A critical fourth-down sack, an ejection for targeting, and a firestorm of debate—that’s what happened when an Arizona State player got flagged. Fans and former players are arguing about everything: the call, the player’s reaction, and, of course, the NCAA targeting rule itself. This incident highlights the tension between player safety and football’s inherent physicality. Let’s break down the play, the rule, and the controversy surrounding it.
What Happened? A Quick Recap
- The targeting call against the Arizona State player was deemed justified by many commenters, highlighting player safety.
- Former players shared their perspectives, suggesting more tactical and safer tackling techniques.
- User reactions included a mix of sympathy for the ejected player and criticism of his celebratory antics following the hit.
- The discussion sheds light on the ongoing debate surrounding targeting rules within college football.
Key Takeaways
- Player safety and the targeting rule remain a hot topic: The Arizona State player’s ejection showcases the ongoing debate surrounding targeting in college football. Fans and former players offer diverse perspectives, raising questions about tackling techniques and the impact of player celebrations on these calls.
- Understanding the NCAA’s targeting rule is key for fans and players: Knowing the specific definitions, like “crown of the helmet” and “defenseless player,” helps clarify this complex rule. It’s also important to understand the different types of targeting and how replay reviews factor into the decision-making process.
- The conversation around targeting reflects a larger shift in sports culture: This incident goes beyond a single call, prompting discussions about the future of the rule and the balance between player safety and the physical nature of the game. These conversations highlight the evolving landscape of college football and the need for ongoing dialogue.
How Players React to NCAA Targeting Calls
The enforcement of targeting rules in college football has been an evolving conversation. Many players understand the intent behind these rules – to protect the players and ensure that the game remains as safe as possible. However, on the Arizona State targeting incident, the community weighed in on both sides of the argument. As noted by user Ruggerx24, “As a former rugby player, it’s not hard to tackle someone under their sternum. He had all the time in the world to do that.” This sentiment resonates with many, particularly those who have played contact sports, suggesting a need for players to adapt their tackling techniques to avoid such penalties.
Understanding the NCAA Targeting Rule
What Exactly *is* Targeting?
Let’s break down the NCAA’s official definition of targeting, because it’s got two key parts. First, it’s making “forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of the helmet.” Second, it’s “targeting and initiating contact to an opponent’s head or neck area with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.” The important thing to remember is that *either* of these actions can be called as targeting. For more details and specific examples, review the NCAA’s official targeting rules.
What is the “Crown of the Helmet”?
The “crown” isn’t the whole helmet. It’s specifically the top part, defined as a 6-inch radius around the center of the top of the helmet. This is the area officials focus on when determining if a player led with the crown. Visual diagrams of the crown of the helmet can be helpful in understanding this crucial aspect of the rule.
Who is a “Defenseless Player”?
A defenseless player is someone particularly vulnerable to injury. The NCAA has a specific list of situations where a player is considered defenseless. This includes a kicker during or just after a kick, a player already in the grasp of an opponent, a quarterback throwing a pass, and a receiver attempting to catch one. It also includes a player giving themself up by sliding feet-first, and a player clearly out of the play. USA Today offers a comprehensive breakdown of the defenseless player definition.
Penalties for Targeting
Targeting carries a 15-yard penalty and the offending player’s ejection from the game. The ejection length depends on when the foul occurs. A first-half targeting foul means missing the rest of that game. A second-half foul results in sitting out the rest of *that* game *and* the first half of the *next* game. If the foul happens in the final game of the season (bowl game or playoffs), the suspension carries over to the following season. Three targeting calls in a single season lead to an automatic one-game suspension. SEC Sports provides further details on targeting penalties and their implications.
What Referees Look For
Referees look for specific indicators of targeting, including launching (leaving their feet to deliver a hit), crouching or lowering the head before contact, and leading with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow, or shoulder. Essentially, any action suggesting an intent to use the head as the primary point of contact can draw a flag. Learn more about how referees identify targeting fouls.
The Role of Replay
Every targeting call triggers an automatic review. There’s no “stands” option. The replay official either confirms the call, upholding the ejection, or overturns it, allowing the player to stay in the game. This USA Today article explains the replay review process in more detail.
Recent Rule Changes
The NCAA has adjusted the targeting rule in recent years. In 2020, ejected players were allowed to remain on the sideline with their team instead of being sent to the locker room. In 2022, an appeals process was implemented for second-half targeting ejections impacting future games, allowing schools to appeal if they believe the call was incorrect. Find more information on the NCAA’s appeals process here.
Why the Controversy?
The targeting rule aims to reduce head and neck injuries, but it’s one of the most controversial rules in college football. Balancing player safety with the game’s inherent physicality is challenging. Some argue the rule is too strict, penalizing incidental contact, while others believe it’s crucial for injury prevention. Explore the ongoing debate surrounding the targeting rule in college football.
Targeting Applies to Both Sides
Targeting isn’t just for defensive players. Offensive players can also be called for targeting if they initiate illegal contact with the crown of their helmet or target a defender’s head or neck area. This ESPN article clarifies how targeting applies to both offensive and defensive players.
