Todd’s Take: What’s Right And What’s Wrong With Indiana’s Penalties At UCLA

What happened, what does the rulebook say and what do we think? The Hoosiers had 14 penalties for 127 yards. Not all of them were questionable targeting or roughing the passer calls.

Todd Golden | Sep 17, 2024

UCLA Bruins quarterback Ethan Garbers (4) throws a pass in the second half against the Indiana Hoosiers at Rose Bowl. Garbers was part of several controversial penalties called against Indiana on Saturday. / Kirby Lee-Imagn Images

In this story:

Indiana Hoosiers

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – During his Monday press conference, Indiana coach Curt Cignetti described some of the penalties called on the Hoosiers at UCLA on Saturday as “Mickey Mouse.”

It’s a phrase that gets headlines, but when you take the emotion out of it, how can one assess Indiana’s 14 penalties for 127 yards in the 42-13 win over the Bruins in a rational, clear-headed manner?

Here’s the clip of Curt Cignetti’s response to @kbikoff’s question about targeting, plus the plays involving CJ West, Aiden Fisher and D’Angelo Ponds against UCLA. #iufb pic.twitter.com/5Mmc4Y1Yzn
— Jack Ankony (@ankony_jack) September 16, 2024

First, how did Indiana’s penalties break down?

Roughing the passer and targeting accounted for five penalties for 60 yards. Obviously, those represent nearly half of the yards docked against the Hoosiers. Another unnecessary roughness call was declined by UCLA, but the penalty counts in the overall total.

However, there were nine other penalties. So what about those?

Let’s throw away three of them. There was a delay of game and illegal formation penalty called with 18 seconds left. There was another illegal substitution called at the same time. None had any impact on the game and likely wouldn’t have occurred in the competitive phase of a game.

However, you’re still at six flags for Indiana.

The offense is likely enjoying the attention being paid to the calls made on the defensive side. Indiana was called for three false starts and two holding penalties. It’s not an egregious amount of penalties (one of the false starts occurred on an extra point). But they would have stung more in a closer game, and they need to be cleaned up.

Indiana’s other non-15-yard penalty was when defensive tackle James Carpenter jumped offsides.

That leaves us with the roughing and targeting penalties.

To start, let’s remember why the targeting penalty exists. No one wants another generation of football players to have the later-in-life health issues previous generations have had from blows to the head.

Targeting is a well-intended rule that tries to protect players. But like any other rule, it is subject to accurate and inaccurate interpretation.

Let’s look at each of the enforced penalties for roughing and targeting.

Roughing The Passer – Jailin Walker

What happened: With 2:13 left in the first quarter, UCLA quarterback Ethan Garbers dropped back to pass. On a blitz up the middle, Walker beat the running back assigned to block him and got his left arm up, presumably to block the pass or interrupt Garbers’ vision. Walker hit Garbers as the pass was thrown. Walker’s left arm made contact with Garbers’ head as his arm slid up Garbers’ right shoulder pad on contact.

What the rulebook says: Rule 9 in the NCAA rule book covers targeting and roughing the passer. The rulebook mixes both interpretations into the other with targeting principles being applied to roughing the passer penalties.

Under the definition of “Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area Of a Defenseless Player” is the following example of what the NCAA considers a defenseless player:

“A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.”

Todd’s take: By the letter of the law it’s a penalty, but it’s a very hard penalty to judge in real time and also hard to understand what Walker should have done differently.

His arm wasn’t up for malicious intent, I thought he was trying to knock down the pass. Add in the fact that his arm made initial contact with Garbers’ shoulder – admittedly easy to see on replay, but near impossible to judge live (this play was not reviewed) – and this should have been a no-call.

Targeting – C.J. West

What happened: On the first play from scrimmage in the second half, Garbers bobbled the snap. As he bent down to recover the ball, West, who was presumably also diving for the loose ball, made helmet-to-helmet contact with Garbers.

What the rulebook says: Here is how official Bryan Banks explained the call: “Offensive player No. 4 (Garbers) was recovering a loose ball and is therefore defenseless. No. 8 on the defense (West) made contact with his helmet with force while he’s attempting to recover, therefore we have targeting on the play.”

Under the definition of “Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With The Crown of the Helmet” it says there must be one indicator of targeting. Under the note it references, the rule says:

“Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.”

Todd’s take: I have a problem with this on two fronts. First, if you watch the play from behind, West seems trained on the loose ball. Garbers bends over to pick the ball, and that’s when West makes helmet-to-helmet contact. If West is going for the ball, his contact with Garbers’ helmet is inadvertent.

