D3boards.com

This board is for everyone to discuss and make our own call on the rule and even some video clips from games in which the call was made...

Ok Board....  this is an ALL-PLAY question.

A couple of times on this site this year the topic has been on the NEW targeting rule....   Watch the following video from Saturday's Wabash vs. Witt game and all please vote on whether you think it is targeting or not....  I will withhold my personal feelings until after the fans on here have a chance.   Take a look.

The play is at  2:59:16  -  be sure to watch the slow motion replays that follow the play... gives everyone a great look at it.

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1200203/events/2531899

Interested to hear your takes and make sure to register your vote above in the poll.

I say no.

The back has turned upfield and is squared to the defender. He wasn't in the process of making the catch and was no longer defenseless.

It actually reminds me a lot of this play (http://cdn2.sbnation.com/assets/3377639/nebraskatargeting.gif) earlier in the year for Nebraska. I think the Nebraska play and those like it will be a part of how we'll see the rule adjusted before next season.

That said, I think both the Wabash and Nebraska examples may have been a bit of a reaction to how the defender acted. Not that I agree with this, but in both cases the defender celebrates the big hit. I think this response can incite an official to throw the flag, since they are SO sensitive to this type of big hit nowadays. I think that's silliness, let the players enjoy themselves on the field.

That's my take...

Rule 9-1-3:

QuoteTargeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

I've watched it probably 50 times. My initial thought when the play occurred was that the call was hogwash. But, the more I watch it, did he initiate contact with the top of his helmet? Unfortunately, yeah he did. I don't think he intended to. I think he intended to shoulder block the guy. But, the top of his helmet is the first thing to contact the WR.

EDIT: Pause that thing right before contact is made. He's leading with the head. The rule is dumb. You shouldn't get ejected for tackling somebody like that. But, as it's written, yeah, he hit him first with the top of his helmet. I voted the "could go either way" because there's no way that a ref should be making that determination on a full speed tackle from behind the tackler. The ref on Wabash's sideline made that call.

No way is that targeting. The Wittenberg player caught the ball; it was a tackle. He did not leave his feet; he did not use the crown of his helmet; he used his shoulder. That's a bad call. Do they want a 2 hand touch rule for plays like that? The Witt guy needs to have his head on a swivel.

I asked an ODAC/USAC official what the procedure is for targeting. They can appeal to the NCAA head of officials to overturn the 1st half suspension of the Monon Bell game. I hope they do.

Broadly speaking, this is a general subject area in which I respectfully disagree with some others on this board.  I know this can be a divisive topic and I stress that I respectfully disagree and that the following is my opinion.  I am okay with the basic idea of seeking to reduce the number of "high" hits in football, particularly those delivered on pass receivers attempting to catch the ball.  I like the idea of making pass defense about playing the ball rather than the man, and stressing that defensive backs should play defense by breaking up the pass rather than crushing the WR or RB who is looking up at the ball to make his catch.  With that said, I have also stated and reiterate that I prefer not to see players ejected.  15-yard penalties, OK, and questionable hits reviewed by the league office to determine whether a hit merits a suspension.  Now that's out of the way...

On this specific hit, I don't think it was delivered with intent to be helmet-to-helmet and probably would not have called targeting, but I would vote #2 in the poll above; I can see why it was called since the refs only see this once at full speed.  As I have tried to stress above, I would prefer to see fewer hits of this type.  I understand the opposing viewpoint that football is by nature a violent game and it is impossible to legislate that away entirely.  I also have heard the arguments about DB's going low resulting in more torn ACL's and don't entirely buy that either.  There's a way to tackle guys without tearing their ACL's or jacking up their helmets.  jknezek has suggested before, and I agree with, the idea of adding a rugby-style tacking rule that requires any tackle attempt to come with a clear attempt to wrap the ballcarrier up and leaving the one's feet before initiating contact is permitted.  Most of the hits that I see as problematic come when a defensive back or linebacker takes a run at the ballcarrier and launches himself with no attempt to wrap the ballcarrier up.  Anyways, that was a long ramble which got away from the original premise, but I felt was worth writing out.