A Brief History of the Rule
The NCAA introduced the targeting rule in 2008 and has modified it several times since, seeking a balance between safety and fair play. Delve into the history and evolution of the NCAA targeting rule.
Two Types of Targeting
There are two distinct types of targeting. The first is leading with the crown of the helmet to make contact, which is *always* targeting, regardless of whether the opponent is defenseless. The second is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player, which can occur with any part of the body. This SEC Sports article breaks down the two types of targeting and their distinctions.
Do Celebrations Make Targeting Worse?
After making the tackle, the ejected player opted to do a “night night” celebration, which did not help his case according to user KillaMike24. Comments like, “I think more of it was him doing a night night celebration after doing it,” indicate that the player’s post-sack actions may have been interpreted as unsportsmanlike conduct or a show of intent to inflict harm. The arguing points in the comments effectively illustrate how actions following a play can sometimes exacerbate situations and lead to harsher judgments. There’s an ongoing debate about how celebrations should be perceived in light of their context, especially in high-stakes games.
Why Are Fans So Divided on Targeting?
Fans’ reactions to targeting calls are often mixed, as illustrated in the comments section of the post. Users like collarboner1 were unequivocal, stating, “It was a pretty obvious targeting call. Gotta know better…” This indicates that some fans are staunch proponents of strict enforcement, feeling that players should be held responsible for dangerous tackles. Others, however, express sympathy for players who may not have intended harm but are caught in the whirlwind of split-second decisions. This divergence in views highlights a fundamental aspect of passionate sports fandom – unwavering support for player safety versus a nostalgic love for the game’s toughness.
The NCAA Targeting Rule: Where Do We Go From Here?
The ejection of the Arizona State player has catalyzed a broader conversation on the targeting rule itself. Incidents like this prompt questions regarding the clarity and consistency of how such calls are adjudicated on the field. Are officials too quick to use the ejection card, or are players not adhering closely enough to safety protocols? As commenter garrettj100 asserted, “Yeah that’s pretty slimy… he had all the time in the world.” This reflects a sentiment shared by many that players should, to some extent, cater their approach to tackle based on rules designed to protect them and their opponents. The evolution of these rules will likely continue to shape the landscape of college football, reflecting an ongoing struggle to find the right balance between player safety and the integrity of the game.
In the end, the incident sheds light not just on a singular call but on the greater societal shifts in sports culture surrounding player safety. With passionate discussions and varied opinions, the ejection of the Arizona State player underscores the complexities of modern football. As regulations aim to protect athletes and promote responsible play, discussions in online communities become critical arenas for fans to voice their opinions, bridging the gap between spirited fandom and the inevitable push for safety in contact sports.
Related Articles
- Arizona State Player Ejected: The Targeting Rule Under Scrutiny
- Ejection of Oregon’s Traeshon Holden: A Disgusting Trend in FBS Football
- Arizona State’s Cam Skattebo Shines with 199 Yards in Upset Win Over Utah
- Texas Fined $250K for Trash Tossed at Games: Fans React
- Ohio State Football Fan Caught Spitting: Calls for a Lifetime Ban Spark Debate
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the targeting rule in college football so controversial? It’s a tough balancing act. The rule aims to protect players from head and neck injuries, which is obviously important. But football is a physical game, and sometimes contact happens fast. It can be difficult to draw a clear line between a legal hit and targeting, even with replays. This leads to frustration for players, coaches, and fans who feel the rule is too strict or inconsistently applied. There’s also the argument that the game is inherently risky, and players accept that risk when they step on the field.
What happens if a player is called for targeting? A targeting penalty results in a 15-yard penalty and the player’s ejection from the game. If the penalty occurs in the first half, the player misses the rest of the game. A second-half targeting call means the player sits out the remainder of that game and the first half of the next game. If it’s the last game of the season (a bowl game or playoff game), the suspension carries over to the following season. Also, three targeting calls in a single season result in an automatic one-game suspension.
Isn’t it up to the referees to make the right call? Why are fans so invested in this? Referees have a challenging job. They have to make split-second decisions in a fast-paced environment. But fans are passionate about their teams and the sport. A targeting call can change the momentum of a game, especially if it involves a key player. Fans naturally react strongly to these calls, especially if they disagree with the referee’s judgment. Plus, the debate about player safety is something many fans care deeply about.
What’s the difference between a legal hit and targeting? The key is whether the player leads with the crown of their helmet (the top part) and whether they target the head or neck area of a defenseless player. A legal hit involves making contact with the shoulder or chest, while wrapping up the opponent. Targeting often involves launching (leaving the feet to deliver a hit), lowering the head before contact, or using the helmet as the primary point of contact. It’s a subtle but important distinction.
Can offensive players get called for targeting too? Absolutely. While it’s more common for defensive players to be penalized for targeting, offensive players can also be called for it if they initiate illegal contact with the crown of their helmet or target a defender’s head or neck area. The rule applies equally to both sides of the ball.