.png)
The targeting penalty is a constant topic of discussion in college football. When it comes to agitation in the sport and among its fans, you can find the targeting rules near the top of the list with other incendiary discussion points such as playoff size, playoff seeding, playoff game location, strength of schedule, conference realignment, conference power rankings, the SEC in general, overtime rules, the transfer portal, transfer waivers, NIL, tampering, Big Noon Kickoff, Kirk Herbstreit, the process of the playoff committee, quarterback injuries, and a few other things.
The NCAA Rulebook actually describes targeting in no uncertain terms, saying the following. . .
A targeting foul occurs when a tackler makes contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless player, or while in the process of defending, leads a defenseless player by their helmet to the crown of a hit following a hit to the head or neck area that is considered defenseless if it is indefensible, but only if the defenseless tackler is crowned by a ball carrier's head or neck area at the same time that said player is determined to be the crown of a defenseless personal foul led by the head that has launched off the body of a defender into the forcible area. If the launch point of the defenseless helmet is deemed to be leading with the head, it is a targeting foul. If it is not considered to be neck contact to the forcible area, it is only considered a Wal-Marting foul.
Please note that a targeting foul is different than a targeting fowl, the latter of which is charged to any player that begins duck hunting during a game. Targeting is a 15 yard personal foul and an ejection. A Wal-Marting foul is only 5 yards because of every day low prices.
Now, there are two parts of the rule that need further explanation. First, let's start with the term "defenseless"
Definition of a defenseless player
A player who is unarmed while catching the football, or insufficiently armed
For example, players carrying a musket in 2024 are technically armed but still considered defenseless. Virginia quarterback Tony Muskett is considered a defenseless player at all times.
A player acting so rudely that his actions simply cannot be defended.
For example, mooning the crowd would be considered a defenseless action, and if a defender were to make forcible contact to the player who is in the process of mooning, this would be a 15-yard penalty and an ejection.
A player who lost his D-Fence sign prior to the snap and has made a football move to locate it during the play
A defensive player on a Larry Fedora defense
Definition of forcible contact
Contact that the offensive player asks the defender to please not initiate
A failure to respect boundaries is considered forcible contact
Contact that occurs via the force, whether the offensive player himself is contacted via the force or by an object that was launched via the force, such as a large rock or spaceship
Intentionally smelling another player
Exclusions for forcible contact include hits to the head or neck area when the ball carrier is a quarterback who has lost his helmet and the defender plays for Wake Forest University.
Since it's inception, the consequences of the targeting rule have led to much debate. There are positives in the intent for sure, but the execution of the rule is lacking.
Positives of the targeting rule
Adds an element of chance to the game
Creates a revenue stream via an easy sponsorship opportunity for Target.
Allows the officials to exercise their imagination
Lengthy review time creates opportunity for commercial break
As a football only rule, we do not have to watch ACC basketball officials try and review a targeting foul
Negatives of the targeting rule
Unfairly applied to players who have learned the ways of the force
Automatic ejection element requires every player to wear a parachute at all times
Targeting calls are hard to overturn due to Target's very short return window
If the targeting still does not make sense to you, here is a visual aid
This is NOT targeting
This IS targeting
Comments