NCAA football panel proposes changes to targeting ejections

INDIANAPOLIS — Division I football rules makers have proposed a one-year trial rule allowing a player disqualified for targeting for the first time to play in his team’s next game regardless of which half the penalty was assessed, the NCAA announced Thursday.

Currently, players disqualified for targeting must sit out the rest of the game and, if the penalty occurs in the second half, sit out the first half of the next game.

Editor’s Picks

2 Related

Under the Division I Football Rules Subcommittee’s proposal, a player disqualified for targeting a second time during the season would sit out the first half of the next game. A third targeting ejection in the same season would cause the offending player to sit out the entire next game.

Targeting is forcible contact with an opponent’s head or neck area in which the offending player often uses the crown of his helmet to make contact or launches his body into the opposing player above the shoulders.

Oversight committees for the Bowl Subdivision and Championship Subdivision must approve proposals before they become official. Those committees meet next month.

“This continues the evolution of our targeting rule and balances the important safety impact with an appropriate penalty structure,” said A.J. Edds, rules subcommittee chair and vice president of football administration for the Big Ten. “We will closely monitor this one-year adjustment, and the committee believes it is important to enhance the progressive penalty to ensure proper coaching and player education.”

Dress code:

The rules subcommittee proposed that players wear leg coverings from the top of their shoes to the bottom of their pants. Players would have to wear the same covering style and colors for that particular game.

Players out of compliance with the rule would have to leave the game for at least one down and correct the issue. A team would receive a warning for the first offense.

If a team has a second offense under this proposal, the offending team would be given a 5-yard penalty. Any subsequent violations of the rule would result in a 15-yard penalty.

“The current look of the uniform is clearly not meeting the expectations of the college football community,” Edds said. “This will take a collective effort by administrators, coaches and officials to communicate expectations to players and equipment managers. This proposal, we believe, is definitive and gives us a chance for consistent enforcement across Division I football.”

Texas head coach Steve Sarkisian was amused by the proposal, saying, “I’m just trying to figure out how we’re going to police socks to pants.”

“The NFL has that rule and they fine the players when they don’t meet their uniform requirements,” he said. “Are we hiring uniform police that the NFL does, and they come and they assess every player and they dock them pay and they fine them for when they’re suited properly? I would assume instead of worrying about socks to pants, are we going to tuck in our shirts? We’ve got T-shirts hanging out down to our knees now. There’s a lot of things, but for that to come up as being an issue seems kind of odd.”

Fair catch kicks:

Under a proposal, a team could choose to attempt a fair catch kick after a completed or awarded fair catch. The kick would be a field goal place kick with a holder or a drop kick from the spot where the returner caught the ball. The defense would be at least 10 yards from the spot of the kick.

If the ensuing kick goes through the uprights, it would be worth three points.

Subcommittee members believe adding the rule would align Division I rules with those in the NFL and high school football. The rarely used play came up in 2024 in the NFL when the Los Angeles Chargers’ Cameron Dicker converted from 57 yards against the Denver Broncos.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.