James Franklin is supposedly....

[Volgrad98]

That's been my whole point regarding Franklin. He's only been a HC for 3 years...in the SEC...at the the worst program historically.

While at Vandy, what SEC coaches do you think he out coached?

Not calling you out, just curious.

 

[KoachKletus]

While at Vandy, what SEC coaches do you think he out coached?

Not calling you out, just curious.

None. The one game Franklin can partially hang his hat on is Ga. But in Richts defense, Ga had just played LSU - UT - and Mizzou while Vandy was coming off a bye week to play Ga. Richts team was beat all to hell. UT and UF tried to outsuck each other. That's the gist of it. Franklin was the fruitful recipient of the perfect SEC storm. Happens every 100 years or so. I must laud the douche for cashing and dashing to Penn.

 

[Grand Vol]

I thought Franklin's big secret was he got players enrolled in the part of Vandy that had lower academic standards.

I thought I recalled the same thing, but had a hard time tracking down the info.

 

[#JuanVol]

I thought I recalled the same thing, but had a hard time tracking down the info.

That info will never be released. I had heard the same thing, but the administration at Vandy will never go public with news like that.

 

[Boca Vol]

While at Vandy, what SEC coaches do you think he out coached?

Not calling you out, just curious.

Dooley, Jones, & Petrino for starters. In 2011, it took a fluke 95 yard fumble return for a TD by Ark to help them beat Vandy.

I usually don't say the losing coach outcoached the winning coach but if UT fans are going to say that Butch outcoached Richt this year then I'll say Franklin outcoached Petrino that day.

 

[bamawriter]

While at Vandy, what SEC coaches do you think he out coached?

Not calling you out, just curious.

He outcoached Jones last year. Jones helped by undercoaching a bit. Either way, Vandy got the better end of the coaching battle that night.

 

[velovol]

Give Franklin all the credit for getting players to play hard, but his best win was this years defeat of UGA.

And I started to think he has had a decent amount of attrition in his classes and going by this depth chart and putting stacy as starting RB he recruited 5/22 starters. So I would have been curious how he would have done long term.

College Player Database - Depth Chart

 

[OrangeBalls]

Dooley, Jones, & Petrino for starters. In 2011, it took a fluke 95 yard fumble return for a TD by Ark to help them beat Vandy.

I usually don't say the losing coach outcoached the winning coach but if UT fans are going to say that Butch outcoached Richt this year then I'll say Franklin outcoached Petrino that day.

He outcoached Jones last year. Jones helped by undercoaching a bit. Either way, Vandy got the better end of the coaching battle that night.

UT was playing a 3rd string true freshman QB (at best) in his 3rd start. They lost their one and only WR threat early in the 1st half. Dobbs proceeded to throw 2 early INT's that made the coaching staff dial back the passing game. They lost on 2 reversed calls that would've easily won them the game and finally lost it in the last :14 seconds. If you think that is getting outcoached then I have some ocean front property to sell you in South Dakota.

 

[Aesius]

He outcoached Jones last year. Jones helped by undercoaching a bit. Either way, Vandy got the better end of the coaching battle that night.

Disagree. If Pig doesn't block in the back, we win.

Plus, their entire offensive gameplan was... throw it to Matthews. Which ended up being what was basically the game winning play.

 

[OrangeBalls]

Disagree. If Pig doesn't block in the back, we win.

Plus, their entire offensive gameplan was... throw it to Matthews. Which ended up being what was basically the game winning play.

Or the reversed call which was correct after the fact. However, I don't see how a team winning on a last second play is getting outcoached. If anything, it was a draw. Vandy didn't have many playmakers, but they did have their Sr QB who could throw and had their Sr WR who made the deciding play in the final minute. UT had neither because their best QB was hurt on the sideline and their best WR was hurt in the 1st half.

 

[bamawriter]

UT was playing a 3rd string true freshman QB (at best) in his 3rd start. They lost their one and only WR threat early in the 1st half. Dobbs proceeded to throw 2 early INT's that made the coaching staff dial back the passing game. They lost on 2 reversed calls that would've easily won them the game and finally lost it in the last :14 seconds. If you think that is getting outcoached then I have some ocean front property to sell you in South Dakota.

