CFB becoming concussion conscious
There has been a recent development in college football, one that follows the trend of increasing the awareness of concussions and head injuries. This development is found in the substantial increase in the number of targeting penalties in the first number of weeks of the college football season. This topic is not without controversy. There have certainly been some questionable targeting calls, which inevitably lead to some questionable ejections, which inevitably lead to controversial finishes, which inevitably lead to some very upset and confused fans.
​
Before diving into the statistics and the controversial calls that have taken place, let us examine the targeting rule, as stated in the NCAA rule book. The rule states that “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.” That phrase therein is where the controversy lies, and in the fact that the call is completely left up to the referee’s discretion. And if there is one thing we sports fans know, referees are indeed human, and they make a few mistakes now and again. There is a Note under this rule that further describes targeting as when a “... player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.” This phrase is yet another source of controversy within this rule. What exactly is “taking aim” and how are officials supposed to judge it? Needless to say, this is a very gray area of the CFB Rule Book at this time.
​
Prior to this past week, there had been a 73 percent increase in the number of targeting penalties this year, as compared to 2016’s total through three weeks, according to an article from ESPN. This totals 55 targeting calls in the 214 games that had been played through the first three weeks. So, basically, there is one targeting call, and thus one player ejection, every four games. While player safety continues to be a priority, it has become almost secondary this season, in light of how questionable these calls have become. A few more of these calls came into question this past week: Florida State’s linebacker Jacob Pugh’s hit on an NC State receiver, the calls against the Purdue defense in the second half against Michigan, and Nebraska’s safety Aaron Williams’ hit on a Rutgers receiver in the first half of their game. The most prominent of these was Pugh’s hit. He was rushing a receiver who was about to throw a pass on a trick play when his forearm seemingly grazed the receiver’s helmet, yet targeting was called and Pugh was disqualified from the game. With this play coming late in the third and the Seminoles only down by a score, this questionable call played a large role in the outcome in the game. The call on Purdue’s Jacob Thieneman was additionally dubious in that Thieneman made contact to a crouched player with his shoulder.
​
Many experts say that the reason for increase in these calls is the increased comfortability officials have to make them. And with a good amount of these calls coming from replay review, in which there was no targeting called on the field (Pugh’s as well), that fact seems to be fairly evident. Another primary cause is obviously player safety, and there is a consensus across football as a whole that player safety should be a top priority. However, this is still football, and football is inherently violent with all its moving parts and giant muscular players. So, rules like this one exist to prevent that violence from escalating. Obviously, player safety is a high priority, that could not be any more clear, but at what point does it become less about player safety and more about taking away the integrity of the game itself? This is a question that has yet to be answered, but will certainly be addressed over the duration of this season and the next few seasons all across football.