NCAA Proposes New Targeting Ejection Rules and Other Changes

Understanding the Proposed Changes

On February 26, 2026, the NCAA announced a pivotal series of proposals that could reshape aspects of college football. The Division I football panel is particularly focused on the targeting rule, which has come under scrutiny for its impact on the game. The proposed trial rule would allow players disqualified for targeting for the first time to participate in their next game, regardless of when the targeting infraction occurred.

Currently, any player disqualified for targeting is forced to sit out the remainder of the game. However, if that disqualification occurs during the second half, they must also miss the first half of the subsequent game. This change is designed to balance the need for player safety with an understanding of the penalties imposed.

“This continues the evolution of our targeting rule and balances the important safety impact with an appropriate penalty structure,” said A.J. Edds, rules subcommittee chair. “We will closely monitor this one-year adjustment, and the committee believes it is important to enhance the progressive penalty to ensure proper coaching and player education.”

Progressive Penalties: A Step Forward

The new proposal introduces a tiered penalty system for targeting violations. If a player is disqualified for targeting a second time during the season, they will sit out the first half of the next game. If a third ejection occurs, that player will be sidelined for the entirety of the next game.

This graduated approach allows for increased leniency in initial violations while holding players accountable for repeated infractions. Such a strategy aims not only to protect players but also to promote education regarding the risks and consequences linked to dangerous play.

A Fresh Approach to Player Uniforms

In addition to targeting rules, the NCAA panel has suggested that players should wear uniform leg coverings that match in style and color, addressing the perceived decline in the uniform standards within college football. The proposal stipulates that players out of compliance would need to leave the game for at least one down to rectify the situation; a minor warning would be issued for the first infraction, whereas second and subsequent errors would incur yard penalties.

“The current look of the uniform is clearly not meeting the expectations of the college football community,” Edds noted. “This will take a collective effort by administrators, coaches, and officials to communicate expectations to players and equipment managers.”

Amidst this discussion, Texas head coach Steve Sarkisian humorously questioned how such a dress code would be enforced, referring to the NFL's rigid standards and suggesting that policing uniforms could prove to be an unnecessary challenge.

Potential for Fair Catch Kicks

Perhaps the most intriguing proposal is the introduction of a fair catch kick, allowing teams the option to attempt a field goal right after a completed fair catch. This would not only add an unorthodox strategy opportunity but align Division I play more closely with NFL and high school regulations.

This rarely used play, potentially worth three points, gained attention recently when Los Angeles Chargers kicker Cameron Dicker successfully converted one from 57 yards. Incorporating such innovative plays keeps the game dynamic and engaging.

Next Steps for Approval

For these proposals to take effect, they first require approval from the oversight committees for both the Bowl Subdivision and the Championship Subdivision. Those committees are scheduled to meet next month. The forthcoming discussions will mark a significant moment in the evolution of college football rules—potentially setting the stage for ongoing adjustments as the game continues to grow and change.

Conclusion: Balancing Tradition and Innovation

As the NCAA considers these adjustments, it becomes clearer than ever that the governing body is attempting to balance tradition with the necessity for innovation in a sport that continues to face scrutiny over safety issues. Whether accommodating progressive penalties or adjusting uniform regulations, these proposed changes reflect an understanding of the modern game and its demands.