Refs make ‘right calls’ with targeting rule in BYU-Utah game

SALT LAKE CITY — A simple mention of the targeting rule in football will elicit a rabid debate for and against its merit in the game. For fans watching the rivalry matchup between BYU and Utah Saturday, it's a controversial subject in a game that means more than just a win or loss in the record books.

In back-to-back plays in the rivalry game, two BYU players were ejected from the game for what the refs ruled targeting fouls. The two controversial plays were met with criticism from many, including FOX Sports analyst Joel Klatt, who was calling Saturday’s game.

While there is merit in debating whether the calls were accurate or not, it comes down to the definition of a targeting rule, which is arguably inconsistent in how the NCAA refs manage the penalty. However, the intended strategy behind the rule is to protect players and keep them from sustaining significant harm, particularly to the neck and head.

In matters dealing with the neck and head region of the body, the NCAA says: “No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.”

In the first instance, Utah’s Demari Simpkins attempted to catch a pass from quarterback Troy Williams in the third quarter. BYU safety Kai Nacua led with his helmet and shoulder in an attempt to tackle Simpkins. However, the NCAA rule states that Simpkins would have been classified as a defenseless player because he did not have “time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier,” thus making it a targeting call.

Additionally, the NCAA says the “risk of a foul is high” when a player is in “a crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area — even though one or both feet are still on the ground.” In Nacua’s instance, he appears to have started in a crouch while moving “upward and forward.”

It is likely Nacua's intent was to simply tackle and knock the ball out of Simpkins' hands, but the refs deemed it an inappropriate way to tackle, particularly as a result of the potential harm done to an opposing player.

Although many argue it was simply a routine hit — a strong, but standard blow delivered by a defender in football — the letter of the law gave the refs enough room to confirm the ruling on the field. But if not, the language of the rule, stating that “when in question,” the play “is a foul,” allowed for flexibility in the ruling — the safety of the player will be the first concern.

“It’s just really difficult for a young man to stop midstream in the play and adjust according to what the receiver is doing,” BYU head coach Kalani Sitake told media following the game. “It’s a difficult thing. For those that have played the game, it’s hard. You run full speed at something and then you have to change your body position.”

In the second play, where Williams was intercepted by BYU’s Francis Bernard on an underthrown pass, BYU’s Austin McChesney delivered a blow to the helmet of Utah receiver Troy McCormick, who was attempting to catch the pass. Like the previous play, McCormick would be classified as a defenseless player, thus making a targeting call a justifiable penalty, particularly as McChesney led with his shoulder and stuck the helmet.

Utah head coach Kyle Whittingham addressed the two plays at the conclusion of the game, saying: “By the rule, the way it’s written, the way it’s interpreted and the way it’s explained to us all offseason by the officials, I think they made the right calls.”

Whittingham added that “you hate to say that” because “football has changed so much in 10 years,” but recognized that the rule is in place to protect the players.

“It’s for the safety of the players and I understand that and I get it,” he said. “Player safety is job one and the primary objective. But by the letter of the law, in my estimation and my interpretation, it was helmet-to-helmet — targeting.”

Sitake was noticeably irritated by the penalties and launched to the middle of the field to challenge the refs following Nacua’s disqualification. He sustained an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, but said he is always going to “fight for our guys.”

“I was fired up, and I got a little carried away,” Sitake said after the game. “But I get carried away when we celebrate and my emotions go crazy. I’m not going to pull that back; that’s the way of football.

“Obviously you know how I felt about it. It’s just the way football goes and that’s the way football is. I’m proud of the guys that came in and played and proud of the way our guys answered back to make it a one-point game,” he added. “We’re going to move on and get ready for UCLA.”

Both Nacua and McChesney will be forced to sit out the first half of BYU’s matchup Saturday against UCLA as a result of the targeting penalty. However, Sitake said the university may appeal the suspensions.

If BYU decides to appeal the suspensions, the following applies, according to the NCAA rulebook:

“If a player is disqualified in the second half, the conference has the option to consult the national coordinator of football officials who would then facilitate a video review. Based on the review, if and only if the national coordinator concludes that the player should not have been disqualified, the conference may vacate the suspension. If the national coordinator supports the disqualification, the suspension for the next game will remain.”

Because BYU is not in a conference, it’s unsure who would review the suspension. However, @BYUSportsNation received clarification from the Pac-12 regarding the targeting calls, who said: “By NCAA rule, the action by the Instant Replay Official is final and there is no appeal process.”

Related topics