I wasn’t certain I completely understood college football’s targeting rule, but then I read the college football rulebook and now I’m absolutely certain that I don’t. I wouldn’t know a targeting violation if I saw it, unless it was something obvious, like a decapitation.
I read Rule 9-1-3 and thought I had a handle on this thing, and then I read Rule 9-1-4, which is where things got a little muddied. So I read “Note 1,” which is referenced in Rule 9-1-3, which is basically an addendum to Rule 9-1-3 (or is it Rule 9-3-1?) and then I read “Note 2,” which is referenced in Rule 9-1-4 and contains examples of what constitutes a “defenseless” player, as found in Rule 2-27-14 and 9-6, and my conclusion is that defensive backs should be allowed to play two-hand touch.
There are so many qualifiers and contingencies for the rule, with numerous explanations and “indicators” that it has become impossibly broad and subjective; it’s always going to be problematic. Players have to consider all these things in a millisecond, on the fly, and refs have several minutes and replays to figure it out and they still don’t always get it right.
And you thought the icing and infield fly rules were complicated.
Football has a fundamental problem: How do you protect players in a sport where the object is to knock the ball carrier to the ground before he reaches the end zone? The targeting rule was created in 2008 and tweaked in 2012 and again in 2016 (probably not for the last time) to make the game safer, especially to reduce head injuries (actually, they might have made it more dangerous, but we’ll come back to that).
The rule was the big topic of discussion after Saturday night’s BYU-Utah game when BYU defensive backs Kai Nacua and Austin McChesney were ejected for targeting on back-to-back plays. They were both debatable calls, and both of the TV announcers and a former referee in the booth disagreed with the officials, although they were as confused as anyone in their reasoning.
Like most people, they thought a targeting penalty consisted of helmet-to-helmet contact or leading with the crown of the helmet. That’s wrong and it underscores how weird and complex this rule is. Nobody understands it completely.
Rule 9-1-3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6)
Rule 9-1-4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6)
Notes 1 and 2 provide a list of 14 items defining various terms and detailing what constitutes a defenseless player, and these lists are followed by “targeting indicators” — the types of tackles that will indicate a target violation is highly likely. Somehow, players are supposed to think about all this while responding to a play on a dead sprint.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the rule for tacklers is this: Don’t initiate contact with the head and neck area, and wrap up when you tackle, rather than simply use your body as a battering ram.
This is fine in theory, but try applying it while trying to stop a shifty, fast, 220-pound ball carrier. On the Nacua play, the receiver lowered his head, leaving the former little choice but to hit him high or take out his legs. Nacua actually turned his head away and to the side, hitting the receiver with the back of his right shoulder; clearly, he could have delivered a more devastating blow.
In its targeting guidelines for replay officials, the rulebook states, “Risk of a targeting foul is less when the player(s) action is one or more of these: Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders; wrap up tackle; head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact; incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting, but is due to the players changing position during the course of play.
Nacua’s tackle meets at least three of those five criteria.
There’s another problem no one is discussing: The rule is being applied to defensive players only. When an offensive player lowers his head and shoulders and drops low to the ground, he not only can deliver a dangerous blow to a defender, but he also leaves the tackler with no choice except to hit him in the head/shoulders area or in the ankles and knees.
Last March, the results of a study conducted by the University of Iowa revealed that the rate of concussions has remained the same despite the targeting rule, but the rate of lower-body injuries has increased. Dr. Robert Westermann, who authored the study, told Healthday reporter Alan Mozes, “Of course, concussions sustained in football can be devastating. But so can lower extremity injuries, which are the leading cause of disability among NFL retirees.” He concluded by saying the study “suggests that a change in the pattern of play following the new push to reduce head-to-head contact among players may be causing an increase in injuries lower down the body."
The targeting rule is politically popular now, but how effective and how practical is it, really?
Email: drob@deseretnews.com