McCoy? Was he playing today?

LSU Fear Factor: Who cares? What a win today! Okay, well, yesterday, I was entertaining the thought of what outcome of the LSU Arkansas game would be best for us in the SEC Championship game, assuming we won today, naturally. (!) Initially, I wanted the Mad Hatter to blow out the Hogs and come in overconfident. Then, when that went out the window and the game went to overtime, I just wanted them to win in as many OTs as possible and be tuckered out. Then they lost, and I thought, well then, perhaps they'll be emotionally distraught and worn out. Well. We've now got our own challenge to overcome: an emotional high and a fatiguing game. So who knows? But tonight, who cares? Woo!

Hmm. Fifteen minutes goes by fast. Wow.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Post-game Award

I'm sure they'll follow later this week, but I've got a nominee for the biggest "HUH?!" Award:

Officials - How does the near decapitation of Eric Berry during an interception return go unenforced, but Arian Foster get called/penalized for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty after a failed conversion? Yeah, I've heard the supposed logic used, but that is a horrible double-standard in the rules.

by Aerobab on Nov 24, 2007 7:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I'm with you there. That was bizarre.

Go Vols!

by Joel on Nov 24, 2007 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Unsafe, too

I was just reading through the open-thread comments and came across several statements on muggings, murder, etc. during said "change in posession plays". This actually does bring player safety into question, thus a formal inquiry into a rule change should be requested by the university.

It's just not safe to put players in harm's way, if there's no possiblity of consequences to players who (potentially) cause great harm to others. It's a mouthfull, sure, but I think the point is understood by all.

by Aerobab on Nov 24, 2007 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

I was hot over that particular play call. It makes no sense that a face mask in to the ground goes unchecked but showing emotion gets a 15 yard penalty.

That makes zero logical sense

"Gentlemen, it is better to have died as a small boy than to fumble this football." John Heisman

by BloodSpite on Nov 24, 2007 8:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I was the one who made the mugging comment, and it was more to highlight the oddity of the rules than out of seriousness. But the point remains. The NCAA has set up a condition where a team can commit as many fouls as they want, and nobody can don anything about it. Heck, Kentucky should have sent everybody from the sidelines in to help on the tackle. The refs would have had a very, very difficult time awarding a touchdown, the way the rules are established.

This is a direct result of the overtime system used in college. It creates a completely different style of game, and produces situations not normally seen in a real game. In normal time, that play would have had a personal foul added, and Tennessee would have taken over from wherever the foul spotted the ball. In overtime, they start at the 25, unless Tennessee commits some sort of penalty (as we saw). I would be in favor of allowing Tennessee (in this case) one play from the spot of the foul, or one play after the penalty is marked off. Somehow, they have to add incentive to not intentionally foul somebody after that kind of turnover.

Unfortunately, football by nature has no good overtime format. I like the pro system better, but that is obviously biased toward the coin clip winner. Maybe the answer is to add a 5th quarter. Then both teams are guaranteed a shot at the ball, and winning the coin toss is not an overwhelming advantage. Nobody likes that because of the injury risk, though, so we'll never see it.

by Hooper on Nov 24, 2007 9:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Meant to add

However, I'm sure almost every program in the country will look at that call and tell their players that they can commit a foul if needed to prevent the return touchdown. For example, if a team goes into overtime, they'd remind the offense that if a turnover occurs, there's no penalty marked off after the change in possession. They won't tell them to mug or be flagrant, naturally, but if they have additional leverage to stop the return, they will. That rule has to be changed - preferably during the next offseason.

by Hooper on Nov 24, 2007 9:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

One thing to keep in mind

that it was not the "officials" who caused that--it was the rule book. The rules are very specific about live ball fouls being declined by rule after a CHANGE OF POSSESSION in overtime and fouls that are live ball enforced as dead ball (such as a player running off of the sideline to make a tackle--would have carried over as a nonplayer foul) and dead ball fouls (and we saw that one on Foster). The rules also make the point that after the change of possession, be it 1st down, 3rd down or whatever down, if the team that originaly had the ball gets it back, then they have to score. If Berry would have fumbled, and Kentucky recovered and was tackled, that series would have ended anyway and it would have been Tennessee's ball. By the same token, if someone in a white jersey had held or blocked in the back, it would not have carried over either.

Granted, that was a rough looking play, but the officials still have the "flagrant" option in their pocket. That dude was just flailing for anything to get him down, and it just happened he grabbed the mask--if the officials deem it flagrant, they can always eject the player even the the yardage portion of the penalty would have been declined.

Hooper is right, though, the way the overtime system is setup just makes it so different than "regular" football.

Another thing that would have really blown everyone's mind. A score by a team that commits a foul AFTER A CHANGE OF POSSESSION is canceled by rule. So, for instance, Lamarcus Coker (and I use his name cause he was good at this) breaks free down the sideline in the third quarter and does a somersalt into the endzone with no defensive player threatening him, 15 yard unsportsmanlike tacked onto the kickoff (or try if they choose). If Eric Berry recovers a blocked field goal in overtime and runs 90 yards and does a somersalt into the endzone with no opposition from the other team--the score is canceled and the ball goes over to the next series.

That would really cause some TV cussing right there.

Volorado's Cinematographer

by gramsey712 on Nov 25, 2007 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well said

It was most certainly the fault of the rulebook. The overtime rules seem to have been cobbled together in a rather hasty and poorly-analyzed manner. I would guess that they focused so much on providing a fast and high-tension overtime, that they didn't thoroughly think out the implications of the rules.

That last wrinkle is highly un-amusing. If a player has enough room to somersault into an endzone, he clearly has the other team beat for a touchdown. To actually have a rule written to cancel the touchdown is asinine.

I officially hate the college overtime now.

by Hooper on Nov 25, 2007 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs