
One instant you're getting the defensive play call from your coach. Then, you're waiting for the ball to be snapped. Hut. The receiver you're covering is cutting across the field towards you going up for the pass and so you go up hard. Boom. The two of you collide and flags are thrown. In that quick instant, the targeting rule was called, and you've been ejected from the game. 

Controversy regarding this rule ranges from general dislike from players and coaches all over the country, possible increase in lower body injuries, and referees struggling to understand when to flag a player for targeting. Now, you may be asking yourself, what is a targeting penalty? The targeting penalty, by definition, is a rule that penalizes a player for any contact to the head and neck area of an opposing player, any forcible contact to a defenseless player, and for any player leading his tackle with the crown of his helmet (Redding, 2013). The punishment for a targeting penalty, whether it is accidental or not, is the ejection of the player and a 15-yard penalty (Redding, 2013). Officials can review the play if the call is questionable (Redding, 2013). In sum, the topic of the targeting penalty needs to be discussed by players and coaches all over the world in order to make the rule less controversial. Solutions need to be found in order to end the controversy. I hold this opinion because it is very  evident in my research that the penalty has caused a lot of commotion regarding the game of football because coaches and players dislike the rule, the rule could lead to worse injuries to players' lower body area, and many referees struggle to understand when to penalize a player for targeting. The best solution available to fix the controversy regarding targeting is to have the rule open to editing and open to suggestions from players, coaches, and referees who are actually affected and take part in the game. 

The first type of controversy regarding the targeting penalty is the overwhelming dislike and criticism that came from many coaches and players all over the football community. The first source that shows this type of controversy comes from an ESPN Staff Writer named Edward Aschoff. Edward's articles with ESPN are obviously regarding sports mainly so he spends a lot of time studying and observing the operations in sports. This multitude of knowledge that he has regarding sports gives him a lot of credibility when writing about players' and coaches' opinions regarding targeting. Aschoff exclusively looked into the University of Florida when writing his article about the penalty. One very useful quote in the article that shows very straight-forward dislike of the rule is a quote that comes from Will Muschamp, who when asked about his player being ejected during a game said, "I don't have any problem with the call. I've got a problem with the rule. Brian Poole was not trying to flagrantly hurt anyone. It's a bang-bang play. He's trying to go up, the ball's high, he's going in high. It's a bang-bang play." (Aschoff, 2013) This quote is very direct criticism of the rule coming straight from a coach that is experiencing the rule first-hand and not enjoying the results. However, the rule is not only receiving criticism from coaches, but also from players (Aschoff, 2013). Tray Matthews was a safety for the University of Georgia and he said that he was hesitant to lead with his shoulder at certain times during a game (Aschoff, 2013). Specifically Matthews was quoted as saying, "I felt myself going for that big hit, but I was like, 'Dang, I can't'. The referee had already warned me earlier, so that's why I didn't even want to hit him. That's part of the process of being able to make a play or two on third down." (Aschoff, 2013) This type of thinking from players is understandable considering the punishment they are at risk of receiving and this type of thinking can be a negative influence on the game of football and more specifically defenders' abilities to make plays. It is very evident when reading this article that players are having to play somewhat more hesitant because of the targeting rule and this affects their level of play in a negative way (Aschoff, 2013). This article also addresses a problem that players are worried will increase due to the targeting rule. The problem being lower-body injuries (Aschoff, 2013). A Missouri cornerback named E.J. Gaines had a personal experience with hitting lower to avoid a flag and he was quoted as saying, "I find myself going low on guys a lot; not intentionally trying to hurt them, but also not trying to get a penalty and get ejected from a football game." (Aschoff, 2013) Also, L'Damian Washington who is an offensive wide receiver for Missouri said, "I honestly don't like the rule and I'm an offensive player." (Aschoff, 2013) Washington also said, "I would rather have a slight concussion than tear my ACL. I hope it's a one-and-done type rule." (Aschoff, 2013)

