Rules changes for 2026

[Tidewater]

A decent off-season topic.

Here are the rules changes for the 2026 season.

1. Targeting. 1st offense, the player is gone for the game, but not the any of the next game. The commentators said there was frustration with targeting and this fixed it. But I sense most of the frustration with fans is comparing one tackle to another. If you look at the criteria for what constitutes targeting, and one guy gets called for targeting, but the next does not get called, fans are scratching their heads and asking, "How is this one targeting but that one is not?" This rule change does nothing for that. The rule changers did say they wanted to correct the issue of players "losing eligibility," and this change fixes that, but on the second offense, a player does lose the 1st half of the next game, so they really have not fixed the issue.
2. Eligible players on punts. Any number can play offensive line on a punt, but the center, the two guards and the two tackless, regardless of what number they are wearing, are ineligible. Further, the punt team must show that in their initial formation, they cannot shift to that. I had not noticed this being a significant issue, but whatever.
3. The weird one is the "fair catch kick." If the team receiving a punt declares they want a fair catch kick, then they line up line a kickoff (except no tee, you must have a holder), and kick the ball. The kicking team lines up like a kickoff, but the instant the foot hits the ball, field goal rules apply. This sounds to me like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I don't understand #s 2 and 3, but agree that both seem to be solutions looking for a problem to solve.

And until we have a clear definition of targeting, the rest is kind of moot. By comparison, soccer's definition of offside is crystal clear -- and nobody knows exactly what that is, either.

Regardless, maybe have a late targeting call result in suspension for part of all of the next. "Late" being the 4th Quarter? The last 10 minutes? I'm open on that.

Otherwise, you might see a complete disregard for the rule in the last few minutes -- after all, even if you get busted (which might or might not happen), your suspension is for only a few minutes.

 

[Bubbaloo]

I see three problems with zero solutions! No rule is better than a bad one!

 

[CoolBreeze]

The rule is not so bad. Problem is money, gambling and the incentive that provokes the officials making the calls IMHO. Maybe I am cynical that way tho.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I don't understand #s 2 and 3, but agree that both seem to be solutions looking for a problem to solve.

And until we have a clear definition of targeting, the rest is kind of moot. By comparison, soccer's definition of offside is crystal clear -- and nobody knows exactly what that is, either.

Regardless, maybe have a late targeting call result in suspension for part of all of the next. "Late" being the 4th Quarter? The last 10 minutes? I'm open on that.

Otherwise, you might see a complete disregard for the rule in the last few minutes -- after all, even if you get busted (which might or might not happen), your suspension is for only a few minutes.

Beat me to it. I'm always looking at the (dis)incentives a policy is likely to produce. This one? Go headhunting late in the game.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

A decent off-season topic.

Here are the rules changes for the 2026 season.

1. Targeting. 1st offense, the player is gone for the game, but not the any of the next game. The commentators said there was frustration with targeting and this fixed it. But I sense most of the frustration with fans is comparing one tackle to another. If you look at the criteria for what constitutes targeting, and one guy gets called for targeting, but the next does not get called, fans are scratching their heads and asking, "How is this one targeting but that one is not?" This rule change does nothing for that. The rule changers did say they wanted to correct the issue of players "losing eligibility," and this change fixes that, but on the second offense, a player does lose the 1st half of the next game, so they really have not fixed the issue.
2. Eligible players on punts. Any number can play offensive line on a punt, but the center, the two guards and the two tackless, regardless of what number they are wearing, are ineligible. Further, the punt team must show that in their initial formation, they cannot shift to that. I had not noticed this being a significant issue, but whatever.
3. The weird one is the "fair catch kick." If the team receiving a punt declares they want a fair catch kick, then they line up line a kickoff (except no tee, you must have a holder), and kick the ball. The kicking team lines up like a kickoff, but the instant the foot hits the ball, field goal rules apply. This sounds to me like a solution looking for a problem.

That third rule is just plain stupid...

 

[AlistarWills]

I’m assuming with rule 3 that the head coach must announce plans to fair catch it ahead of time. I can see this being used to prevent a fake punt.

ETA: or am I reading this wrong and it’s to allow the receiving team to kick

 

[BhamToTexas]

Otherwise, you might see a complete disregard for the rule in the last few minutes -- after all, even if you get busted (which might or might not happen), your suspension is for only a few minutes.

I don't know...maybe. But teams could do this with a 3rd stringer now if they wanted to but you don't see it happening. I think the fear of the second offense would keep you from getting the first one on a purposeful play like that.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

A much better rule change that they didn't enact:

Regarding fake injuries: If we have to stop the game for your injury, you're out until at least the next change of possession.

In addition to reducing fakes (looking at UTe, OM, and now that Kiffin has moved, LSU), it would enhance player safety.

