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

MADISON, Wisconsin – Alabama and Wisconsin will both play the first half of Saturday’s intersectional game without a linebacker who was penalized for targeting a week earlier.

Wisconsin coach Luke Fickell would have preferred a scenario in which fourth-ranked Justin Jefferson of the Crimson Tide and Jake Chaney of the Badgers could have avoided such severe punishment.

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

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

This policy does not seem likely to disappear any time soon.

Steve Shaw, the NCAA’s national coordinator of referees, says the threat of ejection has been an effective deterrent. Last season, 0.16 targeting penalties were assessed per game, the lowest level in three years.

“Anytime you can impact playing time, the way you impact finances in the NFL, it gets your attention,” Shaw said. “We can’t fine people like the NFL does. So playing time is the most valuable commodity there is, and that’s what makes this penalty what it is.”

Five years ago, the American Football Coaches Association proposed two categories of punishment for targeted infractions. A more serious infraction 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’s been talked about, but it’s never gotten traction with the NCAA,” AFCA executive director Craig Bohl said. Bohl added that if anyone wants to bring the topic up again at the AFCA’s annual convention in January, “we can certainly move that forward as a topic of discussion.”

There have been 37 targeting penalties taken in the first 178 Bowl Subdivision games this season, an average of 0.21 per game. That’s a significant increase 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 taken in 180 games (0.22).

Shaw said he believes more targeting penalties occur early in the season because of the relative lack of contact in preseason practices.

“If history holds and our players improve as the season goes on, it looks like our numbers are pretty much back on track from last year,” Shaw said.

Fickell downplayed his postgame comments when asked about the topic again Monday.

“In the offseason, you’ll talk about it, but I’m not going to spend a couple of days out there trying to change the world when everything within your own program is constantly changing,” Fickell said. “I’m just going to reiterate my opinion that somebody needs to take a hard look at this, because I imagine a lot of coaches feel the same way.”

The NCAA’s targeting rule states that “no player shall aim at and make forceful contact with the top of his helmet” and that “no player shall aim at and make forceful contact with the head or neck of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.”

Vanderbilt coach Clark Lea said ejections “can become a pretty serious punishment.” Lea said he’s heard suggestions about an NHL-style model in which players would miss time for targeting violations rather than being ejected from the game.

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

Other coaches accept the rule as it is.

“I remember when targeting ejections first came around 10 years ago or whatever, and everybody was like, ‘Oh, this is going to change college football. We can’t play like that,’” TCU’s Sonny Dykes said. “And then, like everything else, players adapt and adjust, and you don’t see as many targeting cases anymore. And as a result, you don’t see as many catastrophic injuries in college football.”

A rule change in 2020 allowed players to remain on the sidelines after taking penalties. Previously, they were escorted off the field and into the locker room.

Two years ago, an appeal process was introduced for players sent off in the second half of a match. If a video review the following week determines that the player should not have been penalised, he is allowed to play the first half of his next match.

The idea of ​​having two levels of targeting penalties – one of which would not result in expulsion – continues to face obstacles.

Shaw said human nature would lead referees to try to avoid disqualifying players, much in the same way they call more flagrant Type 1 fouls in college basketball than flagrant Type 2 fouls that result in ejections. He believes that would ultimately make the penalty less effective in preventing dangerous plays.

“Ultimately, what we’re trying to accomplish is change player behavior,” Shaw said. “Targeting with disqualification is the only thing that gets 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 AP Top 25 poll alerts and updates 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