Quote from: Old Pal Wes on November 12, 2013, 01:23:33 PM
Rule 9-1-3:

QuoteTargeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

[/b]

I've watched it probably 50 times. My initial thought when the play occurred was that the call was hogwash. But, the more I watch it, did he initiate contact with the top of his helmet? Unfortunately, yeah he did. I don't think he intended to. I think he intended to shoulder block the guy. But, the top of his helmet is the first thing to contact the WR.

EDIT: Pause that thing right before contact is made. He's leading with the head. The rule is dumb. You shouldn't get ejected for tackling somebody like that. But, as it's written, yeah, he hit him first with the top of his helmet. I voted the "could go either way" because there's no way that a ref should be making that determination on a full speed tackle from behind the tackler. The ref on Wabash's sideline made that call.

I disagree. I see the db as hitting the WR with his shoulder and rolled into him in a way that his helmet was used, but not the crown of his helmet. I paused it at 3:00:03 and saw shoulder to shoulder, or at least in my opinion. He was just under the WR's chin. I say it was just a good strong, fundamental (minus the wrapping up thing that many players don't do anymore) football play.

Quote from: Old Pal Wes on November 12, 2013, 01:23:33 PM
Rule 9-1-3:

QuoteTargeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

I've watched it probably 50 times. My initial thought when the play occurred was that the call was hogwash. But, the more I watch it, did he initiate contact with the top of his helmet? Unfortunately, yeah he did. I don't think he intended to. I think he intended to shoulder block the guy. But, the top of his helmet is the first thing to contact the WR.

EDIT: Pause that thing right before contact is made. He's leading with the head. The rule is dumb. You shouldn't get ejected for tackling somebody like that. But, as it's written, yeah, he hit him first with the top of his helmet. I voted the "could go either way" because there's no way that a ref should be making that determination on a full speed tackle from behind the tackler. The ref on Wabash's sideline made that call.

I was at the Wabash game on Saturday and had a clear view of the hit.  My initial reaction (and that of my son who was sitting next to me) was that there was no intent to use the helmet to make the hit but helmet to helmet contact was made and it could go either way (the Wabash player tilts his head slightly when initiating contact, which is what caused the helmet to helmet contact).  Watching the replay, I feel the same way now.   

Quote from: hazzben on November 12, 2013, 01:16:35 PM


That said, I think both the Wabash and Nebraska examples may have been a bit of a reaction to how the defender acted. Not that I agree with this, but in both cases the defender celebrates the big hit. I think this response can incite an official to throw the flag, since they are SO sensitive to this type of big hit nowadays. I think that's silliness, let the players enjoy themselves on the field.

That's my take...

Agree 100% - I'm not sure how the refs can ignore a celebration act or a "mean mug" (if it's even still called that). This issue hits home for me as my playing career at Thomas More was cut short by a history of concussions and a very big one in my last play (it was a Grade 3 - where you are confused who you are for a few days after). These days the helmets are safer (there's no need for the Steve Tasker mushroom head helmet today), and there's a greater emphasis on it BUT football is a dangerous sport. Period. We know this by the time we graduate HS.

I get being cautious with hits and targeting plays on defenseless WR's but there have been times when a QB or RB has turned upfield and crossed the line of scrimmage when he gets hit and they've thrown a flag. Notre Dame's Stephon Tuitt was kicked out on a play like this last Saturday night and the penalty GAVE Pitt a first down on a play that they were stopped short of a first down. It was a play that wouldn't even have been flagged last year. I think they need to throw flags on only the hits that make everyone say "Ohmygod".

The really big problem with this as it relates to D3 is the use of instant replay to reverse a disqualification. The only game where this can be reasonably accomplished is in Salem. THATS a problem, IMO.

