After a few years since being implemented into the game, the targeting rule in college football remains one of the most frustrating rules in the game outside of what defines what is and what is not a catch. If you were hoping the NCAA was going to spend some time this offseason refining the targeting penalty and how it is officiated, you got a bit of a mixed bag on Friday from the Football Rules Committee.
Following their regular meeting in Indianapolis this week, the Football Rules Committee proposed two modifications to the existing targeting rule. One proposal would issue a one-game suspension for any player called for a second targeting penalty in the same season. Another proposal would require the instant replay official reviewing the targeting foul in question and ensure the penalty checks off multiple requirements to uphold the penalty to either confirm the call on the field or overturn it entirely.
As it stands now, a player ejected for targeting is required to sit out the rest of the current game in which the ejection occurs. If the penalty occurs in the second half of a game, the player would then sit out the first half of the next game on his team’s schedule. That part of the rule will still stand. However, under the proposal, if a player is being ejected for a second targeting foul in the same season, he would then be required to miss the next game on the schedule entirely, regardless of when the penalty happened in the previous game. So a player committing his second targeting penalty of the year in Week 7 during the fourth quarter would then be required to miss the entire game scheduled in Week 8, for example.
The only question here is what happens if a player commits a third targeting penalty in the same season? As explained, the proposal would still call for a one-game penalty.
The replay official will now be able to make a definitive call one way or the other, but whether that really clears up any issues with the rule remains to be seen. The proposal does force the replay official to check off all aspects of a targeting call and must determine if each element of targeting occurs. If even one aspect is not confirmed, then the entire penalty is then overturned. No replay review in this situation will be allowed to result in a call standing. It’s either targeting or it’s not.
The Rules Committee also issued a handful of other proposals that will be reviewed by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel;
- If an overtime game reaches a 5th overtime, teams would alternate two-point conversion attempts instead of starting possessions at the 25-yard line.
- Two-minute breaks between the 2nd and 4th overtimes, giving a quick breather for the offenses and defenses that were just on the field for the last possession of each overtime before they head back out for the 3rd and 5th overtimes when necessary
- The elimination of the two-man wedge formation on all kickoffs
- A recommendation to change the blind-side block technique was also proposed, preventing players from making a blind-side block with forcible contact. Doing so would draw a 15-yard flag for a personal foul, and can also be part of a targeting foul
Any proposal remotely connected or inspired to enhance the safety of the players is likely to receive enough support to advance to the next stage of becoming an official rule change that could be implemented as soon as this upcoming college football season. With that in mind, the targeting rule changes could be likely to be passed without much contest, even if the idea of increasing the suspension time may be a controversial decision. And how much do you trust the replay officials to make the ultimate judgment? The biggest sticking points will remain the same no matter what changes are made, and that is how consistently the targeting calls are officiated from week to week, from conference to conference, from replay booth to replay booth. These proposals do little to refine how the rule is systematically enforced throughout college football, which may be the most troubling part of the rule.
These proposals will be reviewed by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on April 17.