Targeting: The history, the current backlash and the future – Columbia Missourian

During the second quarter of Missouris game against Boston College, Tigers wide receiver Dominic Lovett hit the ground and was rolling following a 4-yard reception.

Eagles linebacker Isaiah Graham-Mobley collided with him, knees hitting the ground before his right shoulder and upper arm impacted Lovetts head. The hit was so hard it moved Lovetts body nearly 180 degrees and knocked his helmet off his chin.

Missouri fans, of course, were livid on Twitter, even though Lovett was unhurt. As the play went to review for targeting, many were certain Graham-Mobley would be ejected from the game.

But when the referees returned, there was no targeting call. Graham-Mobley was charged with a personal foul, and the Tigers queued up first and goal from Bostons 7-yard line.

What prompts a targeting call and what doesnt is often a confusing matter to college football fans. The rule has been in place more than a decade, with the goal of protecting players from substantial injuries, especially to the head and neck. Despite slight changes over the years, that objective hasnt changed.

The diligence of identifying targeting and reviewing targeting is just the same as it was last year, which is the same as five years ago, which is the same as when we first instituted the rule, John McDaid, coordinator of football officials for the SEC, said.

In the first three weeks of the 2021 season, according to data compiled by Sports Illustrated, referees called targeting 105 times and 45 calls were overturned upon review. Thats about one targeting call every four games, which is comparable to last seasons average.

Four players were ejected in the first half of the Ole Miss-Louisville game Sept. 6. The penalties reignited debate over the targeting rule, specifically its consequences for players and how inconsistent calls can be.

History of the rule

The NCAA created the targeting rule in 2008, when it became a foul for a player to initiate contact on an opponent with the crown of their helmet. Players were also prohibited from making contact with a defenseless opponent above the shoulders. Targeting was thus added as a personal-foul penalty resulting in a 15-yard loss.

Defenseless players include one in the act of or having just thrown a pass, a player on the ground and a kick returner attempting to receive a kick, among others. Theres also a list of indicators to help referees determine intent of the player making the tackle: launching into an upward, forward tackle, crouching or lowering the head are all included on the list.

An example of a situation where a player might hit an opponents helmet without targeting would be when a receiver and defensive player collide midair while trying to make a bona fide football move.

Theres not an indicator there, because a defensive player is making a play on the ball and the player is making a play on the ball. Almost without exception, that players not dipping his helmet or otherwise showing intent to attack, McDaid said.

An increased focus on player safety and heightened concern surrounding traumatic brain injuries were motivating factors behind the implementation of the rule.

It was around the time that chronic traumatic encephalopathy, more commonly known as CTE, came into the spotlight and concussions and player safety in football became prime topics. In 2007, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell called the leagues first Concussion Summit and issued a concussion pamphlet.

The college football targeting rule was amended in 2013 so that players charged with the penalty would be immediately ejected from the game. If the penalty occurred in the second half, players would be forced to sit out the first half of their next game as well. Replay officials had the power to overturn the penalty ejection, but it wasnt until 2014 that the penalty being recalled also meant there was no 15-yard loss for the offending team.

In 2019, it became required for referees to confirm or deny a targeting penalty using video review. The rule also was updated to state that players with three targeting penalties in one season may be prone to an additional one-game suspension. Most recently, the rule was changed to allow ejected players to remain on the sideline instead of mandating that they leave the stadium.

How it protects players

Player safety is the No. 1 goal of the targeting rule. Preventing concussions and long-term brain injuries is the main goal, but targeting can cause other injuries as well.

Dr. Clayton Nuelle, an orthopedic surgeon with a focus on sports medicine, is a team doctor for Missouri. Not only can leading with the helmet result in head and neck injuries, he said, but it can cause large contusions and bruises on the upper body and potentially even tendon or ligament injuries.

When youre talking about hitting with the helmet, thats the hardest piece of protective equipment that they have, Nuelle said. So hitting with a helmet versus hitting with a shoulder or tackling with an arm or something is going to be a much larger blow, a much larger impactful force to the opposing player than if they hit him with their shoulder pad or their shoulder or their arm or something like that.

When a defensive player going for a tackle leads with their head, its known as spearing an opponent. The action has more drastic consequences for the player making the tackle than it does the recipient. Hitting the crown of the head against a blunt object like a player in motion can impact the spinal cord and cause serious damage.

If you do that, you can cause fractures within the cervical spine or within the neck, Nuelle said, or you can potentially even damage the spinal cord, which certainly can, in the worst-case scenario, potentially even lead to paralysis and, even in less-worse-case or a milder scenario, still cause spinal cord damage or nerve damage and lead to other neurologic type of issues or problems.

In 2017, Robert Grays, a cornerback at Midwestern State in Texas, died after suffering a neck injury in a game. He was 19.

The previous year, Sterling Thomas, a defensive back at Lindenwood, was paralyzed because of a serious spinal cord injury. Sports account for 10% of spinal cord injuries, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Another big concern for doctors is the second-hit phenomenon. Nuelle said the most severe brain injuries are often a result of this phenomenon when a player suffers a second concussion before their brain has fully healed from its first. The more serious iteration, second-impact syndrome, occurs when the brain swells because of a second concussion in close proximity to a first.

It usually results in death.

Theres no set number of concussions an athlete can have before they are pulled out of a sport. Instead, it depends more on frequency of concussions and severity of symptoms. A player who suffers multiple concussions in one season could be more prone to long-term effects than one who is diagnosed a couple times across several years.

The old kind of adage was, Oh, like you know, hes fine. He can count to two. Let him go back in. Hell be all right, Nuelle said. Nobody does that now, thankfully, because we worry about the second-hit phenomenon, which results in potentially more long-term damage.

The future of the rule

Undoubtedly, the NCAAs targeting rule will continue to evolve, and there could be changes coming as early as 2022. A group of NCAA, conference and school officials are calling for an amendment to the rules punishment, one of the harshest in the game.

However, theres currently no agreed-upon plan for change.

Twitter has become a sounding board not just for frustrations about targeting calls but potential solutions to make the rule more fair while also maintaining player safety. Following the Ole Miss-Lousville game, Fox Sports analyst Joel Klatt said on Twitter that ejections for targeting should only happen in egregious and malicious circumstances.

Klatt then gave a solution thats become common: Break down the penalty into Targeting 1 and Targeting 2. The former results only in a 15-yard penalty, the second in the same penalty plus an ejection for the offending player.

This amendment would make the rule similar to flagrant-1 and flagrant-2 fouls in basketball. A similar proposal would mimic yellow and red cards in soccer, where a player would get a warning on their first targeting offense in a game and an ejection after their second.

McDaid confirmed that there are people talking about those potential changes to the rule but couldnt comment further on how the discussions surrounding them would go in the offseason.

But both solutions present their own sets of issues. Turning targeting into something like a flagrant foul means more pressure on refs to determine the intent of players, an incredibly high burden. Allowing a player two targeting offenses per game increases chance of injuries.

McDaid, whos been involved with football officiating at the FBS level since 2001, has seen the change in player behavior because of the targeting rule. There are fewer pointless late tackles on wide receivers whove already caught the ball.

Its trying to create the safest environment by creating a deterrent, McDaid said. I think thats important to know. The penalty thats associated with targeting is there as a deterrent to get the behaviors of the student-athletes on the football field to change.

Read more from the original source:

Targeting: The history, the current backlash and the future - Columbia Missourian