Targeting Rule - Was it Targeting?

Started by bashbrother, November 12, 2013, 01:01:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wach the Video and Vote

Yes, by rule that was targeting
4 (13.8%)
Very close.. could have gone either way
11 (37.9%)
No,  by rule this is not targeting
14 (48.3%)

Total Members Voted: 27

Voting closed: November 19, 2013, 01:28:54 PM

firstdown

Wally

A couple of questions arise from this that need your ability to research and find the answers.  How does the NCAC assign and schedule the officials to referee the various games each week?  It would seem that the conference  would want its best group to call the key game of the year for the conference championship, and yet it ended up with a group that does not have a very good reputation.

Second, what is the process by which the conference reviews matters such as the challenge too Houston's suspension?  Does the person who schedules the ref groups also participate in the review process?  It would certainly seem to be a conflict of interest as the scheduler would have a vested interest in protecting their judgement as to the group selected?



sigma one

#31
I will never be able to sit in as a substitute for Wally, but let me take a crack.  Wally may know or be able to find out more.
    There is a supervisor of officials for the NCAC, as there is for most or all conferences.  That supervisor is responsible for hiring and assigning refs for every conference game.  I believe the super does this at the beginning of the season based on his own criteria.  What those criteria are, how the super thinks about which games may be of more import, would be interesting to know.  Maybe he thinks of certain crews as the most worthy of big games.  Maybe it has to do with travel and availability.  Crawfordsville is a long way, and most (all) crews are built of guys who live in Ohio.
     I'm told that the NCAC supervisor of officials was present at the Wittenberg/Wabash game.  How officials are rated or scored, if they are retained or not, is up to the supervisor.  The NCAC also has a process by which the head coaches provide assessment of officials to the conference (after each game, I think, maybe at the end of the season).
     I don't know how the review process works, or whether the super/scheduler is a part of the process.  I'm pretty sure, however, that the super is involved along with others.
     Any good supervisor of officials has the obligation to be as professional as possible.  Having the super involved in the process doesn't bother me because that person has to evaluate officials and decide whether to rehire them.  (I don't even know how hard it is to find qualified officials, though I'm sure there are plenty of guys who want to ref college games.)  I'm interested in seeing the history of reviews in the conference;  for example, how was Swope from Wittenberg reinstated and Hodges not?  Could be a real difference in the brutality or intensity of the infractions, or could be that the review saw that Swope was innocent and the refs made a mistake.  It's obvious from the Hodges decision that the review thought Hodges targeted and did not deserve to be let off from the normal punishment. I am still agitated about the additional penalty for Woods--yes, he was wrong, but why the add on of an additional half?  The other player was not injured.  I've seen worse during-play and after-the-play infractions in the NCAC  in the last several years, including blind-side hits to the upper body and helmet of players, with a personal foul called, but usually no ejection.  Even with renewed emphasis this year, the additional time off is a new step from the league.  Again, not in any way excusing Woods's behavior.

firstdown

Sigma One

Thanks for your response.  I know that the SEC uses the team of officials that grades out the highest for the SEC championship game. 

wally_wabash

I have no earthly idea about how the NCAC goes about hiring officials, assigning officials to games (I suspect that this part has an awful lot to do with who can travel to what game), or evaluating the performance of those officials.  One thing that was noted here piques my interest: that being that the boss was in town for Saturday's game.  That could matter.  If:
1) The supervisor of officials was on hand for the game,
2) The game officials knew that the boss was there, and
3) The NCAA instruction is clear on whether or not you should call and penalty and disqualify a player even when you might have a doubt about whether or not a play is targeting,

then you get a crew with a heightened awareness and a greater willingness (or maybe better said- lesser willingness to use discretion) to follow the letter of the (really really supid) law.  Over the course of the season, I've seen several plays where I thought there could be a targeting call forthcoming and then there isn't.  Enough such occasions that I had lulled myself into believing that "hey, maybe these D3 officials are uncomfortable enough with this rule that they aren't just throwing players out when they have a doubt about the nature of the contact."  And then Saturday happened and I was face slapped back into reality. 

sigma one- I think the Woods discipline is different because you could construe what he did as throwing a punch and/or fighting (the shortest, weakest fight in the recorded history of man, but a fight nonetheless).  That's a separate conduct issue than targeting and probably subject to separate disciplinary actions up to, and apparently including, a one game suspension.  I looked around to see if fighting carries with it a mandatory suspension imposed by rule by the NCAA, but I didn't find that.  I'm with you- I don't think that what Justin did was necessarily worth a one game suspension on top of the two quarters he lost from the disqualification, but if the powers that be wanted to see that as "fighting" and they want to have very little tolerance for fighting during games, I can understand it.  I would still love to know what it was that Cunningham said that caused Justin to react the way he did.  Clearly he was already on tilt because that was a bad, frustrating half of football, but Cuningham bumps him, almost certainly says something, gets popped in the chin, then CELBERATES the fact that Justin took the bait and got penalized.  You mentioned it earlier, maybe on another forum, but Cunningham is clearly taunting Woods after the play.  There ought to have been a conduct foul on him there as well. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

sigma one

Agree, Wally.  I know that the two issues are separate.  Woods was not targeting; he was throwing a forearm after the play.  But his extra punishment opens new territory as far as I can tell.