Former Michigan staffer Connor Stalions has a fix for the targeting rule in CFB

Trent Knoop | Jan 2, 2025

Adam Cairns / USA TODAY NETWORK

What is targeting? That is the question that keeps popping up game after game -- especially when the refs don't rule in favor of your favorite team. The NCAA defines targeting as any hit that "goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Targeting is truly a judgment call on the field. Usually, the ref will determine if the player is defenseless and if the opposing player led with the crown of their helmet.

But it's never simple. You can look back at the Playoff game between Texas and Arizona State on New Year's Day. Late in the fourth quarter, a Texas defender was in question of targeting -- it looked like targeting 101 -- but wasn't ruled targeting by the officiating crew. That sent America into a frenzy over, what appeared to be, a missed call.

My phone has been burning up all morning.

Yes, this should have been a flag for targeting in #TEXvsASU. It meets all of the criteria of targeting (Rule 9-1-4). pic.twitter.com/tv5HPIQgd0
— Gene Steratore (@GeneSteratore) January 2, 2025

This further states my original question, what is targeting? Do you take the targeting rule away, or change it, if it's truly that much of a judgment call?

Former Michigan staffer and mastermind of Michigan's sign-gate, Connor Stalions was quite active on X (formerly Twitter) during the games on Jan. 1 and he had a quick fix for the targeting rule. Instead of there being just one targeting rule, make it an A, B, or C choice.

"Don’t let this current targeting debate distract you from the fact that we need different levels of targeting! Similar to levels of flagrant fouls in basketball, 2-min minor vs 5-min major in hockey, or even running into vs. roughing the kicker in football.

"We can debate all day long if that Texas/ASU one was targeting or not. I completely see both sides. At the end of the day, defenders can’t predict where ball carriers put their helmet on bang-bang plays. Texas defender didn’t clearly lead with the crown here. Very close, but I can see him leading with his facemask here (which is exactly what you want — just facemask on the ball, not facemask on facemask, which again I go back to he can’t predict where the opponent’s is going to be on such a bang-bang play).

"Bottom line is we need:

- 5 yd targeting penalty for incidental contact to the head

- 15 yd penalty, no ejection, for leading with crown

- 15 yd & ejection for clear intent (launching + lead with crown + contact to head)

I’d argue this Texas/ASU one should’ve been a 5-yarder"

Don’t let this current targeting debate distract you from the fact that we need different levels of targeting! Similar to levels of flagrant fouls in basketball, 2-min minor vs 5-min major in hockey, or even running into vs. roughing the kicker in football.

We can debate all… pic.twitter.com/pWG4koLfVd
— Connor Stalions (@cpstalions) January 1, 2025

If college football officiating struggles to get the current version correct, it's hard to believe they can get this right. However, some targeting calls don't suffice for an ejection and Stalions' theory would take away senseless ejections. If a player is headhunting, absolutely, get them out of the game. But an incidental contact to the head, give them a penalty and move on.

- Enjoy more Michigan Wolverines coverage on Michigan Wolverines On SI -