Defending the Targeting Rule

Aug 28, 2014; Atlanta, GA, USA; Mississippi Rebels linebacker Serderius Bryant (14) talks with head coach Hugh Freeze after he is ejected from the game during the first quarter of the 2014 Chick-fil-A kickoff game against the Boise State Broncos at the Georgia Dome. Mandatory Credit: John David Mercer-USA TODAY Sports

The Targeting Rule was put in place in 2013 and has come under a lot of criticism since its inception. Starting last year, if a player violated the targeting rule by a) launching themselves at a defenseless player and leading with the head or shoulder or b) launching themselves at a player above the shoulders of a ball carrier, then the offending player would be ejected and a 15 yard penalty would be assessed. Much of the criticism was regarding the fact that the ruling that a targeting foul had occurred could be reviewed to determine the accuracy of the call. If it was overturned, the player would stay in the game but the penalty would stick.

That part of the rule has been overhauled. The penalty is no longer assessed if it is determined that a targeting foul should have been called. The first SEC player, and only as far as I could tell, to be ejected in 2014 so far was Serderius Bryant of Ole Miss. See the play below and the subsequent replays, it was clear that Bryant broke the rule. What it set off among Ole Miss fans was passionate distaste toward the rule that he broke. They weren’t trying to criticize the ruling, they were criticizing the rule itself. There was lots of talk about the game of football being reduced to two hand touch or other similar criticisms.

This is not a post about the Rebels, Bryant, or fans of the Rebels. They just happened to have the only player in the SEC that I am aware of to break the targeting rule in 2014, and in so doing, reminded me of some of the things I wish we could change about the mentality we posses as fans. That mentality is that by making the game safer, we are in turn making it more boring.

If any player on any team had been ejected, there would have been a similar outcry from any fan base, so I am not sure how much of the complaining was because a number of Rebels’ fans truly don’t like the rule or that they didn’t want to see one of their best players taken off the field. The one thing that I grow tired of is that we think the game of football has to be dangerous to be entertaining. Yes, it is a violent game, and it always will be. Just because it is violent doesn’t mean we should purposely avoid ways to keep the players who are there for our entertainment safe. There is still a ton of danger involved in football, and for that very reason, I will never encourage my son to play football.

And before you get up in arms, I said I wouldn’t encourage him to play it. I didn’t say I wouldn’t let him. If he came to me and said he wanted to play in the youth league in Olive Branch (he’s 7), then I would let him. And before you think I feel this way because he probably wouldn’t be very good, you’d be wrong. He has a football coach’s dream for a body. He has been in the 99th percentile for weight and height since he was born. He stands about 4 to 5 inches taller than every other second grader at his school and outweighs most of them by at least 30 pounds. Every doctor he has seen assumes they are going to have to talk to us about his weight when they see his weight on a chart, but then they see his height and realize he is just a big kid. To say the least, he would be great at football. But because of all the serious health issues, especially those that play in the trenches, where he would end up if he played, I can’t in good conscience encourage my son to go play a sport that will put his health, and possibly his life, in jeopardy.

And this is why it infuriates me so to see people criticize the NCAA or NFL when they institute rules to try to protect the safety of the players. One of the first arguments I always hear is that they don’t actually have the players best interests in mind but their bottom line. All they are doing is trying to cover their own backs. My response:

So what.

If the game is getting safer, why should it matter what the reason is that they are doing so. We all got a startling reminder at the start of the high school season when Walker Wilbanks of Jackson Prep died after a salt and water imbalance during their game earlier this year. The game is dangerous. I always get a little nervous when I see a big hit and the player hit doesn’t move. It makes me fear that I just saw someone die right in front of my eyes. And I know what many are thinking. I’m a terrible hypocrite if I will watch football but don’t want my son to play it. My response:

Possibly.

I love football, and I always will. But I honestly feel a little guilty when I watch it. I know that the players are putting their health on the line when they take the field, and they do it for our entertainment. Football has taken so much from so many who have played the game. The consequences for many football players are steep, but I live my life and get on my computer and critique their effort and determination without any affect on my life at all. So yeah, I feel guilty sometimes. Most of the times I do, it’s when I see the stretcher coming out on the field.

So yes, I like the targeting rule. I like that players who put the health of other players in jeopardy for the sake of a big hit get ejected and their teams penalized 15 yards. It makes me feel less like a savage during the days of gladiators. If making the game safer means making it more boring to you, then I am sorry you feel that way. We aren’t the ones putting our health on the line. There are still hits, there are still touchdowns, there are still big plays in football. Just because we make it safer doesn’t mean we make it boring.