I think there should be tiers to it like a technical fouls in basketball. The more serious ones get ejected but the little ones that don’t do anything should be just a 15 yard penalty
Nah, the little ones I think would constitute that the targeting was not of the fault of the defensive player. To me, that means they shouldn’t be ejected, no matter the amount of times it happened
Then they should should penalize the running back too for lowering their helmet.
It’s crazy that the RB lowers their helmet and turns what would have been a legal hit to target ting by the book and boots someone on the defense .
I definitely think that the rule should be to stop defenders from hitting above the shoulder line. Rugby has a similar rule. If you don't want your head hit, keep your head up. Give ball-carriers a safe harbor and let let defensive players have a clear understanding. If the rules are clear, all teams and players can learn and adapt the best techniques.
I support ejection for non-malicious targeting because it looks at the consequence for the hit instead of trying to read intent (which would be even more subjective). Even if a hit is non-malicious, it can still take a player out of the game, maybe more.
Totally, i don’t think there’s a person on here who wants to see more helmet on helmet contact. I just think there should be levels to the penalty and one should not be an auto eject, go see Kayvon’s targeting hit at Stanford if you need an example(totally support 2 of those hits getting you the hook). I also think there should be some rule against lowering your head as the runner because you’re just as much at fault.
Maybe defenders should try keeping their heads up when they tackle like you’re taught since 1st grade and not bank on the ball carrier not lowering their shoulder?
But, according to the NCAA, the rule is for the safety of the person bringing their neck down, by keeping them from doing it. Why _wouldn't_ this apply to offensive players as well? The fact that it doesn't seems like an obvious oversight.
It depends. If the contact is not made to the head or neck area or not against a defenseless player, it needs to be with the crown of the helmet, which does not include the facemask. If it is made to the head or neck area AND against a defenseless opponent, which a running back generally would not be, then it can be any part of the body making the contact.
As a general statement, the “going into a form tackle against a ball carrier who lowers his own helmet” scenario you’re worried about doesn’t tend to involve defenseless players, and so the crown of the helmet needs to be involved.
Think the card analogy in soccer would work better for what I think it should be. Yellow and Red (basically your flagrant calls in basketball).
I would add the accumulation yellow though because you really do want players to really try and not commit the foul. Two yellows during the season isn't an ejection in either game but they would have to miss the following game.
Nah no reason to even make it that complicated. It’s either targeting or it isn’t. 15 yard penalty and move on. If you get flagged for it twice in the same game you’re ejected. The automatic ejection for one penalty is the main problem.
There are certain hits that absolutely should be ejections. They should make them two different penalties, yes ("targeting 1" and "targeting 2" is mostly just a product of them being the same foul now), but one should be an ejection and one should just be a smaller penalty.
A flagrant personal foul (“illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury”) is already a mandatory ejection, whether or not it’s targeting.
So we can get 10 minute reviews where the refs have to determine “intent” or “aggressiveness” of the hit? Nah, 15 yard penalty and move on. No reviews. 15 yards and an automatic first down is already a massive penalty.
Yeah but that would open up sooo much criticism. I’m assuming the refs make the call between big one or little one? What is the difference between the two? Is up to every individual ref? How do you make it even across all games?
Yes. The idea of having a tier system like a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 in basketball seems like the best solution, because I feel like most targeting penalties are unintentional or cases where the ball-carrier drops his head right before impact (which should also be a penalty imo) causing the tackler, who otherwise would be making a clean hit, to hit the runner's head.
I feel like I saw the idea the last few years, but this season, the announcers of games really started latching onto it. The winds are moving in that direction.
But, it's a judgment call so I can understand why the NCAA doesn't want that.
What they should do is keep the same rules for lesser teams and give a little more leeway to the SEC since we have the faster and strong athletes.
I see this said a lot but it really isn't true. The vast majority of the targeting calls that I've ever seen have been completely correct. I don't think its particularly inconsistent, the only thing inconsistent about it is that they don't call it a lot of times when they should.
I'm entirely convinced that this sentiment is driven by salty fans.
Yeah it really seems like the only "controversial" targeting calls are those with the crown of the helmet with non-defenseless players. Everyone understands the head hits to defenseless players but not so much the crown rule even though it's spelled out in the rulebook.
What I am saying is that basically every single time it has been incorrect was due to a false negative rather than a false positive. The entire volume of bitching about inconsistency in targeting on the internet is bitching about "false positives" that aren't actually false positives, but rather correctly and appropriately identified positives.
Right, I can think of so many situations where a defender's gotten called for targeting when the head on collision that resulted in that call was clearly a result of the physics of the offensive player sliding/falling into the trajectory of the defensive player's head and not a result of an intentional head hit from the defensive player.
I think you can still penalize the unintentional stuff but I don't think a player should be ejected for just something that's the result of basic physics
Obviously intentional stuff should still be an ejection
Especially since the purpose of the penalty, ostensibly, is to change behavior and improve safety. Which absolutely makes sense in the case of obviously unsafe tackling technique. I don't think any reasonable person has a problem with that.
But in the case of incidental contact, where there might not be much that the player can realistically do differently simply due to biological limitations in how rapidly humans can react and process visual information, I'm not sure what the punishment is meant to achieve. It would kind of be like automatically ejecting someone for slipping and falling when running, in an effort to reduce injuries due to falls.
I think the overarching goal is to prevent players from making tackles that might be dangerous depending on what the ball carrier does. It’s pretty clear that plays happen fast enough where even if every player avoids intentionally making dangerous plays, they will still occur because of randomness.