The problem of lower-body injuries brought up by Aschoff leads me to my next source that shows controversy regarding the targeting penalty. This source comes from Peter Barzilai and Erik Brady who asked many NFL players about their thoughts on concussions and lower-body injuries. The article ultimately shows that players are more worried about lower-body injuries than concussions (Barzilai, 2014). In order to receive information about these opinions 293 players were surveyed and out of them 46% said they were most concerned about injuring knees or other lower body parts during a game (Barzilai, 2014). However, only 24% said they were most concerned with injuring their head (Barzilai, 2014). The rest said they didn't think about it (Barzilai, 2014). These numbers clearly show that players fear lower-body injuries more than head injuries and as seen in my other source players have admitted to hitting opponents lower in order to avoid getting flagged for targeting (Barzilai, 2014). The main reason players fear lower-body injuries more is because the recovery time is longer and the injury itself is more severe (Barzilai, 2014). For instance, Michael Bush, the Chicago Bears running back at the time, was quoted as saying, "Anytime you can avoid hits to the head it's great, but if you get hit in your knees, that's your career." (Barzilai, 2014)

The next source showing controversy comes from George Schroeder who writes for USA Today Sports. USA Today is a very credible and respected source. Schroeder makes a very good point regarding former South Carolina defensive end Jadaveon Clowney. We all know about the devastating hit he landed on a Michigan running back forcing the running back to fumble and ultimately changing the course of the whole game. Schroeder makes the point that this hit launched Clowney into the running to win a Heisman, which is college football's greatest honor (Schroeder, 2013). However, Schroeder also points out that with the new targeting rule that was implemented the year after Clowney's hit, these type of hits could be less admirable and instead get a player punished (Schroeder, 2013). If Clowney's hit would've happened when this rule existed, it could have sent him to the locker room because of ejection rather than in contention for NCAA football's most honorable reward (Schroeder, 2013). Also present in this article is another direct quote showing a coach's direct dislike for the rule. Bo Pelini, Nebraska's head coach, said, "If they're going to throw people out for the Clowney hit, we should find another sport." (Schroeder, 2013) This quote is a very strong opinion given by a college football head coach and it shows the levels of criticism and dislike present because of the targeting penalty (Schroeder, 2013). Pelini also went on to say that he understands it is for the safety of the players, but Pelini also said he thinks we need to make sure it (the rule) doesn't mess with the integrity of the game or the sport and how it is supposed to be played (Schroeder, 2013).

The next source coming from a man named Matt Baker who writes for Tampa Bay Times, discusses how the rule is even more controversial because it doesn't account for a player's intentions (Baker, 2015). This is a good way of showing that football is very high impact and very fast paced. Some hits and plays are bound to happen whether intentional or not but the targeting penalty doesn't bring this into the decision making process regarding whether a player should be ejected or not (Baker, 2015). Also, making this rule even more unlikeable, referees when in doubt are encouraged to throw the flag and penalize a player (Baker, 2015). This problem regarding player intent is obviously an important one because Duke coach David Cutcliffe, who is a member of NCAA's rules committee, said he would like to see the targeting rule evolve so that officials can judge intent and if a hit is seemingly accidental the punishment can simply be a 15-yard penalty and a warning for the player (Baker, 2015).

The targeting penalty is not only affecting college and NFL level players. The penalty reached all the way down to high school football. These next two sources show how the penalty affects the game at the high school level. The first source comes from Rick Cantu who writes for Austin American-Statesman, a newspaper in Austin, Texas. Cantu talks about how the change to include automatic ejections for targeting penalties has put Texas high school coaches on edge because TV replays are not available so the officials get the only word in whether or not a player is ejected (Cantu, 2013). The ejection of players is causing paranoia for high school football coaches (Cantu, 2013). For instance, Wayne Elliott, executive secretary of the Austin Football Officials Association, is quoted as saying, "I had a coach call me last week and say this rule (regarding ejections) is going to cost some coaches their jobs." (Cantu, 2013) This quote shows huge controversial perceptions coming from high school coaches that are worried about the rule allowing ejections (Cantu, 2013). The second source showing how the rule has caused controversy in high school football as well comes from David Elwell. David Elwell writes for The Decatur Daily which is a newspaper in Alabama. Elwell shows how coaches are worried about the targeting penalty because it will affect their ability to win games, and also coaches are worried because high school officials are not trained as well as college and NFL officials are in order to spot targeting and they do not have the use of video replay at their disposal (Elwell, 2014). Jere Adcock, a high school football coach, said, "Our officials won't have the help of video replay. Our officials don't have the trained eye like college officials. It just concerns me." (Elwell, 2014) This quote shows the amount of controversy and dislike procured because of the high school officials having to make such a harsh call with only the naked eye.

