Targeting, as you know, is a rules infraction in college football that has gained a lot of attention this season. It actually became its own rule 10 years ago. However, the ejection of the offending player was added in 2013. It’s intent is worthy. It’s intent simply is to reduce head injuries. Who could be opposed to that? No one.
However, for a few weeks now we’ve been vigorously debating what exactly defines targeting and the subsequent punishment. Our disdain for its gross inconsistency reached 212 degrees when Devin White got the heave-ho with five minutes remaining before he and his LSU Tiger brethren could celebrate a 19-3 homecoming victory over Mississippi State a few weeks back.
We definitely advise that if you haven’t, you read the excellent SBNation article that explains the crime quite well. In fact, it does it so well that we will only further their thoughts by diving a bit deeper with our comments on the inconsistencies of the punishment. We believe that the only thing worse in how the rule is written and called is how the penalty is assessed.
Targeting is a 15 yard penalty in college football and an automatic first down. It’s identical to a personal foul penalty in its punishment in that sense. However, it also is subject to immediate review. If the infraction called on the field is upheld, the player guilty of the targeting is ejected for the remainder of the game if the play took place in the first half of the game. If the act occurs in the second half of the game, the player also is forced to miss the first half of the next game his team plays. Below are some very plausible examples of how grossly inconsistent that doled out sentence can be.
- If you are ejected for targeting in the first half of a game, you might be out a total of 59 minutes if you illegally contact your opponent in the first minute of the game. If you hit him with a minute to go in the half, you miss a total of 31 minutes.
- If you are ejected for targeting in the second half of a game, you might be out 29 minutes of the remainder of that game and the first 30 of the next for a total of 59 minutes. If you hit him with a minute to go in the game you miss only 31 total minutes inclusive of the first half of the next game.
- If you apply opposition team strength to point one above you could miss 59 minutes down to 31 minutes against a weaker or stronger opponent than you might face the next week.
- But if the next game’s opponent was much stronger than the game you were tossed from you don’t miss any of it if you are guilty in the first half against a weaker opponent. Yet, you miss 30 minutes of it if you are guilty in the second half.
The above four scenarios might be a bit confusing. But suffice it to say when you get thrown out, who you are facing when you get thrown out, and who you will face next week all factor into how severe the loss of playing time is to you and your teammates. One might say that referees are blind to who is playing now and who is playing next week. That likely is correct which makes the inequity all the more real.
The targeting rule and it’s penalties(yards, auto first down, and ejection)are the most severe on the college rule books today. Yet, if you pass interfere on defense 50 yards down the field, unlike the spot foul in the NFL, you only are penalized 10 yards and an auto first down. This seems like the exact opposite of the harshness of the targeting infraction, though we recognize they differ from a safety point of view. But, where is the middle ground?
What about a 20 yard penalty(that would be a first) for targeting and an automatic first down. Any other personal foul by the same player of any sort results in a suspension of the next 60 consecutive minutes of football from that moment. It’s but one suggestion.
The NCAA rules committee needs to take a long look this offseason.
We may not have the answers, but we do have the questions.