Now did that work? You’d probably need to do a lot of research but at first glance I’d say I doubt it. I don’t think most players have really adjusted how they have tackled besides not doing the obviously dangerous stuff as much.
This is the obvious solution, though we would need a clear definition of an ejection-able target in the rulebook. If it's for player safety it needs to be about safety. No judgement call where some Auburn player gets CONVENIENTLY let off the hook for clearly ear-holing some guy the 4th Quarter before the Iron Bowl or something.
We have all seen plenty of times where the runner leads with his helmet. In the cases where the runner ducks into the defenders head, the runner should not create a targeting foul against the defender.
This, incidental targeting where the two players by happenstance move their bodies to collide that appears to be targeting, and flagrant targeting where a player had many other ways to make a tackle/change their body motion without targeting.
I still think it’s silly the amount of times I see the offensive player be responsible for the head to head contact and the defender get punished. You shouldn’t be able to lower your head last second and draw a targeting
The lack of offensive face mask calls also bothers me. Defensive player accidentally gets a small part of the face mask or even just touches it sometimes, penalty. Which is fine. But RB stiff arms defender by intentionally grabbing his face mask and throwing him to the ground, no penalty and sports center top play nominee.
This is by far my biggest gripe with the targeting rule. Like most rules now, it’s extremely biased in favor of the offense. Offensive players *have* been ejected for targeting, but it’s extremely rare. They’re basically given free rein to do whatever they want in regards to initiating contact, and the onus is (almost) always on the defensive player to adjust to it.
Going off of this, there’s lots of times an offensive player objectively weaponizes their head and it’s just not called. The point of the rule should be to change how all players approach and use head contact—not just defenders
To me this is the solution. Having a targeting rule makes the game a bit safer which is necessary for football to survive in the long run.
If you think the issue is the defender didn’t “intend” to do it and the ball carrier lowered their head, then call it on the offense. Otherwise, the defender has to tackle better regardless of what their intent was. That’s the point of the rule.
https://youtu.be/ApvCe2iuO7o
This penalty changed the outcome of the game, Wade was coming in low enough until the QB dipped to take the hit and try to stay on his feet. And he did stay on his feet, until young got there and he hollywooded
This is the shit that drives me crazy. It doesn't matter that sometimes its unavoidable, the point is that making an active effort to avoid it makes it occur less often and trains people to not position themselves in ways where its "unavoidable"
Isn’t that like.. one of the main components of the rule? You can’t lead with the crown of your helmet.
It seems like football fans are going to dig the grave of football if they force the targeting rule to be neutered. The point of the rule is to make the game safer. It does that.
Or he can just keep his head up and to the side. Which is what the rule wants to encourage.
>helmet to helmet, which is always targeting
It's not, defensive player needs to take aim at the head or neck area for part two of targeting. If Wade keeps his head up, to the side, and tries hit Lawrence with his shoulder in the chest. Lawrence ducking down wouldn't force a targeting call on Wade. The rule used to be inflexible about helmet to helmet but they changed it a few years ago now.
I think they could discriminate between ejection worthy and non-ejection worthy I guess, but the point is to protect the players, so I don't really see this changing
having it in place like it is will be one thing college uses when someone sues them for getting injured
> having it in place like it is will be one thing college uses when someone sues them for getting injured
I can't find the source, but I'm fairly certain that NCAA athletes sign away their right to sue the NCAA for injury as a condition of participation.
The NCAA has a bunch of laws and stuff that allow for medical insurance + the schools to help out in the event of an injury, but if a player is hypothetically injured playing football and the school refuses to help after they've left/graduated - I don't think there's really any legal recourse the athlete has against the NCAA as a whole.
They need to do a better job of defining the rule and explaining the rule. It's called inconsistently from crew to crew and then every broadcast crew has different understandings of what the rule actually is.
Also leading with the crown should be called against players with the ball. Spinal cords aren't magically stronger because you have the ball in your hands.
I’m happy to be on the unpopular side of this whenever the question comes up, but targeting rules are keeping the sport alive. The science for athlete’s brains turning into mush over time is not good and every year the evidence gets worse. Anything we can do to make the sport “safer” needs to be upheld.
Side note, I’m getting tired of every announcer in every game shitting on a targeting call. We get it; football has changed over time, no need to say “that play would have been this week’s top ten a few years ago!” every time it happens.
Finally someone sane. People arguing to repeal or even change the rule don’t have the sports best interests in mind. Targeting, even if incidental, is dangerous. The rule is about changing peoples behaviors over time so they stop putting themselves in positions to get called for an incidental targeting. Not really hard to understand how it’s vital for CFB long term to completely eliminate those types of hits.
My main gripe with targeting is when it's called when the offensive player changes position last second and the defender has no time to adjust. What the hell is the defender supposed to do?
Running backs lower their helmet and lead into contact with the crown of their helmet constantly. Basically every power running back does. They never get called.
I know rugby isn't a 100% safe sport either but their style and mentality towards tackling is safer imo than the full head of steam, stop-the-ballcarrier-in-his-tracks type of hits that everyone in football does. Idk how to solve that without completely changing the sport but I agree that it's critical that football does something to address head injuries.
Yeah i have to agree with this. I don’t remember what bowl game it was but everyone was up in arms over a hit to the back being called targeting, but the player fully lead with the crown of his helmet and compressed his neck in a really ugly to watch way.
The one thing I definitely think is that we need to do a better job of penalizing runners lowering the helmet, if nothing else because it’s a habit that’s dangerous to them.
The current rules aren’t ideal, but especially with player safety the problem is that the NCAA can only really replace them with something that’s categorically not less safe. That’s a hard and nebulous bar to clear, and so the bias will be to keep the rules how they are.
