Let’s talk about everyone’s favorite rule in college football: targeting. There is a surprising amount packed into one rule, so below we’ll walk through what targeting is, what it is not, recent rule changes, disqualification, and why the rule is probably better than its reputation suggests.
Before we dive too far in, I think it is important that we all have a reasonable expectation for how targeting is applied. Some rules are black and white and require no subjective review: false start, offsides, delay of game, and so on. Those calls may simply be missed by the officials from time to time, but there is usually no controversy about what the rule requires. The player was either offsides or onside, and the play clock either hit zero or it didn’t. Other rules require judgment calls and are difficult to apply perfectly, such as holding and pass interference. We all grumble when we think an official gets a holding or PI call wrong, but no one calls for those rules to be removed. We understand that refs can be inconsistent, and it can be frustrating when that inconsistency seems to affect our team more than the other team. Still, most fans can understand that those calls are difficult to get right in real time and that there is only so much that can be done to fix that. It’s the cost of doing business. That being said, when a targeting call is made, or not made, people often immediately call for the rule to be eliminated or changed dramatically. This is likely because the penalty can result in a player’s disqualification, so the need to get the call right feels more important, which is fair. However, no matter how much the NCAA adjusts or tweaks the rule, there will always be some ambiguity and subjectivity that we have to live with. If your solution is that the refs should never make a poor call, I have bad news for you. It’s fun to groan at targeting, but all in all, I think it is largely a good rule.
The first part of targeting that, in theory, must exist for a targeting call is forcible contact. This is obviously subjective. That part of the rule helps prevent targeting calls on tackles where incidental head-to-head contact takes place but clearly is not the brunt of the contact. It is difficult to judge, but it gives officials some leeway when head-to-head contact is more coincidental, or part of the natural coming together of two players, than the main impact of the tackle.
As for the penalty itself, there are two types of targeting: a tackle made with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet, or a tackle made to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.
Let’s take a look at the first type: forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. This is the most visually obvious form of targeting. If the tackler lowers his helmet and makes forcible contact with the crown of the helmet to any part of the opposing player, that is targeting every time. The tackler could make contact with the ball carrier’s thigh, and if the contact came with the lowered crown of the helmet, it would still be targeting. I often see fans get confused because they assume helmet-to-helmet contact is required for targeting. The purpose of this rule is to protect the tackler more than the ball carrier. The broader idea is that by lowering your head, you no longer see where you are aiming, and that creates an inherent danger: a player spearing an opponent with no regard for where the contact will take place and creating an opportunity for severe injury.
The second type of targeting is more ambiguous: forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player. There are several specific definitions for what constitutes a defenseless player, but the main applications are a quarterback, or anyone passing the ball, who is in the act of passing, and a player in the act of catching a pass who has not yet had the opportunity to brace for contact. A defender pursuing a ball carrier can also be considered defenseless on a blindside block, as can a ball carrier who is sliding to give himself up. To make it simple, if the player cannot reasonably see the hit coming or cannot protect himself from the hit, he is defenseless. That does not mean you cannot hit him, and it does not mean you cannot hit him hard. This type of targeting requires forcible contact to the player’s head or neck area. A defenseless wide receiver who is still coming down from making a catch can get clobbered by a safety, and if the defender drives through the receiver at the waist, that is fair game. The part of this rule that often gets confused is that the contact from the defender can be with any part of the defender’s body, not just the helmet. If you use forcible contact with your forearm and deliver a blow to a defenseless player’s head, that is targeting under this rule. The hardest part of applying this rule is usually determining whether the player was defenseless. It is more straightforward to identify whether the contact was forcible and whether it was applied to the player’s head or neck area.
Arguably more importantly, let’s talk about what targeting is not. This is where I think officiating has improved over the last few years: plays are sometimes initially called targeting on the field in real time, then correctly removed after review. If a player makes contact with another player, and the attacking player does not use the crown of the helmet while the ball carrier is not defenseless, it is not targeting. A defender can clobber a running back at full speed with his facemask directly into the ball carrier’s facemask, and that will not be targeting. It may be a big hit, and it may technically be helmet-to-helmet, but it is not targeting. These plays were more frequently called targeting in the first few years after the rule was added, but they have become fewer and fewer among the calls that stand.
The language of the rules also clearly states that if there is a question about whether the play is a foul or whether the player is defenseless, then it is a foul. When in doubt, call it.
The spirit behind the targeting rules is to eliminate unnecessarily dangerous hits. The intent is not to eliminate big hits altogether. If a hit is not delivered with the crown of the helmet, which we can all likely agree is dangerous, and is not delivered to the head or neck of a defenseless player, which we can likewise agree is unnecessary, then the hit is fair game. I will say it again: officials won’t always apply the rules correctly. That is a different conversation. The intent of the rules themselves is sound. In the same way, everyone agrees that a defensive back should not be allowed to hinder a receiver before the ball gets to him. No one has a problem with that rule. The real frustration comes when we disagree with whether the ref should have called PI. The same logic should apply to targeting: the rules make sense and need to be in place. A ref may screw it up, but that is a problem with that ref and that call, not proof that the rule needs to be changed.
Part of the reason the rule may get more attention than others is that player disqualification carries more consequences than a normal personal foul. For the 2026 season, some trial changes will be tested. Prior to this year, if a player was called for targeting in the first half of a game, he was disqualified for the entire game. If he was called for targeting in the second half, he was disqualified for the remainder of the current game and the first half of the next game. The new rule changes that. If a targeting foul is the player’s first targeting offense of the season, he will be disqualified for the remainder of the current game, but he will not face a future-game disqualification, regardless of when the targeting foul took place. If a player is called for targeting for the second time that season, he will be disqualified for the remainder of the game and suspended for the first half of the next game. If a player picks up a third targeting foul in a season, he will be disqualified for the remainder of the game and serve a full-game suspension the next game. As a note, in the 2025 season, no players picked up three targeting fouls, so in theory, this should not be applied often. The purpose of this rule change is to lessen the consequences for players who pick up their first targeting foul. Safety is important, and disqualification is understandable for the game in which the targeting takes place, but the first time a player makes that error should not result in an additional suspension. If the player continues to play in that manner, however, additional suspensions are warranted.
It often feels as though many fans have a willful or weaponized ignorance when it comes to targeting. “If I don’t fully understand targeting, I can complain about it and chalk things up to the rule being dumb or the ref not calling it correctly.” I can confidently say that, the vast majority of the time I watch college football, I think the refs either get the call right or the call is close enough that I’m not going to fault them for going the other way. Like I mentioned above, when a flag is thrown for targeting but review shows no clear crown of the helmet, no launch, and no defenseless player, and it just happens to be a big hit, officials have done really well to remove it and recognize that it is not targeting.
At the end of the day, it is really rather simple. Drill a player with the crown of your helmet? Targeting. Clobber a WR near the head or neck before he lands and has a chance to brace? Targeting. Meet the RB in the hole and deliver a devastating hit where your helmets clatter together? Not targeting. There is not much more to it than that. Big hit against my team? Not inherently targeting. Clear targeting by a player on my team? Targeting, even though I don’t like it.
Lastly, it doesn’t help that plenty of play-by-play and color commentators don’t understand the rule either. They spew their nonsense until the channel’s rules analyst can join the broadcast and clear things up, if one is available. All in all, the rule is sound, and refs do a better job officiating it than fans give them credit for. By all means, though, continue to shout into the void the next time your running back gets hit into next week.