Skalski's Ejection Puts Targeting In Spotlight

Clemson linebacker was ejected from the national championship game against LSU for targeting. Under the current rule, it appeared to be the correct call, but was the punishment too harsh?

Clemson junior James Skalski was ejected for targeting during the second half of Monday night’s national championship game against LSU in New Orleans.

Skalski was tossed after a hit on LSU receiver Justin Jefferson. The replay officials ruled targeting.

Replay shows Skalski lowering his head and leading with the crown of his helmet when he hit Jefferson. Even though there wasn’t forcible contact with Jefferson’s head, it’s still defined as targeting by the NCAA.

This was the hit that got Skalski ejected for targeting. @abc_columbia pic.twitter.com/z6Pqkbzo3d

— Mike Gillespie (@MikeAGillespie) January 14, 2020

By rule, since the penalty occurred during the second half, Skalski will have to miss the first half of Clemson’s 2020 season-opener.

After the game, Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said he didn’t get a good look at the infraction and wasn’t going to use the ejection as any kind of excuse in Clemson’s 42-25 loss to LSU.

Targeting is one of the most controversial subjects in all of college football.

While Skalski’s hit was correctly called by the officials based on the rules, there is debate about whether or not an automatic ejection is a fair penalty.

Skalski, who redshirted in 2018 after dealing with injuries and a loaded linebacking corps, started every game for Clemson in 2019. He worked hard to be Brent Venables’ middle linebacker and had an excellent season.

One of the team’s top leaders, Skalski saw his opportunity to help his team win a national championship come to an abrupt end on a play in which there was no intent to hurt the ball carrier.

“I hate it for (Skalski),” Swinney said. “He's such a wonderful young man and such a great leader and all that. But you know, they were just the better team.”

While it might not have changed the outcome of the game, Skalski’s ejection was a reminder of the effect of the targeting penalty.

There is swelling support for some amendments to the current rule, though. Intent or no intent is not part of the wording in the rulebook.

Some people in college football have called for something more like college basketball, which uses a Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2 to determine the severity of fouls.

Is some of that subjective? Sure, but so are many other calls made on a court or field.

There have been proposals made by both the American Football Coaches Association and the officials coordinator of the American Athletic Conference in recent years to change the severity of the punishment based on intent, but the NCAA has been reluctant to alter that aspect of the rule.

Maybe that will change this offseason. Skalski worked hard to get where Clemson got. His family, coaches and teammates had to watch him walk off the field before the game was over because of a hit in which he wasn’t trying to do anything malicious.

Targeting is in the game for safety purposes, and Skalski will clearly learn a hard lesson in tackling, but to disqualify him from such an important moment could be considered harsh.

Making adjustments to the power of ejecting players does have its pitfalls, and it would make the officials’ jobs harder if they are responsible for determining if a hit had intent or not, but that doesn’t make the current rule the most sensible.