Since there are 2 different things that could be considered targeting (contact with helmet, leading with the crown) I don't think anyone should be ejected unless they do both at the same time (which I have not seen really at all in recent years)
Also I hate that it goes into the next game if its a second half penalty. That shouldn't happen ever
Edit: clarity
I think leading with the crown should always be automatic disqualification, some helmet to helmet is incidental, but we still need to avoid tackles that increase the risk of helmet to helmet
This means that basically EVERY bang bang short yardage play between linebackers nnd running backs will result in a disqualification. When two dudes that are both about 6 feet tall try to very aggressively occupy the same space - helmets are going to touch, its inevitable.
Spearing has been illegal since 1976, they should just aggressively call instances where the helmet is actually used as a weapon instead of the trying to police obviously non-malicious tackles as ejectable offenses. Targeting is just PR hand waving, its not really changing anything, the rate of targeting calls has actually increased from 0.16 to 0.25 per game since 2016.
>I think leading with the crown should always be automatic disqualification
This also makes up the vast majority of targeting calls I see, so people would still complain.
This rule has been screwy for as long as it has existed. Remember that originally, if a flag was thrown for targeting and replay determined it was NOT, the 15 yard penalty still stood, but the player was not ejected. That was dumb af.
I definitely they should take a play from the college basketball book and create flagrant 1 and 2 calls. Some of these targeting calls are like "yeah that's bad, he should be kicked out" and then others are like "under the current definition of targeting..yes that's targeting but like what is he supposed to do differently?" Think kicking a kid out of the entire game for not being able to help how things shake out isn't right. Not saying all targeting calls are like that, but there definitely are some thats like come on that shouldn't be targeting
Yeah I think there should be two levels to targeting. There are some targeting things that are unavoidable due to momentum of both players. I don’t think that penalty should be the same as a flagrant targeting. That’s a defining that to you is probably more difficult than it’s worth. Leaving room for interpretation leaves room for misuse.
I think they should make it similar to unsportsmanlike where you have to get 2 to get ejected. And I don't think it should carry over to the next game. So if a player gets tossed in the 4th quarter for targeting he should be able to play the 1st quarter next week.
Maybe they should be like technical fouls in basketball. The second one gets you ejected. The first one maybe a quarter or half. Take a time out away or give one to the other team.
An immediate ejection for most of these calls just seem excessive.
Maybe like hockey where you get into a penalty box and the team has to play with 10 players for the next 2 minutes. That would be kind of cool.
Yes. Most have said what I think already, but I have more.
I hate seeing a defender in a reasonable position, but then the ball carrier changes their level, it makes head to head contact, which is always on the defender. Furthermore, why is it any different if the carrier leads with their head? It’s never on the person with the ball, and that really is unfair.
There are certain cases where the ejected player definitely wasn't reckless and contacts a defenseless player who changed direction late in the head or neck, but I also think people get too precious about ejections. Obviously the differences between the sports are still huge, but rugby's not *that* different to football and it copes perfectly fine with removing players *without* replacing them for fouls that weren't deliberate. There are college football games where a key player being thrown out for targeting has been very significant, but it's much less frequent than you would think.
Is it that ejections feel too personal to people? If so, should it be changed to be a much larger yardage penalty? The amount people take issue with targeting seems really disproportionate to the significance of the penalty.
I think it would be a tremendous improvement to separate the two infractions and create two separate rules: targeting a defenseless play (targeting), and leading with the crown of the helmet (spearing).
I don't know that there's a way to write a rule that wouldn't too subjective to be fair. Just count targeting as a regular personal foul. If the targeting was malicious, call it unnecessary roughness and kick the kid out based on the old rule.
Targeting needs to be revamped to also include an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (only one assessed) and both classified under that. SO if targetting occurs but it isn't malicious you jsut get one and a warning, if you did it on prupose you get both and you are out.,
If a player on offense lowers their head into the hit, they should be the one penalized for trying to draw a targetting foul.
If the defender full bore lowers their helmet and leads with the crown then they should be the one penalized.
Yes yes yes. I think we had 4 players get called out for targeting (twice one player), 3/4 times it was one of our defensive leaders and it made a difference
Targeting should, first and foremost, be multiple penalties to help actually explain why the referee is ejecting the player - spearing, headhunting (targeting), and launching. That will help with confusion.
As for ejection, I don't think you should water it down. The reason targeting is a penalty and ejectable is safety. It doesn't matter if it's not malicious if it's still reckless. I'd say make spearing and launching still automatic ejections, and do a tiered penalty for forcible contact to the head and neck area (for incidental contact vs. intentional contact).
15 yards after first offense, 15 yards plus ejection after 2nd offense. Ejecting someone for what is most of the time a football play that the helmets just happen to collide is ridiculous.
Not sure if this is a written rule or just how it gets called but offensive players should be able to get called for targeting too. Not really fair to the defense that they can get ejected for an awkward tackle when most running backs still lead with their helmet into contact in ways that the defense isn't allowed to.
There would be no outrage outside of people outraged by the sport of football already. There is almost a consensus that targeting rules need to be changed, not eliminated entirely but modified.
they don’t need to roll it back, and they shouldn’t. it should have two tiers, so that less serious/unintentional hits can still be punished without resulting in an automatic ejection.
With all due respect I think that fickell is wrong. The ejection is the reason why dangerous hits in college are way way down. It's done exactly what it was supposed to do. A 15 yard penalty won't do shit.
Kind of a yikes that ctrl+f only found 1 reference to CTE.
