Should a player sit out the first half of the following game for being ejected a week earlier? Targeting has long been a debated rule in NCAA officiating, with college football fans split on how severe the penalty should be for offenders or whether it should exist at all.
While the rule itself isn’t going anywhere, the punishment could be adjusted for 2026. The NCAA Football Playing Rules Committee will meet this week in Indianapolis to consider proposed changes to the targeting rule, specifically regarding suspensions.
Ejections for targeting were introduced in 2013 and will remain in place, but the NCAA is expected to explore eliminating suspensions that carry over into the following game. Chris Vannini of The Athletic reports that individuals briefed on the discussions emphasize that no one wants to de-emphasize the seriousness of a targeting call.
“Why mess with it if it’s working?” one person said. “But I don’t think a guy in the next game recognizes (the severity) of the game before, or you have someone who has weeks off and then can’t play in the first half of the national championship.”
The meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday will be used to gather all information on proposals, and the decision will be made in March on whether new applications will take effect for 2026.
A decade of disputed ejections
Targeting has been controversial since its inception, with fans arguing that the call directly influences a game. A 15-yard penalty not only preserves stalling drives but also changes defensive rotations when an ejection is added. For non-repeat offenders, the suspension should not extend to the following game.
The most recent example is Xavier Lucas of the Miami Hurricanes, who was suspended for the first half of the College Football Playoff National Championship for a targeting call in the semifinals against the Ole Miss Rebels.
The first-half suspension left Miami without one of its best defensive players in the most important game of the season. Had the targeting penalty happened in the first half of the semifinals, Lucas would have been eligible to play the entire game against the Indiana Hoosiers. Is that just? The rule was created with clear intent. Its application has never been clear.
Safety vs. fairness
Although the tampering rule has its critics, the NCAA believes there has been a positive change in player behavior. Steve Shaw, the national coordinator of officials, told Ross Dellenger in a Jan. 27 article for Yahoo Sports: “What targeting has driven in terms of player behavior change has been really good, and the numbers reflect that.”
Mandatory ejections should apply only when intent is clear, as replays often make incidents look worse than they are in real time. Whether through a tiered system like the flagrant model in basketball, or a 15-yard penalty with no automatic ejection, defensive players need rules that protect them as well.
With concussion research and liability concerns, player safety must remain a priority to preserve the sport, but adjusting the targeting penalty could better balance safety with fairness to athletes.
College football doesn’t have to choose between safety and fairness. It just has to refine the way it enforces both.