I will say I don't really think that hit was targeting, but it was an unnecessary hit that put the defender in a position for the call to be made. If you can throw that shoulder to get the big hit, why cant you open your arms and wrap up to make the tackle? If he tackles the dude, he probable doesn't get tossed

Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2013, 02:01:11 PM
I will say I don't really think that hit was targeting, but it was an unnecessary hit that put the defender in a position for the call to be made. If you can throw that shoulder to get the big hit, why cant you open your arms and wrap up to make the tackle? If he tackles the dude, he probable doesn't get tossed

Basically, Toby said what I took about 1,000 words to say above in one sentence.  + K

I would encourage right-thinking football fans who believe that this play does not warrant a suspension (it doesn't) to tweet @NCAC and politely request that they #FreeHouston.  The play was loud and violent and drew a flag on the field because of those things.  I don't think the game officials were in a position to determine where the target was, whether or not the carrier was defenseless (he wasn't...dude ducked into that hit), or whether the contact happened with the helmet at all let alone the crown of the helmet.  In fact...I think I said something about this back in August....ah yes, here it is:

Quote from: wally_wabash on August 09, 2013, 12:20:40 PM
Okay, two things.  First, good for everybody trying to protect players.  Second, I am WAY uneasy with the idea that our officials, who will not have the benefit of replay, are being told to disqualify players who hit above the head.  I'm not one to rail on officials here, but now it's important: sometimes these guys have trouble keeping track of the down or where the correct spot of the ball is.  Now we have to trust them to make a split second decisions about 1) where a particular player was contacted, 2) whether that player was "defenseless" and 3) whether the player doing the hitting was "targeting".  That's an awful lot to process and decide in a matter of seconds and the ramifications are HUGE...particularly if a penalty occurs that carries over to the following week.  I just don't know how comofortable I am with our officials determining player intent.  My hope is that disqualifications are being reserved for really egregious behavior.  My gut tells me that this is going to be a point of emphasis thing and we might see a lot of players lose games because of this that probably don't deserve to. 

I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this this year, but now here we are riding into the end of the season's rivalry game and Wabash has a guy on the fence because the game official incorrectly checked the "targeting" box. 

Here's this from the approved rulings section regarding rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4:

Quote
As ball carrier A20 sweeps around the end and heads upfield, he lowers
his head and contacts defensive end B89 who is trying to tackle him. The
players meet helmet to helmet. RULING: No foul. Neither A20 nor B89
is a defenseless player and neither has targeted his opponent in the sense
of Rule 9-1-3.

This I think most closely describes the play in question here.  The rest of the rulings have to do with players leaving their feet and launching (didn't happen here), hitting quarterbacks in the head (didn't happen here), blasting WRs who are in the process of catching a ball (didn't happen here) so they don't really apply as well as this ruling does. 

Remember... @NCAC, #FreeHouston.  There's a right thing to do here. 

Well by rule it was targeting.  The rule even has the words "when in question".  He does lower his head, but then brings it up at the end so I don't think it's the worst hit in the world.

The rule itself needs to be changed, but as it is, I would say it was targeting.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2013, 02:16:57 PM

Remember... @NCAC, #FreeHouston.  There's a right thing to do here.

According to the Twittersphere the ruling on the field has been upheld. It appears that the NCAC is justifiably concerned about the health of Dannies.

Quote from: waf56 on November 12, 2013, 02:47:02 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2013, 02:16:57 PM

Remember... @NCAC, #FreeHouston.  There's a right thing to do here.

According to the Twittersphere the ruling on the field has been upheld. It appears that the NCAC is justifiably concerned about the health of Dannies.

It's Tuesday.  The people can still be heard! 

I agree with the spirit and intention of the targeting rule. I think any suspension should be dealt with after the game and not automatic.

(https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1467436_10200979909002257_833659984_n.jpg)

Look for these at the Monon Bell Game.

Looks like we are zaprudering this.  Watch the original "live" portion of the play with the wide camera angle.  I don't think the Line Judge was reacting to Houston's post play actions.  The LJ had already committed to throw the flag - he looks down hat his flag then takes two pulls to get it out immediately at the hit.  The LJ basically had his head down when Houston was standing over the witt player. 