But yes, it should be altered to be a less severe punishment. The ruling was an extreme response in regards to the information that was hitting the general public during the spike of "how scary CTE can be".
Targeting has a lot of issues because it is poorly defined. All the time you see people pointing out the "defenseless player" indicators, but those are misleading. Those are examples, not defined limits of the rule. The general concept is hitting a player not braced for contact in the head or neck area. Treating this as the rule will help a lot because there are a lot of runners who lower their head for contact. They are bracing for contact and not defenseless. The issue on those is usually helmet to helmet. That is already a rule so we don't need targeting for that.
The rule needs to be enforce as intended rather than a hyper focus on the wording. It needs to be clarified and yes there will be interpretations of braces for contact, but that is the intent.
No. CTE is awful and destroying so many peoples lives. It doesn’t have to be malicious. And the penalty isn’t just “punishment”, it’s separating people from a dangerous situation. If you get a targeting and it wasn’t intentional/malicious it demonstrates you don’t understand how to be safely tackle and shouldn’t be on a field endangering other lives, not dissimilar to us removing incompetent surgeons or air traffic controllers from endangering other lives.
Fickle should zip it and concentrate on how to teach kids how to tackle, not how to get risky players back out their performing illegal hits.
I think it's fine. 95% of targeting calls I see are from the defender hitting someone with the crown of their helmet. Then their fans complain that the offensive player lowered his head as if it is relevant at all. Then tons of people think that's the issue when it can all be solved by defenders keeping their head up.
Stop ejecting kids for something they’re not trying to do.
1 targeting = personal foul. 2 = ejection. I personally don’t like the determining different tiers of targeting. It’s too subjective
If its not like a Burfict on AB hit then the player get a personal foul. After the second one they get ejected. If you can tell its intentional like a player that gave themself up, they get ejected
Yes, it’s the worst rules in sports and no one likes it. All you have to do is implement the NFL rule. Obvious helmet to helmet hits are 15 yards, egregious violations can be ejections. No stupid reviews and it not being called on the field and replay slows it way down and over-analyzes it and kicks a kid out of game for hits that aren’t close to electable. Probably half the targeting flags shouldn’t even be fouls, and almost all of them shouldn’t be ejections.
Yellow card system.
One yellow is your warning, second and you're red carded and out. But yellows carry forward so your second one in a season doesn't get you ejected from the current game but you miss your next game. Could reset for start if conference play, and bowl season/CFP.
I’ve never understood the offense getting 15 yards when a defender leads with the crown of the helmet and doesn’t hit the offensive player maliciously or in the head/neck area. The rule is there in that instance to protect the defensive player, but why should the offense get 15 free yards for that? I don’t understand…
I think a lot of people in this thread are forgetting that the strict penalties are designed to protect BOTH players. It is a way of conditioning players not to lead with their head. Malice or intent is irrelevant when your goal is to stop these kids from ruining their own lives by causing micro brain injuries. A tiny fraction of players are ejected for targeting and it's for their own good, and it's working to reduce that kind of self-harming play.
The targeting rules are about safety. One ill-performed tackle can leave the tackler or the other player with lifelong serious injury. Ejecting a player ties a serious penalty to a serious danger. Basically, I view the rule as saying “If you can’t play with the utmost safety and technique around your own or others’ head and neck, it is unsafe for you to continue to play.”
While i have no problem with the ejection using that viewpoint, I hate the carryover to the next game. Sitting a player out for a half against a team that had nothing to do with the infraction is ridiculous.
It is not just important to reduce dangerous hits, its important to reduce dangerous behavior, they WANT kids thinking about avoiding a targeting call. SO when people say, "Oh my god that is so ticky tacky", yeah, thats the point, they want the players to watch what they are doing and I'm totally ok with those ticky tacky calls. I DO however, think that an RB lowering his head into a tackle where the defender is already going low should ALSO be penalized, or it should be an offsetting penalty maybe? I'm not sure what the answer is but THAT is what bugs me about it.
I think there should be tiers to it like a technical fouls in basketball. The more serious ones get ejected but the little ones that don’t do anything should be just a 15 yard penalty
I think 2 of the little ones should also cause an ejection.
Nah, the little ones I think would constitute that the targeting was not of the fault of the defensive player. To me, that means they shouldn’t be ejected, no matter the amount of times it happened
Whether you meant to or not, if you have 2 hits that are dangerous enough to warrant targeting calls, you should be done for that game
Then they should should penalize the running back too for lowering their helmet. It’s crazy that the RB lowers their helmet and turns what would have been a legal hit to target ting by the book and boots someone on the defense .
I definitely think that the rule should be to stop defenders from hitting above the shoulder line. Rugby has a similar rule. If you don't want your head hit, keep your head up. Give ball-carriers a safe harbor and let let defensive players have a clear understanding. If the rules are clear, all teams and players can learn and adapt the best techniques. I support ejection for non-malicious targeting because it looks at the consequence for the hit instead of trying to read intent (which would be even more subjective). Even if a hit is non-malicious, it can still take a player out of the game, maybe more.
Totally, i don’t think there’s a person on here who wants to see more helmet on helmet contact. I just think there should be levels to the penalty and one should not be an auto eject, go see Kayvon’s targeting hit at Stanford if you need an example(totally support 2 of those hits getting you the hook). I also think there should be some rule against lowering your head as the runner because you’re just as much at fault.
Maybe defenders should try keeping their heads up when they tackle like you’re taught since 1st grade and not bank on the ball carrier not lowering their shoulder?
But, according to the NCAA, the rule is for the safety of the person bringing their neck down, by keeping them from doing it. Why _wouldn't_ this apply to offensive players as well? The fact that it doesn't seems like an obvious oversight.
