Yeah, this is a good point to keep in mind, but in my opinion "when in doubt..." is a poor standard for ejecting someone, which is probably why it's not enforced. I feel like the rule needs to evolve more. I know they want to eliminate every head to head hit, but that is not possible short of changing the game (which ranting coach was it recently that said football is a game about hitting?). I feel like the rule needs to be completed with explicit exceptions. Not "when in doubt", but targeting unless A or B or C etc. They are afraid to put in exceptions but without the exceptions they are also confused.The problem is no one can agree on what is and what isn't targeting. Some hits are clearly targeting yet no penalty is called. Other ones are just aggressive tackles but they eject the guy anyway.
I mean think about it, any time there is a game thread going on (that doesn't involve Bama) about half the folks on this board say it's targeting, and the other half disagrees.
The rule clearly states "When in doubt, it IS targeting" but they aren't enforcing it that way.
To put the same point another way, instead of saying it is targeting if a guy launches, or if a guy uses the crown, etc., put it the other way. Any and every head contact on a defenseless player is targeting unless... And then specify. For example, in the PSU play, targeting... unless both players are going for a pass or loss ball. This is more like how the pass interference call is set up, and while that's not perfect I think it is still easier to look for a set of exceptions, any one of which is enough, versus a set of conditions, where you have to decide whether a bunch of things happened at once.
Last edited: