Targeting in the near future

[Grant - AR]

FBS Coaches Unanimously Support Splitting Targeting Calls into 2 Tiers

Scott Polacek
January 9, 2019

If college football coaches have their way, targeting will no longer be an automatic ejection on every call.

According to Adam Rittenberg of ESPN.com, Todd Berry, the executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, said FBS coaches unanimously supported a new enforcement system for targeting calls during their annual meeting.

While players are ejected from the current game and suspended for the first half of the next game if the foul occurs in the second half under the system in place, the coaches prefer a model with Targeting 1 and Targeting 2 calls. The Targeting 1 calls would be 15-yard penalties with no ejections, while the Targeting 2 calls would result in an ejection.

Berry compared the desired system to flagrant fouls in basketball, and parallels can be made between this and the red/yellow card system in soccer as well.

This would decrease the number of ejections and suspensions throughout a college football season, although Berry said some coaches have suggested multiple Targeting 2 penalties from the same player throughout a single campaign could result in a multi-game suspension.

"I don't think we're getting light on targeting," Berry said. "If anything, we're becoming harsher in a sense because we're asking for those ones that we know are targeting. We're saying, 'Hey, we want these people eliminated for longer periods of time until they can learn, and if they can't learn, they need to be eliminated from the game.'"

The intent of the targeting penalty was a point of emphasis in the discussions, with the malicious ones being classified as Targeting 2.

Although there was unanimous support from the coaches at the meeting, this change will not be implemented in time for the 2019 season. Rittenberg noted the earliest such a change could go into place is the 2020 campaign because an FBS conference has to submit a proposal to get the rule changed.

Berry wants it on the legislative agenda by October of this year and will discuss it during January’s NCAA convention.

[TXMike]

I have argued for this here in Texas HS football since the mandatory DQ rule came in. 

Iwould disagree with the claim no change possible until 2020 though.

[Sonofanump]

If college football coaches have their way

Not sure I understand this, as the coaches write the rules

[bama_stripes]

Makes sense to me.

NCAA Targeting has morphed from the original “blow ‘em up / intent to injure” foul to “almost any helmet contact even though maybe unavoidable” fouls.

[Sonofanump]

Makes sense to me.

NCAA Targeting has morphed from the original “blow ‘em up / intent to injure” foul to “almost any helmet contact even though maybe unavoidable” fouls.

I don't see it that way.  I believe the process of: 1) Is there an indicator? 2) Is it forcible?  differentiates between the two.

[psv]

Makes sense to me.

NCAA Targeting has morphed from the original “blow ‘em up / intent to injure” foul to “almost any helmet contact even though maybe unavoidable” fouls.

I completely agree.  Most of the targeting I witnessed this year fell into this category “almost any helmet contact even though maybe unavoidable”.  There were certainly some of the Blow them up fouls... and those deserve the suspension... But the majority of the ones that stand out in my mind where just acts common to the game... no launching, no driving, normal, regular tackles where players heads came in contact. 

I like the distinction, like Facemask.  The Vast majority of facemasks are accidental in nature (players are not meaning to grab it and twist it, but they do)  It is still a 15 yard penalty, but no ejection.

[Clear Lake ref]

When the player being hit drops their head, only for the other player to end up hitting their head and being ejected is a problem.

[goodgrr]

Whilst I can understand the call to differentiate, I feel that this is one of those situations where we need to remove as many accidental hits as well as the intentional ones due to the inherent safety issues.

I suspect that the people making the rule needed a fundamental change in technique and only a draconian penalty would have the effect of making people lower the target area.