“… and a lot of fans haven’t thought it all the way through.”

C’mon, Commish, you’re not even trying with this lame excuse:

“It’s a tough call because you really could have a penalty that’s separate and apart (from targeting),” SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said. “What you’d be asking a replay official to do is make a game-official decision. We’ve put an iron wall between the replay official and the officials on the field. There’s no time when he could be considered another official, and we want to maintain that. Whether or not this particular issue requires crossing into that bright line is something the rules committee will have to consider.”

Or with this one, Steve Shaw:

“Maybe we look at making the targeting foul a special case where we allow replay to come into that judgment and say if only targeting is involved and it’s not deemed targeting, we could take away the 15-yard penalty,” Shaw said. “But that crosses into a very slippery slope of officiating from the booth. A lot of purists have never wanted us to go over that line.”

The purist train done left the station a while ago, Steve.  Just ask the genius handling scheduling.  But I digress.

Let’s face it – the new rule has already made the replay official a little bit pregnant by allowing him to overturn part of the targeting penalty.  If the worry is that some targeting fouls could involve other penalties, even if replay determines there was no targeting of a defenseless player, there’s a real simple solution.  Call both penalties.  It’s not like officials don’t sometimes call more than one foul on the same play.  If the targeting call gets tossed, you’ve still got the other violation that can be enforced.

Why do I get the feeling that “purists” is just another word for being concerned about bruising the sensitive feelings of the officiating crew?

 

Advertisement

Gravitas

Condoleezza Rice is rumored to be named to the CFP selection committee.  (I wonder if Ari Fleischer put in a good word for her.)  For what it’s worth, she’s a better choice than letting active coaches have a say so over which teams get in.

Mark Richt, no mas?

When it comes to running up scores, Mark Richt is kind of the anti-Spurrier.  Sure, Georgia’s won its share of games by lopsided scores, but if Richt is rolling into the fourth quarter leading by a wide margin, usually that’s the time the offense ratchets down, as opposed to, say, throwing for a seventh touchdown with about a minute to go in a 35-point rout.

But in the first week of October, Georgia finds itself the highest ranked one-loss team in the country, with legitimate national title aspirations.  I doubt that’s escaped Richt’s attention.  With regard to that, though, Georgia isn’t in a control-its-destiny position like Alabama is.  Some things are going to have to happen down the road to make that a reality, and with a loss on the resume, that’s going to mean pollsters are going to be making subjective comparisons between the teams under consideration for the national title game.

Which leads me to a certain yardstick:  Oregon 59, Tennessee 14.  It may not be right, it may not be fair, but, let’s face it, if we reach a point when comparisons have to be made – by humans, of course, since the BCS computers can’t look at margin of victory – there are going to be those who will look at common opponents and draw a conclusion from the results of the two games.  Again, I doubt that’s something Richt doesn’t expect.

So here’s an idle thought for idle minds.  If Georgia enters the fourth quarter tomorrow with a comfortable lead (let’s say 48-28 for argument’s sake), does Richt tell Bobo to call off the dogs and run the ball for the rest of the game, or is Bobo left alone to allow Mason to run the regular offense and try to get another couple of scores?

Of course, it would be nice if the defense showed up and made this all a moot point, but if Georgia’s still working the kinks out on that side of the ball, that’s not likely.  Does Richt consider impressing the poll voters a necessary thing to do?  I don’t know, but I think at this point in his career, Mark Richt’s got an appreciation of how things go if you want to make a national title game appearance.

More Tennessee Week tidbits

• I hope Todd Grantham’s as tired of hearing about this as I am.
• Tennessee’s change in defensive schemes may be for the better, but I’m guessing that if Keith Marshall gets in the open, he can still outrun the Vols’ personnel.
• Here’s UGASports.com‘s UT defensive breakdown.
• Josh Harvey-Clemons is coming on.
• A statistical game preview, from Rocky Top Talk.
• Opportunity knocks, but the Vols don’t seem to be able to answer the door lately:
  

  In the last two games against Florida and South Alabama, Tennessee started seven possessions on the opponent’s side of the field, with five of them beginning immediately after a turnover.

  The results of those possessions were four interceptions, one fumble, one punt and three measly points.

“I hope he doesn’t just break it. I hope he shatters it.”

Two things – one, David Greene is a damned good Dawg, and two, this is a pretty amazing stat:

Murray can be the first starting quarterback ever to defeat Tennessee four years in a row.

Considering that Murray’s also got a shot at leaving Georgia as the first starting quarterback with a winning record against Florida in Gawd knows how long, can we please shut up about whether his legacy will measure up?

**************************************************************************

UPDATE:  Michael Elkon has some thoughts about Murray’s recent surge against ranked opponents.

If at first you don’t succeed…

… screw up, screw up again.

And Mack Brown irately complaining about this call goes down in the Annals of Chutzpah.

It’s pretty pathetic that the only thing guaranteed to come out of that mess is that Paul Rhoads will be reprimanded by the conference.  Can’t hurt those officials’ fee-fees.

Beyond Crompton

No matter what else happens tomorrow, if Aaron Murray walks out of Neyland Stadium with a passer rating that’s not higher than 211.99, I’m gonna be a little disappointed.