Should targeting penalties include ejections? Some coaches say no, but the policy isn't going away

MADISON, Wis.

Alabama and Wisconsin will both play the first half of Saturday's intersectional matchup without a linebacker who was penalized for targeting a week earlier.

Wisconsin coach Luke Fickell would prefer a scenario in which both the fourth-ranked Crimson Tides Justin Jefferson and the Badgers Jake Chaney could have avoided such a steep punishment.

Ill look everybody in the face (and say) were wrong in college football to throw kids out of games, Fickell said after the Badgers 27-13 victory over South Dakota.

Fickell is hardly the only coach who believes targeting penalties shouldnt result in automatic ejections, a rule that took effect in 2013.

Players who get targeting penalties in the second half of games, as Jefferson and Chaney did last weekend, also must miss the first half of their teams next games.

People are also reading...

Frankie Beverly, lead singer and founder of Maze, dead at 77 Man arrested in woman's shooting death at their house Former Beatrice Police officer gets probation in stalking case Beatrice woman charged for defrauding Medicaid of more than $40,000 At the courthouse, Sept.

7, 2024 Man arrested in 4-month-old's death appears in court Police arrest two in relation to infant's death Beatrice man arrested on strangulation, domestic assault charges Beatrice beats Crete in double OT No bond for man arrested after woman was shot McKewon: Nebraskas statement-making Blackshirts might mean a Big Red Revival Chamber welcomes new staff member CMA Awards 2024 nominations led by Morgan Wallen, but no Beyonce.

Here's the full list Time and TV information for Nebraska football's game against Colorado Witnesses say man rammed forklift, tried to run over workers with tractor The policy doesnt appear to be going away anytime soon.

Steve Shaw, the NCAAs national coordinator of officials, says the threat of ejection has been an effective deterrent.

There were 0.16 targeting penalties enforced per game last season, which represented a three-year low.

Any time you can impact playing time, very similar to impacting finances in the NFL, it catches your attention, Shaw said.

We cant fine like the NFL does.

So playing time is the most precious commodity thats out there, and thats what makes this penalty what it is.

Wisconsin coach Luke Fickell talks with officials during the second half of Saturday's game against South Dakota in Madison, Wis.

The American Football Coaches Association proposed having two categories of targeting penalties five years ago.

A more egregious violation would result in an ejection, while infractions deemed less serious would result in a penalty that allowed the player to remain in the game.

It was discussed, but it never got any traction with the NCAA, AFCA executive director Craig Bohl said.

Bohl added that if anyone wants to bring the topic up again at the annual AFCA convention in January, we can certainly move that forward as a topic of discussion.

There have been 37 targeting penalties enforced through this seasons first 178 Bowl Subdivision games for an average of 0.21 per game.

Thats a significant rise from last years season-ending average.

But its almost exactly the same as the average through the first two weeks of last season, when 40 targeting penalties were enforced in 180 contests (0.22).

Shaw said he believes more targeting penalties happen early in the season due to the relative lack of contact in preseason practices.

If history holds and our players get better as we go through the season, it looks like our numbers pretty much on track with where we were last year, Shaw said.

Fickell downplayed his postgame comments when he was asked about the issue again Monday.

Alabama linebacker Deontae Lawson (0), linebacker Justin Jefferson (15) and defensive back Keon Sabb (3) react to a stop against South Florida during the first half of Saturday's game in Tuscaloosa, Ala.

In the offseason youll bring it up, but Im not going to spend a few days down there trying to change the world when everything within your own program is constantly changing, Fickell said.

Ill just voice my opinion again that somebody needs to take a good hard look at this because I would imagine theres a lot of coaches that feel the same way.

The NCAA targeting rule states that no player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet.

It also says no player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

Vanderbilt coach Clark Lea said ejections can become a pretty hefty penalty.

Lea said hes heard suggestions about an NHL-type model in which players would miss a certain amount of time for targeting violations rather than getting tossed from the game.

I understand the spirit of what were trying to do in terms of keeping the game safe, and I support that fully, Lea said.

I think continuing to open up and say, Is this the best penalty for a targeting foul? is a worthwhile conversation.

Other coaches are OK with the rule the way it is.

I remember when (ejections for) targeting first happened a decade ago or however long it is and everybody said, Oh, this is going to change college football.

You cant play like this, TCUs Sonny Dykes said.

And then what happens like anything else, the players adapt and adjust, and you dont see that many targeting calls anymore.

And as a result of that, you dont see as many catastrophic injuries in college football.

A 2020 rule change permitted players to remain on the sidelines after targeting penalties.

They previously were escorted off the field and into the locker room.

Two years ago, an appeals process was introduced for players ejected in the second half of games.

If a video review the following week determines the player shouldnt have been penalized, hes cleared to play in the first half of his next game.

The idea of having two degrees of targeting penalties one of which wouldnt result in an ejection continues to encounter roadblocks.

Shaw said human nature would cause officials to try to avoid disqualifying players, similar to how they hand out more flagrant-1 fouls in college basketball than flagrant-2 fouls that result in ejections.

He believes that would eventually make the punishment less effective in preventing dangerous hits.

At the end of the day, what were trying to accomplish is changing the player behavior, Shaw said.

Targeting with the disqualification is the one thing that captures their attention.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!.

This article has been shared from the original article on beatricedailysun, here is the link to the original article.