Them's the Rules: On College Football's New Targeting Rule.

Disclaimer: The University of Oregon is my alma mater, the Ducks are my team.

-----

Last Saturday, the Oregon Ducks kicked off their 2013 college football season with a win over Nicholls State.  It wasn’t a surprising outcome, nor was it a particularly intense contest (the final score was 66-3).  Aside from a couple notable statistics (three Oregon players finished with over 100 yards rushing, for example), the game deserves discussion re the implementation of a new rule. 

The rule, which took effect this season, states that a player who ‘targets’ and contacts a defenseless opponent above the shoulders will be ejected from the game.  Before this season, targeting resulted in yards and an automatic first down for the targeted player’s team.  Now, with an understanding of the clear and present danger that concussions present, the NCAA is making player safety a bigger priority than it already was by imposing a stricter penalty.

Case in point: late in the first quarter of Saturday’s game, Oregon DB Terrance Mitchell lunged at scrambling Nicholls-State QB Beaux Hebert just as he began to slide.  The players’ helmets collided with a sickening crunch, leaving Hebert down (and out) for the count.  Mitchell was flagged for targeting and, following the now-required review through video replay, summarily sent off.

Yes, football is a rough, violent game.  Players get hurt, sometimes grievously so.  And this was a vicious hit, no doubt.  Still, I’m not so sure the punishment fits the crime.  In a game where the greatest price a player can pay is disqualification from play, automatic ejection is far too severe a penalty for what can be considered a subjective call. 

To be clear, I’m not disputing this specific call so much as noting that it, and future targeting calls, could be disputed.  Indeed, we’ve already seen players get penalized for inadvertent ‘targeting’ in past seasons.  Things happen so quickly; a defender will be in the air, flying at a ball-carrier’s mid-section, when the ball-carrier instinctively lowers his shoulder (and head) to break the tackle.  Their cabezas crash together and the defender gets whistled and penalized for a helmet-to-helmet hit.  At the risk of dramatizing the issue, this is a miscarriage of justice.  Reserving the harshest of punishments for the harshest of infractions is a good thing, especially when we’re talking about keeping players safe (to say nothing on the subject of young men playing a dangerous game for no pay).  Even so, hinging ejection on one subjective call is too radical.

Was Mitchell going in for a legit tackle, attempting to drive his shoulder into Hebert’s body?  Perhaps.  Did Mitchell only contact Hebert’s head because Hebert was suddenly low and sliding?  Possibly.  Did Mitchell have enough time to change direction once Hebert began sliding?  Maybe.  It’s hard to tell.  Though I respectfully defer to the officials in cases like this, I still think targeting calls will always carry with them a degree of subjectivity -- they have the potential to be questionable (and extremely consequential) calls.  As such, they don’t warrant automatic ejection.  They can’t.  A one-strike-you’re-out policy is too harsh, even with player safety at stake. 

A rule-change should be considered.  I think taking a page from the rulebook of the other football would not only send a message to players about safety but, perhaps more importantly, it would also remove the possibility of an altogether innocent player from being ejected.  When a soccer player makes a dangerous play, he is warned with a yellow card.  If he makes another dangerous play in the same game, he’s given a red card and ejected.  Since targeting, a dangerous play, can (a) be legitimately questioned and (b) result in ejection, it should also merit one warning before disqualification.  This way, a player who gets flagged for targeting, whether or not he actually targeted his opponent's head, can stay in the game.  Maybe he could sit out a series to think about it.  Should he target or appear to target again in the same game, he’ll be dismissed.  Just like that.  Also, the official should have the power to make a de facto ruling on the severity of a dangerous play by skipping the warning and directly ejecting a player, in football as it is in soccer.  As always, the power to keep the game safe and fair is in the hands of the official, whose rulings ought to be respected.

In sum, college football's new targeting rule, while passed and approved with the best of intentions, simply goes too far.  Critics and commentators are already acknowledging that the rule will undoubtedly result in questionable rulings that could alter the outcomes of games.  And that’s not a good thing for college football.  When and if that actually happens, and depending on the size of the stage, the NCAA will be forced to readdress the targeting rule.  In doing so, the interest of protecting defenseless players from getting hurt will have to be weighed against the interest of protecting defenders from getting booted for an accident, something the NCAA surely did when adopting the new rule.  So even though we know the NCAA's position, I still think a major game-changing incident could spur a serious reconsideration.  As it stands, them’s the rules.  Players will play, coaches will coach, officials will officiate, and all will have to do so according to the rules.  Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be surprised if the targeting rule was amended after this season.

UPDATE: Here, Mitchell addresses his ejection from the Ducks' opener.  The article and ensuing commentary support my position.