First off, only one of the reversed calls was even remotely questionable. The fourth down conversion was absolutely reversed correctly.

Second, Jones and Co dialed back the passing game so much that it ceased to be a threat. The two INTs weren't what derailed UT's offense, it was the 2.8 yards per attempt. Vandy's safeties got to play in the box without any legit worry about being burned. UT's coaches flat out stopped running routes to get them out of the box.

 

[OrangeBalls]

First off, only one of the reversed calls was even remotely questionable. The fourth down conversion was absolutely reversed correctly.

Second, Jones and Co dialed back the passing game so much that it ceased to be a threat. The two INTs weren't what derailed UT's offense, it was the 2.8 yards per attempt. Vandy's safeties got to play in the box without any legit worry about being burned. UT's coaches flat out stopped running routes to get them out of the box.

First, I've seen worse calls not overturned. Don't question the utter stupidity of SEC refs.

Second, you must have not watched many UT games this year. They had North as their lone deep threat WR and that was it. Pig was a good slot receiver, but Dobbs was not accurate. If you watched Vandy at all towards the end of the year, they feasted off the other team's mistakes. See the UGA and Fla games for proof. Fla basically gave them the game by continuing to throw INT's and Vandy basically had 20 yards or less TD drives. After Dobbs threw the 2 early INTs, they shut it down. It almost worked. I probably wouldn't have done much different because if they would've continued to pass the ball then Vandy would've gotten more turnovers and gotten quick scores. Jones and Co were handcuffed by an inexperienced QB and no threat at WR.

 

[dreVol]

First off, only one of the reversed calls was even remotely questionable. The fourth down conversion was absolutely reversed correctly.

Second, Jones and Co dialed back the passing game so much that it ceased to be a threat. The two INTs weren't what derailed UT's offense, it was the 2.8 yards per attempt. Vandy's safeties got to play in the box without any legit worry about being burned. UT's coaches flat out stopped running routes to get them out of the box.

The call was not reversed correctly pursuant to the standard for reviewing a play. Whether the call should have been different on the field is entirely irrelevant to whether the call was properly reversed.

 

[bamawriter]

The call was not reversed correctly pursuant to the standard for reviewing a play. Whether the call should have been different on the field is entirely irrelevant to whether the call was properly reversed.

Fine...

The call on the field was hideously bad, indefensible by any honest observer. As such, the "incorrect" reversal yielded the correct result.

Better?

 

[Boca Vol]

Rocky Goode, who is an SEC ref (now a replay official) and played for UT, was on the Jimmy Hyams/ John Wilkerson show back in Dec. and he said the reversal was correct in that instance and that refs were allowed to use common sense in a situation like that.

 

[CNCVol88]

Rocky Goode, who is an SEC ref (now a replay official) and played for UT, was on the Jimmy Hyams/ John Wilkerson show back in Dec. and he said the reversal was correct in that instance and that refs were allowed to use common sense in a situation like that.

Of Course an SEC Ref is going to defend an SEC Ref. The rules do not support his statement however.

 

[Boca Vol]

Of Course an SEC Ref is going to defend an SEC Ref. The rules do not support his statement however.

You go to bed tonight and there is no snow on the ground. You wake up in the morning and there is a foot of snow on the ground. Even though you didn't see it snow, you can realistically assume that it snowed throughout the night.

It's called common sense and the refs are allowed to use it.

 

[hog88]

You go to bed tonight and there is no snow on the ground. You wake up in the morning and there is a foot of snow on the ground. Even though you didn't see it snow, you can realistically assume that it snowed throughout the night.

It's called common sense and the refs are allowed to use it.

Not supposed to. I don't think common sense is defined in the rule book. I believe the way it's worded is "indisputable video evidence". Show me that!

 

[dreVol]

Fine...

The call on the field was hideously bad, indefensible by any honest observer. As such, the "incorrect" reversal yielded the correct result.

Better?

I wouldn't have described the call on the field with language as strong as this.

There are 3 possible calls following video review:

(1) The call is confirmed meaning that video evidence supports the ruling on the field.

