I agree, the targeting rule is so subjective that It is not applied uniformly. There are flagrant unnecessary roughness incidents that are much worse than incidental helmet to helmet contact. It is apparent from the speed of the game and the intensity of play that some of these collisions are unavoidable. I think pass interference is another highly subjective rule that is invoked non uniformly.Ok, now that the college football reigns of both Clemso and Alabama are now eternally OVER......is anyone interested in the topic of THE TARGETING call in our favorite game??????
The goal line call in the Auburn Penn State game is the most ridiculous I have witnessed. We discussed it here(Tim and I did anyway).
Early in the TAMU bama game a starting db was ejected for what looked to me like face mask to face mask contact with the TAMU qb. Then later in the game two players were flagged(one bama and one TAMU) and the calls reviewed and reversed for what appeared to me to be more dangerous hitting collisions.
I get "crown of the helmet", "launching", "defenseless player", and I get protecting players from head injury and concussion......but i don't get ejection when there was none of the above? I see it all the time, some reversed, some not.
There are already "unnecessary roughness", "roughing the passer" and other personal foul infraction calls with potential game changing penalties........besides ejection.
I would propose two levels of hardships be imposed for the many varied ways of penalizing a team and player. One ejection, one distance.