If you were to pause when Houston was about a 1/2 yard away from impact, I think you'd clearly come away with the impression that he was targeting.  Crown of helmet is zeroed in on the WR.  Only in that last half second does Houston twist his head to the left so that the shoulder takes the impact.  Had the LJ blinked in that instant before the hit and then heard the very loud pop - he's already decided to throw the flag before houston gets both feet planted again.  I'll give the ref a pass.  I don't know what the league office was thinking. 

If the NCAA is going to stick with this rule - It'd be an interesting discussion for officials to possibly disregard the sound of the hit.  It would seem to me that a shoulder pad hit - with multiple internal layers of hard plastic - hitting a WR's flak jacket or hip pads would make a louder sound than a helmet.

Hodges uses a technique for defensive backs that is more widely seen in the NFL of the shoulder hit.  Many college dbs are not physically strong enough to stop a ball carrier using the shoulder pads and need to wrap up the ball carrier.  Hodges is both strong and fast and is able to carry out this technique effectively and safely.  As you will note in the replay, Hodges moves his head to avoid helmet contact as he has been trained to do.  I had a direct view of the play and watched him turn his body to correctly execute the stop.  There was a loud pop from the collision, but it was the sound of a shoulder pad hit.  I have watched Hodges   for all of his three year career at Wabash and I have never seen him lead with the helmet. 

By that point in the game, the refs were pretty mad at Wabash for taking umbrage at a couple of bad calls and missed calls.  The ref in question reacted to the sound and the hard hit which were executed properly.  I don't believe that any penalty was appropriate on this play.  The ejection certainly was not justified and based solely on a ref being unprofessional by being in "I'll show you mode."

Because the Monon Bell Game Bell will be televised nationally, and there will no doubt "Free Houston" tee shirts in evidence, both the inappropriate nature of the call and the lack of proper action by the NCAC to overturn the ejection, will be aired far and wide.  I dislike seeing this type of thing occur, and the NCAC still has time to undo the suspension before the game and avoid having this matter receive national, negative attention.

Finally, I understand and support the goal of the NCAA to eliminate targeting with the helmet and promote safety in the game.  This situation was neither and by improperly administering the penalty and letting it stand, and then receiving national exposure about its improper imposition will have an extremely chilling impact on officials who will be reluctant to call this penalty which it does occur for fear of getting national, adverse publicity for its misapplication.

Great post First Down.....   You verbalized much of what I was trying to write in a current post.    I will add that I also believe the NCAC is a little weak administratively and they know that DIII football is a much lower profile than Div. 1.     I am sure they look at Witt & Wabash as the town bullies beating up on the rest of the league.....

I believe they think that there is a greater risk in over-turning it than just letting it stand.   I would go as far to say that IF that specific hit happened in a BIG-10, SEC, PAC-12 conference,  that the league would have overturned it.    The replay culture in that upper divisions, has the refs, getting calls over-turned on them in real time on the field almost every game and thus,  they are used to it.

Sorry for Hitting    #FreeHouston

Quote from: firstdown on November 14, 2013, 12:11:52 PM
By that point in the game, the refs were pretty mad at Wabash for taking umbrage at a couple of bad calls and missed calls.  The ref in question reacted to the sound and the hard hit which were executed properly.  I don't believe that any penalty was appropriate on this play.  The ejection certainly was not justified and based solely on a ref being unprofessional by being in "I'll show you mode."

Do we know this?  Refs are out to get Wabash?

While I disagree with the call that was made, it seems to me that questioning the motives of the refs is a bit of a stretch.  Refs make mistakes, it doesn't have to be more than that.

#FreeHouston

Quote from: bashbrother on November 14, 2013, 01:19:39 PM
Great post First Down.....   You verbalized much of what I was trying to write in a current post.    I will add that I also believe the NCAC is a little weak administratively and they know that DIII football is a much lower profile than Div. 1.     I am sure they look at Witt & Wabash as the town bullies beating up on the rest of the league.....

