SEC Coordinator of Officials explains why targeting is a major emphasis

For many years now, the biggest controversy on the field from the ACC to the Pac-12 each Saturday has centered on borderline targeting calls. Each week, coaches, fans and players debate whether a multitude of plays met the criteria for a 15-yard penalty and automatic disqualification.

During an appearance at SEC Media Days, SEC Coordinator of Officials John McDaid addressed a number of issues surrounding the targeting penalty, as well as its emphasis in referee training.

“Targeting is always No. 1,” said McDaid. “We have targeting as a point of emphasis to drive the point home to our officials, both on the field and the replay booth, that there’s no letting up on this. And I think we’re doing a terrific job, not just in the Southeastern Conference, but across the nation.

“It is always something that we are drilling, training and developing on our framework that we use on targeting. Protecting other defenseless players – passers, quarterbacks are a great example of that. Those are the primary ones that come to mind.”

Whether protecting a quarterback on a potential sack, a wide receiver coming across the middle or a kick returner running down the field, the emphasis on targeting is here to stay. As officials continue driving the point home, there are also conversations at some level whether or not a separate penalty with less repercussions should be implemented for less-serious violations.

“I’m not a part of those conversations,” said McDaid. “There’s stratifications on what I call stakeholders of the game, and that issue that you just brough up is at a level that’s higher than myself. I believe it’s correct to say that’s in the hand of the commissioners and above.”

John McDaid on targeting

The SEC revealed a major change to one of the most controversial rules in college football, allowing an appeal for targeting disqualifications. The new rule change only applies to players who commit a targeting penalty in the second half of a game, which would result in them being disqualified for the first half of the next game.

“I want to emphasize — no change to the definition of what is or is not targeting,” said John McDaid. “No change to the judgement we’re using on the field or in the replay booth for what is or is not targeting. The only change is the penalty … if we have a second half targeting, player is disqualified for the remainder of that game [and] has a carryover for the first half of the next game. That carryover part of the penalty is now reviewable post-game.

“The way it works is the review will be done at the national level by Mr. Steve Shaw, national coordinator of football officials. And the conference can decide to appeal to Mr. Shaw to review the play for the purposes of removing only the carryover disqualification for the first half. There’s two key words or phrases in what I’ve shown you here — the first is that if the national coordinator concludes that it is ‘clearly obvious.’ Clearly obvious that there was not targeting on the player [and they] should not have been disqualified. The conference can [then] vacate the first half carryover disqualification for that player.”