• [3/29/2024 @ 1:10 AM] We'd like to extend our deepest apologies for the nearly 20 hours of downtime we experienced Wednesday (3/27) into Thursday (3/28). In short, our server host paused our service due to copywritten material being posted in certain forums (specifically streaming links). *** PLEASE NOTE *** ABSOLUTELY NO LINKS or talks of links to illegal, copywritten material like streaming services can be posted at CTG moving forward. If you find these links, please PM a Moderator or Partner immediately. We appreciate your cooperation.

How Should The Targeting Rule Be Fixed? (Or Should It?)

VirginiaCavs

CTG Super Moderator
Staff member
In my opinion, that i've voiced well before I became an embittered Ohio State backer in January, targeting has significantly impaired my ability to enjoy college football. I know a lot of other people here and elsewhere have complained about it. So what do you think should or will be done about it during the offseason? Or am I way off-base and targeting is actually on the bottom (or not even on) the list of things that need to be fixed during the offseason?


Here's the actual rule per the 2019 rulebook.

Targeting - NCAA Rule Book 2019
Rule 9 - Conduct of Players and Others Subject to the Rules
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
  • Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
  • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
  • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
  • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
  • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
  • A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
  • A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
  • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
  • A player on the ground.
  • A player obviously out of the play.
  • A player who receives a blind-side block.
  • A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
  • A quarterback any time after a change of possession A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.
PENALTY- [ARTICLE 3 and ARTICLE 4]-15 yards. For dead-ball fouls, 15 yards from the succeeding spot. Automatic first down for fouls by Team B if not in conflict with other rules. For fouls in the first half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game. (Rule 2-27-12) For fouls in the second half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game. If the foul occurs in the second half of the last game of the season, players with remaining eligibility shall serve the suspension during the postseason or the first game of the following season.
If a player receives a third Targeting foul within the same season, disqualification for the remainder of the game and that player will receive an automatic one-game suspension in his team's next scheduled game. Targeting fouls subsequent to the player's third Targeting foul within the same season, disqualification for the remainder of that game and the player will receive an automatic one-game suspension in his team's next scheduled game. If the foul occurs in the last game of the season, players with remaining eligibility shall serve the suspension during the postseason or the first game of the following season.
The disqualification must be reviewed by Instant Replay (Rule 12-3-5). [S38, S24 and S47]
When the Instant Replay Official reverses the disqualification: If the targeting foul is not in conjunction with another personal foul by the same player, the 15-yard penalty for targeting is not enforced. If the player commits another personal foul in conjunction with the targeting foul, the 15-yard penalty for that personal foul is enforced according to rule. (A. R. 9-1-4-VII-VIII)
For games in which Instant Replay is not used: If a player is disqualified in the first half, at the option of the conference or by pre-game mutual agreement of the teams in inter-conference games, during the intermission between halves the Referee will be provided a video of the play in question for his review in the officials' private secure location. The Referee will review the video to determine whether the disqualification is reversed. The decision of the Referee is final. (A. R. 9-1-4-IX)
Note: The video source and the location of the review will be determined prior to the game through mutual agreement of the teams and the Referee. If a player is disqualified in the second half, the conference has the option to consult the national coordinator of football officials who would then facilitate a video review. Based on the review, if and only if the national coordinator concludes that the player should not have been disqualified, the conference may vacate the suspension. If the national coordinator supports the disqualification, the suspension for the next game will remain.Channel Finder
 
While leaving interpretation of intent up to the refs is a slippery slope, I think there has to be some way to classify accidental targeting that carries a penalty but no ejection and a more dangerous targeting that has the current penalty structure
 
I agree that judging intention can be dangerous. But i don‘t think it has to be difficult. It depends on what bar is being set. It should just be the obvious instances of intent. But there‘s the tug and pull of pressure to respect safety endeavor and to avoid controversy generated by cases where intent isn‘t obvious. Obvious intent has always been penalized though? (Now i‘ve introduced two levels of obvious...opps) So the targeting rule sort of creates the expectation to observe less obvious cases of intent, hence the controversy. I‘ll expand later.
 
I agree that judging intention can be dangerous. But i don‘t think it has to be difficult. It depends on what bar is being set. It should just be the obvious instances of intent. But there‘s the tug and pull of pressure to respect safety endeavor and to avoid controversy generated by cases where intent isn‘t obvious. Obvious intent has always been penalized though? (Now i‘ve introduced two levels of obvious...opps) So the targeting rule sort of creates the expectation to observe less obvious cases of intent, hence the controversy. I‘ll expand later.

That's why I think it should be classified something like "accidental" or "Incidental," on times where the defender has already made the move to tackle and the ball carrier lowers his head into the defender, kind of like the old facemask rule.
 
It is pretty simple to me.

Get rid of the rule. Football was just fine before it.

Now, if you want to call 15 yard PF's all day long, have at it. But, the caveat here is no review. Call it on the field as it is merited.

That's probably the best answer, maybe review it to see if it is an ejectable offense kind of like bball does with flagrant fouls
 
Yeah i don‘t think targeting actually does anything bc 99% of the time the defender can‘t help it. Its literally just punishing a player for playing football legally! The 1% is the really obvious dirtbag attempts to murder the opponent
 
It is pretty simple to me.

Get rid of the rule. Football was just fine before it.

Now, if you want to call 15 yard PF's all day long, have at it. But, the caveat here is no review. Call it on the field as it is merited.

/end thread

If you're going to eject a player from a game it better be wildly flagrant and intentional to the extent that nobody aside from the offending team's fanbase could argue otherwise.

The hit in the LSU/OU game was the perfect example of that.

Otherwise stop it with the ejections. Stop it with the perp walks.
 
Last edited:
But if it‘s so simple, why isn‘t this done yet? Why is it so hard for rulemakers to get this right? Are they even going to fix it?
 
But if it‘s so simple, why isn‘t this done yet? Why is it so hard for rulemakers to get this right? Are they even going to fix it?

Life doesn't make a lot of sense in many instances. This is one such instance.

I don't have high hopes of them fixing this thing. It's gotten so far off the rails with stupidity that it's kinda hard to walk it back at this point. Scrapping it would be admitting that they were stupid and wrong. People don't like admitting that they were wrong.
 
/end thread

If you're going to eject a player from a game it better be wildly flagrant and intentional to the extent that nobody aside from the offending team's fanbase could argue otherwise.

The hit in the LSU/OU game was the perfect example of that.

Otherwise stop it with the ejections. Stop it with the perp walks.
Great point about the perp walk. Unnecessary.
 
Life doesn't make a lot of sense in many instances. This is one such instance.

I don't have high hopes of them fixing this thing. It's gotten so far off the rails with stupidity that it's kinda hard to walk it back at this point. Scrapping it would be admitting that they were stupid and wrong. People don't like admitting that they were wrong.
Just like with replay ...officials do not like having to admit being wrong.
 
Great point about the perp walk. Unnecessary.

Can you picture 10 high level NCAA authorities sitting in a room and someone proposes the perp walk idea...and everyone in the room stands up and shouts 'GREAT IDEA!'

And we expect these same shit for brains people to come to their senses and reverse this whole thing?

I'm thinking the genius responsible for the perp walk was the same person behind putting the playoffs on NYE haha.
 
This shouldn’t be that hard. Have a targeting and a super targeting. 10 yards without ejection vs 20 yards + ejection, with the latter being reserved for when guys undeniably play like assholes. And stop with the perp walls, no reason a guy can’t be with his team on the sideline rest of the game.

If the NFL can do this without controversy when it comes to kickers and punters, no reason you can’t do this with targeting.
 
Back
Top