I believe they think that there is a greater risk in over-turning it than just letting it stand.   I would go as far to say that IF that specific hit happened in a BIG-10, SEC, PAC-12 conference,  that the league would have overturned it.    The replay culture in that upper divisions, has the refs, getting calls over-turned on them in real time on the field almost every game and thus,  they are used to it.

Sorry for Hitting    #FreeHouston

A suspension carry-over was lifted for Wittenberg's Mark Swope (he was disqualified for targeting early in the second half of their game with Wooster), so it isn't just as simple as they don't want to set a precedent of overturning all of these carry over targeting suspensions because that's an easy way to work around a stupid rule.  Clarification: the rule isn't stupid; the penalty is extraordinarily stupid. 

I would love to see the two plays and try to understand why one suspension was lifted and one was not. 

Bashbro - I am always amazed how many times the officials get it right.  As we know from the NFL and DI, mistakes do occur.  Fortunately, coach's challenges and booth review help to minimize mistakes.  It is most important that fans feel that the officials do act with integrity.  When a mistake is made, it is important to correct it or the fans are left feeling that the officials are biased, unprofessional, or even more sinister conclusions.

In the Colts Texan game recently, the officials made 3 bid mistakes - 2 on 1 play.  The no call on ruffing the kicker followed by not allowing the Colts to challenge the play which was permissible.  Later, there was a play where it was ruled a fumble by the officials.  The call was then improperly overturned even thought the video evidence from the replays was not clear and convincing which is the standard by which the refs are to rule on the replay.  Fortunately, these mistakes did not change the outcome of the game.  Nonetheless, the officials later acknowledged and apologized for the mistakes.   

Either the officials or the NCAC should acknowledge the miscall and waive the suspension.  This will do a great deal to restore faith in the quality of officials.  To let it stand in the face of the evidence only reenforces the notion of a bad call and feeds mistrust of the officials.

Schwami - unless you were at the game, I disagree with you conclusion.  In the third quarter, there were several calls that were missed by the officials or were incorrect calls.  The Wabash fans acknowledged their displeasure by an increasing chorus of boos directed at the refs.  Rather than being professionals and shrugging it off, the number and severity of bad calls increased.  This demonstrated that the officials were reacting to the crowd's expressions of displeasure.  The call on Houston Hodges is but one example.  On a later play, Wabash was called for interference in the end zone.  On this play, the receiver moved prior to the snap of the ball ( a no call for illegal procedure).  Then, while there was contact in the end zone, the ball was clearly over the receivers head and out of the end zone.  Finally, when Wabash called the uncatchable nature of the pass to the attention of the official on the sidelines by waving the hand over the head, it was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Wally - the unequal treatment of Hodges compared to Swope only makes it harder to fathom. 

If this isn't demonstrative of an "I'll show you attitude," I don't know what is.

There is no real way of knowing the intent of the officials....  I will admit officiating a NCAA football game is probably not a walk in the park....   

Even giving him/them the benefit of the doubt.    The rule was made for divisions with REAL replay.....   It is unfair to ask a DIII official without the luxury of replay to get every or even most targeting calls correct.  It is unfair to the players within DIII to impose ejections/suspensions based on  "I think I saw"

I am all for player safety.... as a former player that had three concussions in my time on the field... I get it... they suck.  But I just cannot handle a student athlete that gets a suspension totaling 1 game of an already short college playing career.

I sent this video to a friend of mine that is a current SEC Div. 1 official in Arkansas,  his response....  he probably wouldn't have called it, but he wished he had better video to look at it.   He said a video from field level would have helped.   My point.

I blame the NCAA & NCAC for not stepping up and making this right.

#FreeHouston

Bashbro - well put.

Many Wabash fans are unhappy with the manner in which this has been handled.  With a national tv audience on Saturday, there will be an opportunity to express their displeasure via Free Houston tee shirts and the like. 