The worrying regarding officials brings me to my next source. My next source shows a different type of controversy not involving coaches and players but rather involving the officials. Michael Bird wrote this article on SB Nation: College Football. Bird talks about how the NCAA's targeting rule is a disaster, but it isn't the officials fault (Bird, 2013). Bird states that the targeting rule has a presumption in favor of officials calling targeting penalties (Bird, 2013). This is obviously controversial considering it could result in a 15-yard penalty and an ejection of a player even if the call was questionable or not supposed to have been called as targeting. Usually, with a penalty this harsh, there should be a good bit of proof required and necessary in order to show that a hit was indeed targeting (Bird, 2013). Another huge and controversial problem that bird points out is that fact that even if a replay reveals that a player isn't in fact guilty of targeting, a 15-yard penalty is still assessed (Bird, 2013). If the penalty was reviewed and decided by the officials to have been wrongly called, why should the team of the offender still be punished for something it turned out the player didn't even do? This reasoning is absurd.

The next source proves controversy regarding officials' ability or inability to correctly call a targeting penalty. The article is titled "How to spot targeting" and is written by Berry Tramel in a newspaper called The Daily Oklahoman. Tramel sates that Walt Anderson, Big 12's director of officiating, addressed 330 official during a College Football Officiating clinic in order to discuss the targeting penalty (Tramel, 2013). Anderson was quoted as saying, "When we leave, we want to be very thorough on what is targeting and what is not targeting." (Tramel, 2013) Tramel explains that Anderson explained to the officials that they are trained to look for certain actions done by players that may indicate the presence of a certain penalty being performed (Tramel, 2013). Anderson explains that officials have been successful in calling defensive pass interference, or holding, because criteria and specific things to look for have been created for officials to see (Tramel, 2013). Anderson explained that this is what needs to be done with targeting (Tramel, 2013). So in order to do this Anderson clearly laid out "High Indicators" and "Low Indicators" that officials should look for (Tramel, 2013). The problem with these indicators is that there are four high indicators and four low indicators. Each indicator comes along with a definition, but how are referees supposed to keep all these indicators in mind and make a split second call on the field on a fast-paced and high-impact play? (Tramel, 2013) The fact that these indicators had to be created in the first place shows that officials were struggling to decide what was targeting and what was not targeting (Tramel, 2013). And for a penalty this harsh it is understandable for coaches to think that the officiating regarding the targeting penalty is controversial (Tramel, 2103).

The final source regarding the controversy involved with the targeting penalty is an experiment that investigates the affects the targeting penalty, and more specifically, the light that has been shed on concussions and injuries in football, has on parents of this generation making the decision of whether or not their children should be allowed to play football (Findler, 2015). This source is an experiment on whether or not kids should play football (Findler, 2015). This experiment ultimately concluded that parents are leaning towards preventing their children from playing football because of their interest in their kids' future adult life and well-being (Findler, 2015). This thought process from parents of this generation will greatly affect their children and the game of football. Honestly, it isn't fair to the children because they should have the right to make their own decisions regarding what they do, especially if it is something they enjoy doing. Less and less children playing football because of injuries is due to the targeting penalty and the attention it has brought to the dangers involved in playing football. This is another level of controversy and on a much bigger scale because it is causing parents worldwide to prevent their children from playing football (Findler, 2015).

Refutations regarding the fact that the targeting penalty is controversial are hard to come by. Most people if not all realize that this penalty is in fact controversial. However, one thing I have found in my research that could be considered a refutation would be the guidelines given to referees on how to spot a targeting penalty. The argument for this topic on the controversial side is that referees struggle spotting targeting fouls and they cannot get the call right. The refutation of this is that referees went to a conference full of officials from all over the nation. The officials were give a presentation on high and low indicators of how to spot targeting. The process of spotting targeting is similar to how referees spot holding, and pass interference. It could be argued that referees do know how to spot targeting because they were taught and given specific indicators to look for in order to make the call. However, this does not help referees that weren't present for the presentation, or referees that are in a younger age group of football players but still have to spot the penalty.

My argument regarding the targeting penalty is significant because it shows the huge amounts of hate and controversy regarding the penalty. The NCAA needs to figure out a way to provide a safer game for players, but at the same time it needs to please coaches and players who actually partake in the game. The best way to reach a rule that the majority of people will respect and enjoy is to bring in coaches and players to give their suggestions and opinions regarding the rule. Allowing these suggestions and opinions to play a part in changing or editing the targeting rule will greatly enhance the rule and lessen the criticism revolving around the rule. Personally, as a huge football fan I do not want to see the integrity of the game and the fast-paced, high-impact type of play diminished because of a flawed targeting rule.

