UCLA Football: Will the Pac-12 ease up on the targeting calls?

PASADENA, CA - NOVEMBER 14: Head coach Jim Mora of the UCLA Bruins looks at his team prior to a game against the Washington State Cougars at Rose Bowl on November 14, 2015 in Pasadena, California. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images)
PASADENA, CA - NOVEMBER 14: Head coach Jim Mora of the UCLA Bruins looks at his team prior to a game against the Washington State Cougars at Rose Bowl on November 14, 2015 in Pasadena, California. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit

This past weekend against Stanford, the UCLA Football team had a player ejected for targeting. It was the third game in a row such a penalty has been called, with two of them being questionable. Will the Pac-12 ease up on the rule or will more players be needlessly disqualified?

In the last three games, the UCLA Football team has had a player ejected for targeting. LB Josh Woods‘ collision against Hawaii was very questionable, DL Osa Odighizuwa‘s hit on Memphis’ quarterback was the right call (by definition) and DB Adarius Pickett‘s tackle against Stanford was utterly ridiculous.

RELATED: Know Your opponent: UCLA vs. Colorado

UCLA Football Head Coach Jim Mora even had to have a chat with the conference in regards to a targeting penalty that was not called in the Hawaii game. The Pac-12 had released a statement acknowledging their officiating error in which they had missed calling a blindsided hit on LB Kenny Young who sat out the next game due to head trauma.

More from Go Joe Bruin

The point is that calling targeting penalties has become a farce in the Pac-12. And this is not a whine session where I complain about the penalties UCLA has incurred, it is about the entire Pac-12. During the Stanford game, the referees had also flagged Cardinal DB Alijah Holder for targeting, when in fact, he also simply laid out a solid hit. But as it was observed, that helmet made contact with helmet so it must have automatically been targeting.

The “targeting” penalty was introduced for the safety of the players and to punish dirty plays. Essentially, as summarized by SB Nation, targeting is identified as making forcible contact, leading with the crown of the helmet, “launching”, or when “a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball”.

To me, this comes down to calling out the dirty or over excessive plays, which should in fact be enforced, but the rule has been foggy for a while. If the referees start taking away good, solid football hits (which by the way, these reviews take up a lot of time and kill momentum… so much for the Pac-12 wanting to make the game shorter), then we are going to see a watered down version of college football, one that could ill-prepare Pac-12 teams for post-season play against teams from conferences that know how to play tough.

Next: Josh Rosen vs. Sam Darnold: Who is the better quarterback?

The call on Pickett was ludicrous. Yes, the helmets made contact, but in no way was that a dirty or over excessive play. Neither was the one by Holder. It is understandable that they want to protect everyone, especially themselves, but the Pac-12 is diminishing the quality of the game.