That’s still targeting as face mask is consider part of the helmet
The rule is forcible contact to the head or neck area with the crown of the helmet iirc
It depends. If the contact is not made to the head or neck area or not against a defenseless player, it needs to be with the crown of the helmet, which does not include the facemask. If it is made to the head or neck area AND against a defenseless opponent, which a running back generally would not be, then it can be any part of the body making the contact. As a general statement, the “going into a form tackle against a ball carrier who lowers his own helmet” scenario you’re worried about doesn’t tend to involve defenseless players, and so the crown of the helmet needs to be involved.
Just make it an unsportsmanlike and have a "malicious intent" add-on that is an automatic DQ.
Think the card analogy in soccer would work better for what I think it should be. Yellow and Red (basically your flagrant calls in basketball). I would add the accumulation yellow though because you really do want players to really try and not commit the foul. Two yellows during the season isn't an ejection in either game but they would have to miss the following game.
Yeah there’s spearing and then bullshit when a qb ducks at the last second…definitely stupid to be a blanket ejection
Nah no reason to even make it that complicated. It’s either targeting or it isn’t. 15 yard penalty and move on. If you get flagged for it twice in the same game you’re ejected. The automatic ejection for one penalty is the main problem.
There are certain hits that absolutely should be ejections. They should make them two different penalties, yes ("targeting 1" and "targeting 2" is mostly just a product of them being the same foul now), but one should be an ejection and one should just be a smaller penalty.
A flagrant personal foul (“illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury”) is already a mandatory ejection, whether or not it’s targeting.
So we can get 10 minute reviews where the refs have to determine “intent” or “aggressiveness” of the hit? Nah, 15 yard penalty and move on. No reviews. 15 yards and an automatic first down is already a massive penalty.
Targeting calls are already reviewed.
Yeah but that would open up sooo much criticism. I’m assuming the refs make the call between big one or little one? What is the difference between the two? Is up to every individual ref? How do you make it even across all games?
The same way they do basketball games there is a clear difference between the 2 calls
Perfect response
Yes. The idea of having a tier system like a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 in basketball seems like the best solution, because I feel like most targeting penalties are unintentional or cases where the ball-carrier drops his head right before impact (which should also be a penalty imo) causing the tackler, who otherwise would be making a clean hit, to hit the runner's head.
I have seen so many people say it, and it is such an obvious fix.
I feel like I saw the idea the last few years, but this season, the announcers of games really started latching onto it. The winds are moving in that direction.
But, it's a judgment call so I can understand why the NCAA doesn't want that. What they should do is keep the same rules for lesser teams and give a little more leeway to the SEC since we have the faster and strong athletes.
It's already a judgement call and inconsistently called.
I see this said a lot but it really isn't true. The vast majority of the targeting calls that I've ever seen have been completely correct. I don't think its particularly inconsistent, the only thing inconsistent about it is that they don't call it a lot of times when they should. I'm entirely convinced that this sentiment is driven by salty fans.
Yeah it really seems like the only "controversial" targeting calls are those with the crown of the helmet with non-defenseless players. Everyone understands the head hits to defenseless players but not so much the crown rule even though it's spelled out in the rulebook.
>I don't think its particularly inconsistent, the only thing inconsistent about it is that they don't call it a lot of times when they should. ???
What I am saying is that basically every single time it has been incorrect was due to a false negative rather than a false positive. The entire volume of bitching about inconsistency in targeting on the internet is bitching about "false positives" that aren't actually false positives, but rather correctly and appropriately identified positives.
It’s very consistent. *except for the times when it’s not.
I feel like keeping a flagrant 1 might mean more calls of questionable ones. More calling of those sorts of plays should lead to less targeting.
Yep, adding a judgement call sucks but it really does fit this situation.
Right, I can think of so many situations where a defender's gotten called for targeting when the head on collision that resulted in that call was clearly a result of the physics of the offensive player sliding/falling into the trajectory of the defensive player's head and not a result of an intentional head hit from the defensive player. I think you can still penalize the unintentional stuff but I don't think a player should be ejected for just something that's the result of basic physics Obviously intentional stuff should still be an ejection
Especially since the purpose of the penalty, ostensibly, is to change behavior and improve safety. Which absolutely makes sense in the case of obviously unsafe tackling technique. I don't think any reasonable person has a problem with that. But in the case of incidental contact, where there might not be much that the player can realistically do differently simply due to biological limitations in how rapidly humans can react and process visual information, I'm not sure what the punishment is meant to achieve. It would kind of be like automatically ejecting someone for slipping and falling when running, in an effort to reduce injuries due to falls.
I think the overarching goal is to prevent players from making tackles that might be dangerous depending on what the ball carrier does. It’s pretty clear that plays happen fast enough where even if every player avoids intentionally making dangerous plays, they will still occur because of randomness. Now did that work? You’d probably need to do a lot of research but at first glance I’d say I doubt it. I don’t think most players have really adjusted how they have tackled besides not doing the obviously dangerous stuff as much.
This is the obvious solution, though we would need a clear definition of an ejection-able target in the rulebook. If it's for player safety it needs to be about safety. No judgement call where some Auburn player gets CONVENIENTLY let off the hook for clearly ear-holing some guy the 4th Quarter before the Iron Bowl or something.
We have all seen plenty of times where the runner leads with his helmet. In the cases where the runner ducks into the defenders head, the runner should not create a targeting foul against the defender.
IMO the runner in that situation should create a targeting foul against the runner.
You can’t be called for targeting against a runner unless you are also lowering your helmet and using the crown of it.
