Should targeting penalties include ejections? Some coaches say no, but the policy isn't going away

Updated Sep. 12, 2024 3:14 p.m. ET

share

facebookxredditlink

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Alabama and Wisconsin will both play the first half of Saturday's intersectional matchup without a linebacker who was penalized for targeting a week earlier.

Wisconsin coach Luke Fickell would prefer a scenario in which both the fourth-ranked Crimson Tide’s Justin Jefferson and the Badgers’ Jake Chaney could have avoided such a steep punishment.

“I’ll look everybody in the face (and say) we’re wrong in college football to throw kids out of games,” Fickell said after the Badgers’ 27-13 victory over South Dakota.

Fickell is hardly the only coach who believes targeting penalties shouldn’t result in automatic ejections, a rule that took effect in 2013. Players who get targeting penalties in the second half of games, as Jefferson and Chaney did last weekend, also must miss the first half of their teams’ next games.

The policy doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon.

Steve Shaw, the NCAA’s national coordinator of officials, says the threat of ejection has been an effective deterrent. There were 0.16 targeting penalties enforced per game last season, which represented a three-year low.

“Any time you can impact playing time, very similar to impacting finances in the NFL, it catches your attention,” Shaw said. “We can’t fine like the NFL does. So playing time is the most precious commodity that’s out there, and that’s what makes this penalty what it is.”

The American Football Coaches Association proposed having two categories of targeting penalties five years ago. A more egregious violation would result in an ejection, while infractions deemed less serious would result in a penalty that allowed the player to remain in the game.

“It was discussed, but it never got any traction with the NCAA,” AFCA executive director Craig Bohl said. Bohl added that if anyone wants to bring the topic up again at the annual AFCA convention in January, “we can certainly move that forward as a topic of discussion.”

There have been 37 targeting penalties enforced through this season’s first 178 Bowl Subdivision games for an average of 0.21 per game. That’s a significant rise from last year’s season-ending average. But it’s almost exactly the same as the average through the first two weeks of last season, when 40 targeting penalties were enforced in 180 contests (0.22).

Shaw said he believes more targeting penalties happen early in the season due to the relative lack of contact in preseason practices.

“If history holds and our players get better as we go through the season, it looks like our numbers pretty much on track with where we were last year,” Shaw said.

Fickell downplayed his postgame comments when he was asked about the issue again Monday.

“In the offseason you’ll bring it up, but I’m not going to spend a few days down there trying to change the world when everything within your own program is constantly changing,” Fickell said. “I’ll just voice my opinion again that somebody needs to take a good hard look at this because I would imagine there’s a lot of coaches that feel the same way.”

The NCAA targeting rule states that “no player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet.” It also says “no player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.”

Vanderbilt coach Clark Lea said ejections “can become a pretty hefty penalty.” Lea said he’s heard suggestions about an NHL-type model in which players would miss a certain amount of time for targeting violations rather than getting tossed from the game.

“I understand the spirit of what we’re trying to do in terms of keeping the game safe, and I support that fully,” Lea said. “I think continuing to open up and say, ‘Is this the best penalty for a targeting foul?’ is a worthwhile conversation.”

Other coaches are OK with the rule the way it is.

“I remember when (ejections for) targeting first happened a decade ago or however long it is and everybody said, ‘Oh, this is going to change college football. You can’t play like this,’” TCU’s Sonny Dykes said. “And then what happens like anything else, the players adapt and adjust, and you don’t see that many targeting calls anymore. And as a result of that, you don’t see as many catastrophic injuries in college football.”

A 2020 rule change permitted players to remain on the sidelines after targeting penalties. They previously were escorted off the field and into the locker room.

Two years ago, an appeals process was introduced for players ejected in the second half of games. If a video review the following week determines the player shouldn’t have been penalized, he’s cleared to play in the first half of his next game.

The idea of having two degrees of targeting penalties – one of which wouldn’t result in an ejection – continues to encounter roadblocks.

Shaw said human nature would cause officials to try to avoid disqualifying players, similar to how they hand out more flagrant-1 fouls in college basketball than flagrant-2 fouls that result in ejections. He believes that would eventually make the punishment less effective in preventing dangerous hits.

“At the end of the day, what we’re trying to accomplish is changing the player behavior,” Shaw said. “Targeting with the disqualification is the one thing that captures their attention.”

___

AP College Football Writer Eric Olson and AP Sports Writers Stephen Hawkins, Larry Lage, Teresa M. Walker and John Zenor contributed to this report.

___

Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football

share

in this topic

Justin Jefferson

Wisconsin Badgers