There are still ways to game that -- like putting in a scrub for the express purpose of faking an injury. But it would help.

 

[Elefantman]

This kinda explains the fair catch kick. Team A punts, team B receiver calls for a fair catch. Play is over when he secures the ball. Now team B may elect to try a field goal from the spot of the fair catch. No tee is allowed and team A must line up 10 yards away from the spot of the field goal kick. Now what I hear on the video above, if the field goal is unsuccessful, team A gets the ball at the point of the original fair catch.

Football's Fair Catch Kick Explained

Of all the ways to score points in football, the fair catch kick is the most obscure and rarely used. This guide explains what the fair catch kick is and how it works.

sportmentary.com

 

[Con]

This kinda explains the fair catch kick. Team A punts, team B receiver calls for a fair catch. Play is over when he secures the ball. Now team B may elect to try a field goal from the spot of the fair catch. No tee is allowed and team A must line up 10 yards away from the spot of the field goal kick. Now what I hear on the video above, if the field goal is unsuccessful, team A gets the ball at the point of the original fair catch.

Football's Fair Catch Kick Explained

Of all the ways to score points in football, the fair catch kick is the most obscure and rarely used. This guide explains what the fair catch kick is and how it works.

sportmentary.com

The NFL has this too. You just hardly ever see it. I see them mention that as I read down the article.

 

[Crimson1967]

Here it is in action.

After a fair catch, a team can attempt a free kick from the spot of the catch. You have to use a holder and the other team can’t rush and has to be ten yards back.

Obviously, it is very rare because you would only do it at the end of a half. John Madden said he always wanted to try it but the opportunity never presented itself.

 

[bamajas]

A much better rule change that they didn't enact:

Regarding fake injuries: If we have to stop the game for your injury, you're out until at least the next change of possession.

In addition to reducing fakes (looking at UTe, OM, and now that Kiffin has moved, LSU), it would enhance player safety.

There are still ways to game that -- like putting in a scrub for the express purpose of faking an injury. But it would help.

I'm intrigued about how it would actually improve safety.

It seems like it would incentivize them even more to hide their injuries play by play. As stupid as the faking injuries trend is, it's situational

I would think their legal and medical consultants would have already pushed for it if it was better for safety

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I'm intrigued about how it would actually improve safety.

It seems like it would incentivize them even more to hide their injuries play by play. As stupid as the faking injuries trend is, it's situational

I would think their legal and medical consultants would have already pushed for it if it was better for safety

I see your point, but would add another consideration.

If a player really is hurt and the game is stopped to attend to the injury, he goes to the sideline. Sometimes, it's just temporary pain. Sometimes it's more serious. Sometimes you just don't know how serious the injury is and you need some time to make that determination -- a lot more than the time between plays.

So if the player can't return until there's a change of possession, you give the medical staff more time to properly evaluate the injury and its seriousness. Which should yield more accurate assessments and thereby improve player safety.

Regardless, I see the main goal of the rule change I proposed as stopping the garbage at the end of close games. The player safety angle is just a secondary side benefit.

Yeah, UTe, Ole Miss, and the Barn pioneered it. But then everybody (yes, including us) saw the lack of adverse consequences and started doing it as well. Some games look like a soccer flop-fest.

Call me cynical, but I think the reason more coaches haven't called for an end to the madness is that they foresee a point at which they're going to want to fake an injury.

 

[Bazza]

IMHO......the biggest issue that I saw last season was the terrible job the referees did.

They need to get that fixed before worrying about all this other stuff, IMHO!

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

This makes a lot of sense. We all know the problem with football is that there aren’t nearly enough rules…

 

[Tidewater]

I see your point, but would add another consideration.

If a player really is hurt and the game is stopped to attend to the injury, he goes to the sideline. Sometimes, it's just temporary pain. Sometimes it's more serious. Sometimes you just don't know how serious the injury is and you need some time to make that determination -- a lot more than the time between plays.

So if the player can't return until there's a change of possession, you give the medical staff more time to properly evaluate the injury and its seriousness. Which should yield more accurate assessments and thereby improve player safety.

Regardless, I see the main goal of the rule change I proposed as stopping the garbage at the end of close games. The player safety angle is just a secondary side benefit.

Yeah, UTe, Ole Miss, and the Barn pioneered it. But then everybody (yes, including us) saw the lack of adverse consequences and started doing it as well. Some games look like a soccer flop-fest.

Call me cynical, but I think the reason more coaches haven't called for an end to the madness is that they foresee a point at which they're going to want to fake an injury.

I think there's your answer.

I also agree 100% that removing the rush to judge whether this player is really injured.

At the same time, players who are trying to hide their injury form an opponent can always "sub out." You do not have to hit the deck to be injured. You may hit the deck, but if you delay the game, then you must sub out.
If still ambulatory, the player could tap his helmet and his backup could sub in for him.