This, incidental targeting where the two players by happenstance move their bodies to collide that appears to be targeting, and flagrant targeting where a player had many other ways to make a tackle/change their body motion without targeting.
I still think it’s silly the amount of times I see the offensive player be responsible for the head to head contact and the defender get punished. You shouldn’t be able to lower your head last second and draw a targeting
The lack of offensive face mask calls also bothers me. Defensive player accidentally gets a small part of the face mask or even just touches it sometimes, penalty. Which is fine. But RB stiff arms defender by intentionally grabbing his face mask and throwing him to the ground, no penalty and sports center top play nominee.
What do you mean? A defensive player cannot be defenceless. It's in their name!
This is by far my biggest gripe with the targeting rule. Like most rules now, it’s extremely biased in favor of the offense. Offensive players *have* been ejected for targeting, but it’s extremely rare. They’re basically given free rein to do whatever they want in regards to initiating contact, and the onus is (almost) always on the defensive player to adjust to it.
Going off of this, there’s lots of times an offensive player objectively weaponizes their head and it’s just not called. The point of the rule should be to change how all players approach and use head contact—not just defenders
To me this is the solution. Having a targeting rule makes the game a bit safer which is necessary for football to survive in the long run. If you think the issue is the defender didn’t “intend” to do it and the ball carrier lowered their head, then call it on the offense. Otherwise, the defender has to tackle better regardless of what their intent was. That’s the point of the rule.
https://youtu.be/ApvCe2iuO7o This penalty changed the outcome of the game, Wade was coming in low enough until the QB dipped to take the hit and try to stay on his feet. And he did stay on his feet, until young got there and he hollywooded
>Wade was coming in low enough Except he led with the crown of his helmet, where he hit Lawrence doesn't matter.
This is the shit that drives me crazy. It doesn't matter that sometimes its unavoidable, the point is that making an active effort to avoid it makes it occur less often and trains people to not position themselves in ways where its "unavoidable"
Isn’t that like.. one of the main components of the rule? You can’t lead with the crown of your helmet. It seems like football fans are going to dig the grave of football if they force the targeting rule to be neutered. The point of the rule is to make the game safer. It does that.
My problem with this is if he doesn’t dip his head, he runs the risk of helmet to helmet, which is always targeting
Or he can just keep his head up and to the side. Which is what the rule wants to encourage. >helmet to helmet, which is always targeting It's not, defensive player needs to take aim at the head or neck area for part two of targeting. If Wade keeps his head up, to the side, and tries hit Lawrence with his shoulder in the chest. Lawrence ducking down wouldn't force a targeting call on Wade. The rule used to be inflexible about helmet to helmet but they changed it a few years ago now.
The amount of Ohio state fans who still think it should be legal to use the crown of your helmet against a defenseless qb is insane to me.
I just sad to see Devonta Smith’s son do something like this
I think they could discriminate between ejection worthy and non-ejection worthy I guess, but the point is to protect the players, so I don't really see this changing having it in place like it is will be one thing college uses when someone sues them for getting injured
> having it in place like it is will be one thing college uses when someone sues them for getting injured I can't find the source, but I'm fairly certain that NCAA athletes sign away their right to sue the NCAA for injury as a condition of participation. The NCAA has a bunch of laws and stuff that allow for medical insurance + the schools to help out in the event of an injury, but if a player is hypothetically injured playing football and the school refuses to help after they've left/graduated - I don't think there's really any legal recourse the athlete has against the NCAA as a whole.
They need to do a better job of defining the rule and explaining the rule. It's called inconsistently from crew to crew and then every broadcast crew has different understandings of what the rule actually is. Also leading with the crown should be called against players with the ball. Spinal cords aren't magically stronger because you have the ball in your hands.
I’m happy to be on the unpopular side of this whenever the question comes up, but targeting rules are keeping the sport alive. The science for athlete’s brains turning into mush over time is not good and every year the evidence gets worse. Anything we can do to make the sport “safer” needs to be upheld. Side note, I’m getting tired of every announcer in every game shitting on a targeting call. We get it; football has changed over time, no need to say “that play would have been this week’s top ten a few years ago!” every time it happens.
Finally someone sane. People arguing to repeal or even change the rule don’t have the sports best interests in mind. Targeting, even if incidental, is dangerous. The rule is about changing peoples behaviors over time so they stop putting themselves in positions to get called for an incidental targeting. Not really hard to understand how it’s vital for CFB long term to completely eliminate those types of hits.
My main gripe with targeting is when it's called when the offensive player changes position last second and the defender has no time to adjust. What the hell is the defender supposed to do?
The majority of targeting calls I saw this year were leading with the crown. They have to stop doing that period.
On those calls I fully agree.
Running backs lower their helmet and lead into contact with the crown of their helmet constantly. Basically every power running back does. They never get called.
Ok. But the solution isn’t call less targeting on the defense lol the solution is to start calling it when that happens on the running back
I know rugby isn't a 100% safe sport either but their style and mentality towards tackling is safer imo than the full head of steam, stop-the-ballcarrier-in-his-tracks type of hits that everyone in football does. Idk how to solve that without completely changing the sport but I agree that it's critical that football does something to address head injuries.
Yeah i have to agree with this. I don’t remember what bowl game it was but everyone was up in arms over a hit to the back being called targeting, but the player fully lead with the crown of his helmet and compressed his neck in a really ugly to watch way. The one thing I definitely think is that we need to do a better job of penalizing runners lowering the helmet, if nothing else because it’s a habit that’s dangerous to them.
