New Targeting Rule for 2026

[Tidewater]

So, targeting on the final play is free for all and you'll only miss the untimed down. Good lesson

Boy that shows the law of unintended consequences.

 

[BamaMoon]

Boy that shows the law of unintended consequences.

Would miss the 1st half of the next game, based on current rules though, right?

 

[mlh]

The way we were taught to tackle when I played would result in a targeting call every time.

 

[Krymsonman]

Awesome

What is targeting again?

I think it depends on who's looking at it.

 

[Krymsonman]

I understand the rule, but the enforcement is so subjective that I don't think a player should have to leave the game for a first offense. Half the time it's the offensive players fault anyway. I would call it a 15 yard penalty for first offense, and 15 yards and leave the game for a second offense. Until they have a consistent definition of targeting, let the player play.

 

[Bama Ping Pong]

Let’s have everyone wear those larger, padded helmets & do away with the targeting rule altogether. We’d have less brain injuries with those safety helmets.

 

[Windsortide]

I guess that is an improvement?

 

[mlh]

Leather helmets with no facemasks would eliminate targeting immediately.

 

[gtgilbert]

I understand the rule, but the enforcement is so subjective that I don't think a player should have to leave the game for a first offense. Half the time it's the offensive players fault anyway. I would call it a 15 yard penalty for first offense, and 15 yards and leave the game for a second offense. Until they have a consistent definition of targeting, let the player play.

I hear (or read) this a lot, but honestly haven't ever seen it.

What is the situation in which the offensive player could be at fault?

 

[Elefantman]

I don't think it's a matter of fault. You see plays where the defender attempts to avoid helmet to helmet contact, but the offensive player ducks or turns at the last moment making it impossible for the defender to prevent a targeting foul. Intention should be a greater determination than result when being reviewed.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

Leather helmets with no facemasks would eliminate targeting immediately.

It would definitely eliminate facemask penalties!

 

[Krymsonman]

I hear (or read) this a lot, but honestly haven't ever seen it.

What is the situation in which the offensive player could be at fault?

I've seen plays, and I can't name a specific one. where the defensive player was going in for a tackle, and the offensive play eithers ducks or leans in to the defensive guy, causing the helmet to helmet hit. It was all incidental but the defensive player gets called for targeting. I guess my biggest grip is the ejection part of the penalty. Many of the "targeting plays" are just part of playing football. I think ejection in those types of plays is too harsh.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I've seen plays, and I can't name a specific one. where the defensive player was going in for a tackle, and the offensive play eithers ducks or leans in to the defensive guy, causing the helmet to helmet hit. It was all incidental but the defensive player gets called for targeting. I guess my biggest grip is the ejection part of the penalty. Many of the "targeting plays" are just part of playing football. I think ejection in those types of plays is too harsh.

I think it should take 2 targeting fouls in one game to get ejected. If a player keeps doing it, he is not only a danger to others but himself too. Maybe if you are a repeat offender, you get tossed a lot quicker.

 

[JDCrimson]

Sadly, you could take away the helmets and you would still have targeting. Some players are just that careless.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I've seen plays, and I can't name a specific one. where the defensive player was going in for a tackle, and the offensive play eithers ducks or leans in to the defensive guy, causing the helmet to helmet hit. It was all incidental but the defensive player gets called for targeting. I guess my biggest grip is the ejection part of the penalty. Many of the "targeting plays" are just part of playing football. I think ejection in those types of plays is too harsh.

Didn't that happen in the Ohio State-Clemson game (the year Clemson lost to LSU) and result in a frivolous ejection because of the movement of the OFFENSIVE player?

Sunshine lowered his head and an aggressive sack turned into a penalty, an ejection - and Ohio State blew a 16-0 lead.

 

[gtgilbert]

I've seen plays, and I can't name a specific one. where the defensive player was going in for a tackle, and the offensive play eithers ducks or leans in to the defensive guy, causing the helmet to helmet hit. It was all incidental but the defensive player gets called for targeting. I guess my biggest grip is the ejection part of the penalty. Many of the "targeting plays" are just part of playing football. I think ejection in those types of plays is too harsh.

helmet to helmet itself isn't targeting though b/c the offensive player isn't defenseless. When things like this are called as targeting, it's almost always due to the 'other' type of targeting and that's where a D player uses the crown of the helmet and it doesn't matter where on the offensive player the contact occurs.

 

[AlexanderFan]

I hear (or read) this a lot, but honestly haven't ever seen it.

What is the situation in which the offensive player could be at fault?

Lower their body to absorb the tackle and then defender ends up hitting their head/neck. The defender is poised to hit abdomen, but the ball carrier trying to brace for impact changes the strike zone so to speak, so the defender ends up hitting in the penalty area.

The offensive player isn’t trying to draw a penalty, it’s just a football move that some referees call for targeting.

 

[gtgilbert]

Lower their body to absorb the tackle and then defender ends up hitting their head/neck. The defender is poised to hit abdomen, but the ball carrier trying to brace for impact changes the strike zone so to speak, so the defender ends up hitting in the penalty area.

The offensive player isn’t trying to draw a penalty, it’s just a football move that some referees call for targeting.

most often when this happens, it's the 'other' targeting where the defender uses the crown of the helmet so that is called even if it didn't hit the head or neck. If the offensive player is a ball carrier, in most cases they are not 'defenseless' so the head/neck type of targeting doesn't apply.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

I've seen plays, and I can't name a specific one. where the defensive player was going in for a tackle, and the offensive play eithers ducks or leans in to the defensive guy, causing the helmet to helmet hit. It was all incidental but the defensive player gets called for targeting. I guess my biggest grip is the ejection part of the penalty. Many of the "targeting plays" are just part of playing football. I think ejection in those types of plays is too harsh.

THAT is exactly why it is reviewed.....apparently the replay officials are scrubs!