(2) The call stands meaning that there is insufficient video evidence to confirm or overrule the ruling on the field.

(3) The call is overturned meaning that video evidence clearly invalidates the ruling on the field.

Whether the on-field call was bad (hideously or otherwise) is irrelevant. Equity or common sense cannot come into play in situations where the applicable rule(s) do not expressly allow a deviation from the stated standards. The call may have been "bad," the call may have been "wrong," but ultimately there was no video evidence available to support overturning the call.

 

[bamawriter]

Whether the on-field call was bad (hideously or otherwise) is irrelevant. Equity or common sense cannot come into play in situations where the applicable rule(s) do not expressly allow a deviation from the stated standards. The call may have been "bad," the call may have been "wrong," but ultimately there was no video evidence available to support overturning the call.

Totally incorrect. There was indisputable evidence that the call on the field was wrong. The ball was not where the line judge spotted it. So the replay official was correct in overturning that call. Had this been a case of "catch or no catch", it would have been as simple as that.

But in the case of a blown spot, the correct spot has to be determined. I will agree that this was impossible to do in the situation in question.

But, the visual evidence was indisputable that the ball crossed the point needed for a first down. Complain about the exact placement all you want. It mattered a heck of a lot less than you're wanting to believe.

 

[Kook]

bamawriter Let me ask you a legitimate question. Why do you post here? I mean three and a half years of arguing with UT fans online just seems...well...pathetic.

 

[dreVol]

Totally incorrect. There was indisputable evidence that the call on the field was wrong. The ball was not where the line judge spotted it. So the replay official was correct in overturning that call. Had this been a case of "catch or no catch", it would have been as simple as that.

But in the case of a blown spot, the correct spot has to be determined. I will agree that this was impossible to do in the situation in question.

But, the visual evidence was indisputable that the ball crossed the point needed for a first down. Complain about the exact placement all you want. It mattered a heck of a lot less than you're wanting to believe.

You can't see the ball in any of the available videos. If you can't see the ball, then by definition the available video evidence is disputable and is insufficient to overturn the ruling on the field.

 

[bamawriter]

You can't see the ball in any of the available videos. If you can't see the ball, then by definition the available video evidence is disputable and is insufficient to overturn the ruling on the field.

Again, not true. Let's go step-by-step:

1. You can see down the line that the official marked (thanks in part to it being notably behind the play). You can see that the ball isn't there.

So, immediately there is indisputable video evidence the overturn the call on the field. But, accepting that fact, where should the ball be spotted?

2. Carta-Samuels maintained possession throughout the play. He went into the pile with the ball, and came out of the pile with the ball.

3. Carta-Samuels' arms are bent, so the ball cannot have been lower than his waist.

4. Carta-Samuels' waist is clearly beyond the first down marker. So if the ball isn't below his waist, then the ball has to be past the first down marker.

The rules regarding replay only state that there needs to be indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call on the field. While the rulebook makes a spot reviewable, it does not give any instruction as to what to do when the original spot can be overturned, but the correct spot can't be determined. Seems like a major oversight, but it's an oversight encoded in the rulebook.

You may argue that if the correct spot can't be determined, then it should go back to the original spot even though that spot was indisputably determined to be incorrect. But the rulebook does not mandate that.

 

[bamawriter]

bamawriter Let me ask you a legitimate question. Why do you post here? I mean three and a half years of arguing with UT fans online just seems...well...pathetic.

I've answered this question multiple times in multiple posts. I'll let you use the search function. I think it'll be more rewarding for you if you actually have to put a little work in.

 

[Boca Vol]

Not supposed to. I don't think common sense is defined in the rule book. I believe the way it's worded is "indisputable video evidence". Show me that!

Unfortunately the rules, as written, are pretty vague. However, there is sort of a "catch-all" at the end of the Instant Replay section of the rulebook.

ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a).

I would assume the overturned spot was considered an egregious error considering the ball carrier was beyond the spot needed and the ball wasn't on the ground or behind him. That's what Rocky Goode was talking about when he mentioned the refs are allowed to use common sense.