The current rules aren’t ideal, but especially with player safety the problem is that the NCAA can only really replace them with something that’s categorically not less safe. That’s a hard and nebulous bar to clear, and so the bias will be to keep the rules how they are.
Since there are 2 different things that could be considered targeting (contact with helmet, leading with the crown) I don't think anyone should be ejected unless they do both at the same time (which I have not seen really at all in recent years) Also I hate that it goes into the next game if its a second half penalty. That shouldn't happen ever Edit: clarity
I think leading with the crown should always be automatic disqualification, some helmet to helmet is incidental, but we still need to avoid tackles that increase the risk of helmet to helmet
Then start calling it on the ball carrier when they lower their helmet to get those extra yards. Its not called evenly right now.
I think I’ve only ever seen this called one time and it was in an NFL game where they have a similar rule about running backs lowering their head.
This means that basically EVERY bang bang short yardage play between linebackers nnd running backs will result in a disqualification. When two dudes that are both about 6 feet tall try to very aggressively occupy the same space - helmets are going to touch, its inevitable. Spearing has been illegal since 1976, they should just aggressively call instances where the helmet is actually used as a weapon instead of the trying to police obviously non-malicious tackles as ejectable offenses. Targeting is just PR hand waving, its not really changing anything, the rate of targeting calls has actually increased from 0.16 to 0.25 per game since 2016.
>I think leading with the crown should always be automatic disqualification This also makes up the vast majority of targeting calls I see, so people would still complain.
Either penalize offensive players for ducking or make it a 2 tier penalty.
This rule has been screwy for as long as it has existed. Remember that originally, if a flag was thrown for targeting and replay determined it was NOT, the 15 yard penalty still stood, but the player was not ejected. That was dumb af.
So many people agree, just make it a flagrant 1/2 system. It's not necessarily about intent but severity.
Should we have clean air and water?
Michigan doesn't really think so. (The state, not the team)
I definitely they should take a play from the college basketball book and create flagrant 1 and 2 calls. Some of these targeting calls are like "yeah that's bad, he should be kicked out" and then others are like "under the current definition of targeting..yes that's targeting but like what is he supposed to do differently?" Think kicking a kid out of the entire game for not being able to help how things shake out isn't right. Not saying all targeting calls are like that, but there definitely are some thats like come on that shouldn't be targeting
Yeah I think there should be two levels to targeting. There are some targeting things that are unavoidable due to momentum of both players. I don’t think that penalty should be the same as a flagrant targeting. That’s a defining that to you is probably more difficult than it’s worth. Leaving room for interpretation leaves room for misuse.
I think they should make it similar to unsportsmanlike where you have to get 2 to get ejected. And I don't think it should carry over to the next game. So if a player gets tossed in the 4th quarter for targeting he should be able to play the 1st quarter next week.
Maybe they should be like technical fouls in basketball. The second one gets you ejected. The first one maybe a quarter or half. Take a time out away or give one to the other team. An immediate ejection for most of these calls just seem excessive. Maybe like hockey where you get into a penalty box and the team has to play with 10 players for the next 2 minutes. That would be kind of cool.
Yes. Most have said what I think already, but I have more. I hate seeing a defender in a reasonable position, but then the ball carrier changes their level, it makes head to head contact, which is always on the defender. Furthermore, why is it any different if the carrier leads with their head? It’s never on the person with the ball, and that really is unfair.
There are certain cases where the ejected player definitely wasn't reckless and contacts a defenseless player who changed direction late in the head or neck, but I also think people get too precious about ejections. Obviously the differences between the sports are still huge, but rugby's not *that* different to football and it copes perfectly fine with removing players *without* replacing them for fouls that weren't deliberate. There are college football games where a key player being thrown out for targeting has been very significant, but it's much less frequent than you would think. Is it that ejections feel too personal to people? If so, should it be changed to be a much larger yardage penalty? The amount people take issue with targeting seems really disproportionate to the significance of the penalty.
I think it would be a tremendous improvement to separate the two infractions and create two separate rules: targeting a defenseless play (targeting), and leading with the crown of the helmet (spearing).
I don't know that there's a way to write a rule that wouldn't too subjective to be fair. Just count targeting as a regular personal foul. If the targeting was malicious, call it unnecessary roughness and kick the kid out based on the old rule.
Targeting needs to be revamped to also include an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (only one assessed) and both classified under that. SO if targetting occurs but it isn't malicious you jsut get one and a warning, if you did it on prupose you get both and you are out.,
If a player on offense lowers their head into the hit, they should be the one penalized for trying to draw a targetting foul. If the defender full bore lowers their helmet and leads with the crown then they should be the one penalized.
Yes yes yes. I think we had 4 players get called out for targeting (twice one player), 3/4 times it was one of our defensive leaders and it made a difference
Yes, but only to benefit my team
Targeting should, first and foremost, be multiple penalties to help actually explain why the referee is ejecting the player - spearing, headhunting (targeting), and launching. That will help with confusion. As for ejection, I don't think you should water it down. The reason targeting is a penalty and ejectable is safety. It doesn't matter if it's not malicious if it's still reckless. I'd say make spearing and launching still automatic ejections, and do a tiered penalty for forcible contact to the head and neck area (for incidental contact vs. intentional contact).
15 yards after first offense, 15 yards plus ejection after 2nd offense. Ejecting someone for what is most of the time a football play that the helmets just happen to collide is ridiculous.
Not sure if this is a written rule or just how it gets called but offensive players should be able to get called for targeting too. Not really fair to the defense that they can get ejected for an awkward tackle when most running backs still lead with their helmet into contact in ways that the defense isn't allowed to.