While intent or play circumstance should matter, by the NCAA rules, it doesn’t. Under “points of emphasis”, the NCAA gives leeway to officials to interpret as they see fit as defenseless players are concerned. The NCAA specifically notes within “points of emphasis” that the wording in the rule was changed to “forcible contact” from “initiate” which would seem to take out any leeway for interpretation of how the play goes or intent.

That’s very flawed marching orders that officials get the thankless task of interpreting.

As for what a defenseless player is, a player in the process of recovery is not listed as an example of a defenseless player in the NCAA rulebook, though the rulebook also says that its list of examples of defenseless players is not limited to its stated list.

Second, the bigger issue is whether the punishment fits the crime. I understand why there’s zero tolerance for helmet-to-helmet contact. It’s for player protection reasons, but like most zero tolerance policies, it doesn’t work well when put into practice.

Targeting should be a penalty reserved for clearly dirty hits, not inadvertent contact, particularly when there’s a loose ball in-play. The NCAA (and NFL) should create a separate rule for helmet-to-helmet contact. Make it a 15-yard penalty in the interest of protecting players, but only add the ejection for egregious violations. West is the victim of a rule that needs to have more common sense applied to it.

Roughing The Passer – Lanell Carr Jr.

What happened: A lot … and it’s not limited to this play. On the play previous to this one, Aiden Fisher had intercepted a tipped ball. The interception was taken off the board due to pass interference by D’Angelo Ponds.

There was also a declined unnecessary roughness penalty called on Indiana’s Marcus Burris Jr. The television broadcast never picked up Burris’ infraction.

During the interception that was called back, UCLA wide receiver Kwazi Gilmer hit Fisher helmet-to-helmet, though not with the crown of his helmet. It was reviewed, but not deemed as a crown of the helmet infraction, so targeting was not called.

This context is important because Carr’s penalty occurred on the next play.

Carr blew past UCLA tackle Garrett DiGiorgio and hit Garbers, facing him directly. Carr fell on Garbers with the force of his body. While Garbers never delivered a pass, Carr was called for roughing the passer.

What the rulebook says: Under “points of emphasis” the NCAA rulebook states the following:

“The definition of a defenseless player-passer has been expanded to include an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. Because of the extremely vulnerable situation the quarterback position presents, it is important for all officials, and the Referee and the Center Judge in particular, to be a presence and recognize when a passer is threatened or is in a defenseless position. The crew must make it a priority to afford the quarterback all the protection the rules provide.”

Under the roughing the passer rule, one guideline that triggers a penalty is, “Forcibly driving the passer to the ground and landing on the passer with action that punishes the player.”

Todd’s take: This one seemed to incense fans the most. How can Carr be called for roughing if no pass was delivered? NBC analyst Todd Blackledge asked the same question on-air. That it came right after the Fisher no-call just added to the irritation from Indiana’s point of view.

The “landing” call is uncommon, but I’ve seen it called before. It’s a tough one to interpret. What I think the official saw in real time was Garbers’ head snap when he hit the ground, and he made the call.

What the official probably couldn’t see is that Carr bounced off of UCLA tackle Reuben Unije as he made contact and that affected his balance on the hit. I don’t think he was trying to “punish” Garbers by the letter of the law.

Also, whether Garbers was defenseless is subject to interpretation. When he’s hit, he’s facing Carr, so he knows he’s going to be hit. Where passing posture ends and where bracing for a hit begins is near-impossible to judge.

At the time, I was as incensed about this call as Indiana fans were as I wrote in the live blog at the time. Having watched on replay, I can see what the official probably thought he saw live, but I still don’t think Carr had any malicious intent and I don’t think it’s a penalty.

Going back a bit, the Fisher no-call really calls into question the absurdity of how these rules are defined.

If targeting is designed to protect from head injuries, what difference does it make whether it’s crown of the helmet or just merely a non-crown helmet-to-helmet hit? The impact on the brain is the same either way. No wonder fans, players and coaches get annoyed with the rule as it's currently interpreted.

Targeting – D’Angelo Ponds

What happened: On the second play of the fourth quarter, Garbers attempted a long pass to J. Michael Sturdivant inside the 10-yard line. The ball was dropped and as Sturdivant was in a catching motion, Ponds made contact with Sturdivant’s head with his right shoulder.

What the rulebook says: Under the definition of “Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player,” it says targeting is to be called when a players is “Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.”

A player is also considered defenseless when in position to catch a forward pass.

Todd’s take: I have no problem with this call.

I know fans of a certain age, who remember safeties going over the middle to punish receivers, will cry foul or “soft.” But a lot of those receivers and safeties are the same ones who have post-football concussion problems. Easy call.

Roughing The Passer – Jailin Walker

Targeting – C.J. West

Roughing The Passer – Lanell Carr Jr.

Targeting – D’Angelo Ponds

Related stories on Indiana football