Dabo Swinney Rips Targeting Rules: “I’m Going to Have to Go to a Seminar – Targeting Anonymous or Something”

Clemson head coach Dabo Swinney has never been shy about sharing his opinions on the state of college football, and his latest frustration? How targeting is officiated in today’s game.

Following yet another controversial targeting call, Swinney expressed his exasperation with how referees handle the rule, saying, “I mean, I’m going to have to go to a seminar in the offseason or something – targeting anonymous or something. I don’t know.”

While his comments were laced with humor, they reflect a growing concern among coaches, players, and fans about the inconsistency of targeting calls and the severe consequences that come with them.

The Problem with Targeting in College Football

Targeting was introduced in college football to improve player safety, particularly concerning helmet-to-helmet hits that could lead to concussions and long-term brain injuries. Under the current rule, targeting is defined as:

• Forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.
• Leading with the crown of the helmet, regardless of whether the opponent is defenseless.

If a player is flagged for targeting, the penalty is severe. It results in a 15-yard penalty and ejection, with suspensions carrying over into the next game if the foul occurs in the second half.

While the rule was made with good intentions, its enforcement has been wildly inconsistent. Some calls appear justified, while others leave coaches, players, and fans scratching their heads.

Swinney’s Frustration with Targeting Calls

Swinney’s frustration boiled over after another questionable targeting penalty went against Clemson. His comment about needing to attend a “targeting seminar” is not just about one bad call—it’s about the repeated inconsistency in how referees interpret the rule.

“We’re just trying to coach the right way, but it feels like we’re at the mercy of these calls,” Swinney said. “One game, it’s a textbook hit, and it’s called targeting. The next game, it’s the same play, and there’s no flag.”

For Swinney and other coaches, the biggest issue is the lack of clarity and consistency in how targeting is called and reviewed. Players are being penalized for what appear to be natural football movements, and in many cases, these calls are changing the outcome of games.

The Impact of Targeting Calls on Games

One of the most frustrating aspects of targeting is the fact that it results in an automatic ejection, which can drastically affect a team’s ability to compete. Losing a starting linebacker, safety, or defensive end due to a questionable targeting call can swing momentum and directly influence the outcome of a game.

This is especially frustrating in high-stakes matchups where every possession matters. A single questionable targeting penalty can:

• Take out a key defensive player for the rest of the game (or into the next game).
• Extend an opponent’s drive on a third-down stop.
• Put teams in bad field position due to the 15-yard penalty.

Swinney, like many other coaches, believes there needs to be more common sense applied to targeting calls so that players aren’t being unfairly punished for accidental or unavoidable contact.

The Need for a Better Review Process

One of the most criticized aspects of the targeting rule is the replay review process. Every targeting call is reviewed, yet even with slow-motion replay, the rulings remain inconsistent.

Some common problems with targeting reviews include:

• Different interpretations by different officiating crews. What’s called targeting in one game may not be in another.
• Slow-motion exaggerates the severity of contact. Hits that look violent in real-time often appear more egregious in slow motion, leading to harsher calls.
• Lack of clear intent. Many times, a defender is simply making a football play and unintentionally makes helmet-to-helmet contact, yet they are still ejected.

Swinney believes there needs to be a tiered targeting system or at least better discretion from officials when determining whether a player should be ejected.

Proposed Changes to the Targeting Rule

Swinney isn’t the only coach who has called for changes to the targeting rule. Many coaches and analysts have proposed ways to improve the rule without sacrificing player safety. Some potential solutions include:

1. A Two-Tiered Targeting System – Similar to how basketball has flagrant fouls, targeting could be split into:
   • Targeting 1: Incidental or accidental contact (15-yard penalty but no ejection).
   • Targeting 2: Clear, dangerous helmet-to-helmet contact with intent (penalty and ejection).
2. Only Eject Players for Clear Intentional Hits – If there’s no clear intent to deliver a dangerous hit, players shouldn’t be ejected.
3. Allow Appeals for Suspensions – If a player is ejected in the second half, allowing an appeal process could help determine if they should actually be suspended for the next game.
4. Standardized Review Criteria – Officiating crews across all conferences need to follow the same guidelines when reviewing targeting calls.

The Future of Targeting in College Football

With high-profile coaches like Swinney speaking out, there’s a growing push for the NCAA to revisit how targeting is enforced. While no one denies the importance of player safety, the rule in its current form disrupts the flow of games and unfairly punishes players for incidental contact.

Swinney’s frustration reflects a broader sentiment across college football—the targeting rule needs an overhaul. While his comments about needing a “targeting anonymous” seminar were meant as a joke, they highlight a very real issue.

Until the NCAA addresses the inconsistencies in officiating, coaches like Swinney will continue to be frustrated, players will continue to be ejected for questionable hits, and fans will continue to debate what actually qualifies as targeting.

Final Thoughts

Dabo Swinney’s latest rant about targeting wasn’t just about one bad call—it was about a broken system that needs to be fixed. His frustration is shared by many coaches who are tired of seeing players unfairly ejected for playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

As the offseason approaches, Swinney and other coaches will likely push for changes to the targeting rule, and the NCAA will have to listen. Because if the goal is truly to improve player safety without ruining the integrity of the game, then targeting needs to be called fairly, consistently, and with common sense.