The Monon Bell Game is about celebrating the long and storied history of the Wabash - DePauw rivalry, and knowing that fans 100 years ago were doing the same thing and hopefully 100 years in the future they will still be enjoying the last game of the year.

Player safety is absolutely important as well.  I fear that some young player in middle school or high school won't understand the  nuances of this situation, and won't heed the warnings about the dangers of crowning or targeting.  This matter need to be resolved and behind us before Saturday.  I call on the NCAC and the NCAA to lift the suspension before Saturday and take this whole mess off the table.

Preface:  I could be wrong about any of this, or some of this.  I do not think that the NCAA has any role here.  Yes, this is an NCAA rule, but they almost have certainly turned over the decision making to the conferences.  So, once the NCAC decision is made at conference level, and it has been, that's the end of it.  I believe, I think. 
     As for the tee-shirts--are we really thinking that the NCAC or the NCAA is all that concerned about national exposure of their decision?  This is a Division III football game, with a fairly large audience, but it's not the Super Bowl.  They will not be damaged; there will just be some questions about what the shirt means.  The NCAA and it's shortcomings are plastered all over Sports Center, et al, a dozen times a year for several days at a time. 
     And even if they overturn it at the 11th hour, those tee-shirts are stilll going to be in Greencastle.     
     I feel sorry for the player, his family, and all of us fans because we miss a half of HH playing both ways.  That stinks, even if it was a 50/50 call.
     Nice comment, though, about HH's strength.  He is, strong.  The Roster has him at 173lbs; he's not that.  Those of us who recall a hit he made at Wooster during the first game of his freshman year on a similar play are not surprised that he made the hit in this way.
     One last thing:  Hodges is an aggressive, smart player.  He is not a thug.  If we can't agree among us whether his hit was targeting, think of the refs in real time during a game at game speed. 
     The hit was not targeting, but it was close enough to be called that.  With benefit of replay the NCAC should have waived off the suspension.

     
     

Quote from: sigma one on November 14, 2013, 05:07:56 PM
     As for the tee-shirts--are we really thinking that the NCAC or the NCAA is all that concerned about national exposure of their decision? 

Nope, hardly....  I believe the designer and everyone else that will be wearing them... will simply be supporting a fine student athlete that is being prevented from playing by a ruling that should have been overturned.

WAF..... Depauw to Hell....  We Keep the Bell.   

Yes, certainly that, bashbrother. 

I've been a high school football official for 8 or 9 years.  NO - I don't think that hit was illegal, though I have not spent time with the college rulebook nor other college officials discussing the intent/focus/whatever of the rule.

I will only add that - as you see in many games, the officials are leaning on the side of throwing the flag and making the call for anything that looks along those lines.  "When in doubt, get the flag out"  Horse collar has gone through a similar thing - I lost track of how many times I saw a sleeve grab or a jersey/chest grab followed by a flag.  Asking the officials to judge a split second occurrence, you are going to have over-reach.  The appeal is a smart addition, but it's obviously imperfect.

Haven't watched the video, but I generally agree with Toby's comment.

My larger problem is that the very definition of targeting implies intent and so now you are giving these officials the responsibility and authority to determine intent in a live, fast moving play (or even with instant replay).  That's dumb.  If you want to cut it out make the penalty a flag any time someone tackles in the open field (whih can include the backfield on a QB/skill guy, but exclude three guys tackling an RB within a yard or two of the LOS) without using his arms to tackle.

My same gripe as the playoff committee over the past few years.  Between the secondary/tertiary criterion and the the super secret final regional rankings. 

The system either needs to be stripped on interpretation or you have to allow much more room for determination and take the good and bad that comes with that, but the worst thing in the world is mixing the two.

Change this rule to take the interpretation out of the hands of the officials somehow.  Doesn't mean get rid of head shots, but aren't there 3-5 other rules which would both penalize somebody and give the authority to throw someone out anyway (unnecessary roughness, for example).  Why not apply those and drop this new rule altogether.

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?

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.

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. 

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. 

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.