From roughly 15 minutes into the 2023 football season, I was convinced of one thing: there was no way in [string of expletives] that I would ever cover targeting in one of my articles. It just seemed so random why some infractions were called, others were overturned, and still others were ignored entirely.
I stood fast to that conviction through 10 weeks - bending only slightly to cover a reviewed-but-not-confirmed call against BC. Although I have been keeping a folder of targeting clips for just this occasion.
It honestly created a bit of an existential crisis for me. I just couldn’t figure it out. I simply never seemed to get it right when watching games live - every time I thought for sure there was a target, the “there was no foul” announcement was promptly made. Any time I thought surely that couldn’t be ruled “forcible contact,” an ejection was soon to follow.
I think I generally have a pretty good handle on what constitutes holding, pass interference, a block in the back, etc. (based on the comments from throughout the season, I’d consider it a personal favor if a few of you would just let me have this one). But targeting? Nope. Am I just that bad of a back judge that the enforcement of this one rule would forever elude me?
I mean, I’ve encountered plenty of officials who struggled with spots, or simply couldn’t wrap their heads around the concept of “point of attack.” Was targeting likewise to be my white whale?
Well good news, friends! After spending entirely too much time this year looking through video clips of various targeting calls, I think I have something remotely close to resembling a coherent understanding of targeting. And I think the time spent neglecting my family was absolutely worth it!
I’ll be real with you guys, this one might be tough. If you intend on reading this as my interpretation of what targeting should be, you’re going to have a bad time. What I’m presenting here will be my interpretation of how this rule has been applied on the field (and in the replay booth) this season, which should (any upcoming rule tweaks pending) inform what we as fans can expect in the 2024 season
I have no idea how this will go, but I’ll give it my best shot. In the immortal words of Leeroy Jenkins: time’s up, let’s do this.
Targeting Rule and Philosophy
The general idea behind targeting is straightforward: remove dangerous hits from the game without completely compromising the “contact” element of this contact spot (or, “collision” sport, as my high school coach put it).
The rule has evolved a bit, from primarily protecting the player receiving the hit to essentially merging with the old “spearing” rule to protect (or protectively punish) the player delivering the blow.
Targeting continues to be a point of emphasis for the NCAA. To make sure we cover every aspect of this, I’m about to quote a whole lot of the rule book in one go (the fact that there’s so much of the rule book to quote for one type of foul should tell you something). First, from the Points of Emphasis section (Targeting is the first point listed):
“The helmet is for protection of the player...” and “players and coaches should emphasize the elimination of targeting and initiating contact against a defenseless opponent and/or with the crown of the helmet.”
The NCAA Football Rules Committee continues to embrace the targeting rule in order to promote player safety, reduce head contact and eliminate specific targeting actions from the game. The language in 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 stipulates that no player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player or contact an opponent with the crown (top) of their helmet. The definition of “crown of the helmet,” approved starting with the 2022 season, focused the attention on the top of the helmet. The term “forcible contact” has replaced the word “initiate” to ensure the intent of the rule is clear.”