© BRYAN TERRY/THE OKLAHOMAN / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images
The worst rule in college football looks set to finally see some changes after years of complaints from players, coaches, and fans.
The targeting rule, which was first introduced in 2008 as a way to improve player safety, has been the topic of several debates ever since a major change in 2013 that turned the penalty into an automatic ejection for the player called for the foul.
If the foul takes place in the second half of a game, said player is also forced to sit out for the first half of the team’s following game.
The rule even came into play in the 2026 College Football Playoff national championship game, when Miami safety Xavier Lucas missed the first half after being called for targeting in the second half of a Fiesta Bowl victory over Ole Miss.
“We feel it was unjustly administered, and now it impacts the last game of the season,” Cristobal said prior to the national championship game. “We do have the ability, again, as an officiating crew and the powers that be to revisit that to give every team due process and their best ability to compete in this game.”
Now, it appears that the powers that be in college football are set to do just that.
College Football Officials Set To Review Targeting Rule Ahead Of 2026 Season
Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports reports that NCAA officials are set to review the current iteration of the targeting rule and discuss possible adjustments moving forward.
“We’re going to be having a discussion on targeting,” Steve Shaw, the national coordinator of officials and the NCAA’s secretary-rules editor said. “That needs to be an annual discussion. It will be a focus discussion.”
Shaw noted that the rule has made the game safer and that it won’t be removed entirely. But he believes that the rule can remain intact while also becoming less “punitive.”
“What targeting has driven in terms of player behavior change has been really good and the numbers reflect that,” he said. “But how can we continue this trend of taking out more of these hits we don’t want in the game while being less punitive?”
Shaw did not state how the rule could change. But one suggestion involved moving to a multi-layered penalty, similar to flagrant fouls in the NBA.
“If we go to that, we have to be really good in our definition of what is a flagrant targeting call,” Shaw said. “The guiding principle is we cannot back up on targeting. It’ll be an interesting discussion in the rules committee, and the commissioners will be a part of that discussion too.”
Whatever change they decide to make, it will almost certainly be an improvement on the current rule.