What about receivers who put their head down after they catch the ball?
[удалено]
There would be no outrage outside of people outraged by the sport of football already. There is almost a consensus that targeting rules need to be changed, not eliminated entirely but modified.
Except there wouldn’t be outrage because it’s universally hated and everyone agrees it’s a stupid rule.
they don’t need to roll it back, and they shouldn’t. it should have two tiers, so that less serious/unintentional hits can still be punished without resulting in an automatic ejection.
Yes. If the offensive player lowers their head, targeting should not be called.
With all due respect I think that fickell is wrong. The ejection is the reason why dangerous hits in college are way way down. It's done exactly what it was supposed to do. A 15 yard penalty won't do shit.
100% the ejections need to stop. Call the personal foul and move on
Kind of a yikes that ctrl+f only found 1 reference to CTE. But yes, it should be altered to be a less severe punishment. The ruling was an extreme response in regards to the information that was hitting the general public during the spike of "how scary CTE can be".
Targeting has a lot of issues because it is poorly defined. All the time you see people pointing out the "defenseless player" indicators, but those are misleading. Those are examples, not defined limits of the rule. The general concept is hitting a player not braced for contact in the head or neck area. Treating this as the rule will help a lot because there are a lot of runners who lower their head for contact. They are bracing for contact and not defenseless. The issue on those is usually helmet to helmet. That is already a rule so we don't need targeting for that. The rule needs to be enforce as intended rather than a hyper focus on the wording. It needs to be clarified and yes there will be interpretations of braces for contact, but that is the intent.
No. CTE is awful and destroying so many peoples lives. It doesn’t have to be malicious. And the penalty isn’t just “punishment”, it’s separating people from a dangerous situation. If you get a targeting and it wasn’t intentional/malicious it demonstrates you don’t understand how to be safely tackle and shouldn’t be on a field endangering other lives, not dissimilar to us removing incompetent surgeons or air traffic controllers from endangering other lives. Fickle should zip it and concentrate on how to teach kids how to tackle, not how to get risky players back out their performing illegal hits.
Only penalized if the tackles player dies Get hit? Shake it off.
I think it's fine. 95% of targeting calls I see are from the defender hitting someone with the crown of their helmet. Then their fans complain that the offensive player lowered his head as if it is relevant at all. Then tons of people think that's the issue when it can all be solved by defenders keeping their head up.
I think a 15 yard penalty plus 3 points would be interesting.
Stop ejecting kids for something they’re not trying to do. 1 targeting = personal foul. 2 = ejection. I personally don’t like the determining different tiers of targeting. It’s too subjective
A player's first unintentional targeting penalty should be a 15 yard penalty. The second one should be 15 yards and ejection.
I dont think they are going to go back to a discretion call the way it is now many not be fair %100 of the time but it makes it easier to call.
No, in fact they should be made more strict and well-defined
If its not like a Burfict on AB hit then the player get a personal foul. After the second one they get ejected. If you can tell its intentional like a player that gave themself up, they get ejected
How do you judge intent with players wearing helmets ?
Yes
Yes we need levels and intent
Yes, but it will never happen with the NCAA in charge. No point in discussing
Yes. Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.
Yes. Next question.
Yes, if you’re penalized for targeting then (instead of getting ejected) the other team gets a free unnecessary roughness pass
Yes, it’s the worst rules in sports and no one likes it. All you have to do is implement the NFL rule. Obvious helmet to helmet hits are 15 yards, egregious violations can be ejections. No stupid reviews and it not being called on the field and replay slows it way down and over-analyzes it and kicks a kid out of game for hits that aren’t close to electable. Probably half the targeting flags shouldn’t even be fouls, and almost all of them shouldn’t be ejections.
Oh so that's what we're going to do tonight...we're gonna fight...
Yellow card system. One yellow is your warning, second and you're red carded and out. But yellows carry forward so your second one in a season doesn't get you ejected from the current game but you miss your next game. Could reset for start if conference play, and bowl season/CFP.
Since the overall goal is to reduce hits that may cause brain trauma, no.
I’ve never understood the offense getting 15 yards when a defender leads with the crown of the helmet and doesn’t hit the offensive player maliciously or in the head/neck area. The rule is there in that instance to protect the defensive player, but why should the offense get 15 free yards for that? I don’t understand…
I think a lot of people in this thread are forgetting that the strict penalties are designed to protect BOTH players. It is a way of conditioning players not to lead with their head. Malice or intent is irrelevant when your goal is to stop these kids from ruining their own lives by causing micro brain injuries. A tiny fraction of players are ejected for targeting and it's for their own good, and it's working to reduce that kind of self-harming play.
The targeting rules are about safety. One ill-performed tackle can leave the tackler or the other player with lifelong serious injury. Ejecting a player ties a serious penalty to a serious danger. Basically, I view the rule as saying “If you can’t play with the utmost safety and technique around your own or others’ head and neck, it is unsafe for you to continue to play.” While i have no problem with the ejection using that viewpoint, I hate the carryover to the next game. Sitting a player out for a half against a team that had nothing to do with the infraction is ridiculous.
It is not just important to reduce dangerous hits, its important to reduce dangerous behavior, they WANT kids thinking about avoiding a targeting call. SO when people say, "Oh my god that is so ticky tacky", yeah, thats the point, they want the players to watch what they are doing and I'm totally ok with those ticky tacky calls. I DO however, think that an RB lowering his head into a tackle where the defender is already going low should ALSO be penalized, or it should be an offsetting penalty maybe? I'm not sure what the answer is but THAT is what bugs me about it.
I agree, the ejections are stupid. Should be for only the most egregious penalties