Subjectivity in officiating: sometimes either call can be supported

Officiating is a profession defined by the colors of the uniform that most officials wear: black and white. Various calls that sports officials make are very much black and white, such as out of bounds, goal/no-goal, or safe/out. Other calls are very subjective and are open to interpretation and live in the “gray areas” of the rules. These include most physical contact fouls in many sports, such as basketball, hockey, soccer, and, of course, football. The fairly vague way the rules are written, often deliberately, is part of the reason these calls are subjective. For example, NFL rule 12-2-8, the rule that covers “unnecessary roughness” begins:

There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to…

… And then goes on to list a series of examples of what the NFL feels is unnecessary roughness.

If we analyze the verbiage of this rule, the first sentence brings immediate vagueness with the stipulation that this foul includes but is not limited to what is listed. Officials may penalize anything else they deem “unnecessary roughness” under this rule.

Next, while some of the listed items are fairly black and white, such as a leg whip or pulling an opponent off a pile, other parts are open to interpretation. What constitutes “forcibly” when discussing contact, for example? The rule also uses “unnecessarily” multiple times, but what one person considers necessary, another may consider unnecessary. Sports are ripe with rules that allow officials to use the gray areas of the rules to manage a game, often termed the “art of officiating”. However, not every artist is as gifted as others, which can lead to games where flow and pace are upset by subjectivity.

Subjective elements in targeting

As unbiased observers, one should evaluate in-game calls with an impartial eye on a sliding scale, not in absolutes. Even though some decisions are easily judged as right or wrong; most, especially subjective ones in these gray areas, require this approach. Unfortunately, much of society and most fans do not take a nuanced approach to evaluating an official’s call, and it is clear media pundits, sports broadcasters, and even some rules analysts — most of whom were officials at one point — instead choose to speak in absolutes. In their minds, a call is 100% right or 100% wrong. The reality is that many calls based on subjective rules and interpretations could go either way, term them 50/50 calls, and we need look no further than the hotly debated targeting non-call at the end of regulation of the 2024 Peach Bowl between Arizona State and Texas. 

Here, we had a Texas defender hit an Arizona State receiver, who had just caught the ball. The hit injured the Arizona State player. Observers of network replays (and the replay official) noticed the defender contacted the receiver in the head/neck area. This immediately brought into question the possibility of targeting on the play. As Steve Shaw, the National Coordinator of Officials for the NCAA, has reiterated many times in his weekly training tapes, replay must either confirm or reject a call of targeting, either through review of an on-field official’s targeting call or through a booth initiated review of a potential, uncalled targeting foul. The replay official initiated a formal review of this hit after the play had gone unflagged. 

2 types of targeting

A few comments deserve mention regarding targeting. A recent change to the rule requires replay confirmation of all targeting aspects before penalty assessment. There is no “stands” for a targeting review. This review starts with identifying one or both distinct categories of targeting. 

The first is targeting with forceable contact with the crown of the helmet (Rule 9-1-3). This targeting does not require contact with the opponent’s head/neck area, and only requires forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of the helmet. The 6-inch radius from the apex/top of the helmet defines the crown of the helmet. This also requires at least one indicator of targeting to be present. (More on this shortly.)

The second category of targeting is Rule 9-1-4: targeting with forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player. Here, a defenseless player, is specifically defined, including a player on the ground, a player who is throwing or just finished throwing a pass, and a receiver who is attempting to catch or has caught a pass but has not had time to clearly become a ball carrier.

Provided at least one indicator of targeting is present, as in 9-1-3, defenders may not forcibly contact this defenseless player in the head or neck area. Targeting indicators include a launch, a crouch and upward thrust, leading with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm to make forcible contact with the head or neck, or lowering the head to make forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

In both types of targeting, the identification of the crown of the helmet, a defenseless player, and contact with the head or neck area is relatively black and white. Where the subjectivity comes into play is with the identification of one or more indicators. In the early days of targeting, targeting calls seemed to be very subjective and change from game to game. With the addition of this indicator requirement, the NCAA has worked to make these targeting calls more consistent from game to game, but some amount of subjectivity still exists with evaluating these indicators.

If we go back to the play in the Peach Bowl, it is clear the Arizona State player was defenseless, and it also seems to be clear that the defender forcibly contacted the head or neck area of the wide receiver. In many people’s minds, because these two things were true, this should have been called targeting. However, the likely reason this play was not called by either an on-field official or the replay official is because of the lack of a clear targeting indicator.

Helmet-to-helmet is not automatically targeting

Many football officials that work on Friday nights and youth games hear at least once per game from the sidelines or the stands, “That was helmet-to-helmet contact!!” Although the football rulesmakers continue to try to reduce head contact, incidental helmet collisions still happen. Therefore, the NCAA has incorporated the targeting indicator to minimize attacks on the head and neck areas of players while still allowing for incidental helmet-to-helmet contact to occur. There is no penalty for helmet-to-helmet contact, even on a defenseless player, unless this indicator exists.

A college officiating source has said the NCAA has discussed a targeting penalty that does not involve disqualification of the offending player, but as of today, such a penalty does not exist.

Many rules analysts — such as NBC’s Terry McAulay and CBS’s Gene Steratore and ESPN analysts Matt Austin and Bill Lemonnier — feel an indicator existed and that targeting should have been called in the Peach Bowl. This is in sharp contrast to many officials on various Facebook groups feel an indicator was not present and that the way the play was called was accurate. The internal discussion at Football Zebras during the replay acknowledged the hit was bad form, but that the indicator was lacking, a point that was affirmed to us by a Big Ten official after the game.

So, who is correct? I’d argue that, for these subjective calls, unbiased observers should be comfortable with either call, and not take the extreme position that a near 50/50 subjective call was 100% objectively wrong. Had targeting been called here, I would not have had an issue with it because I could understand someone concluding that perhaps the defender lead with his helmet, even though he appeared to try to do everything right by hitting what he could see and wrapping the wide receiver up. Unfortunately, officials, both replay and on-field, must make a call in real time and stand behind it.

Even Matt Austin, the ESPN rules analyst, pulled back slightly during the Sugar Bowl broadcast the next day, acknowledging the indicator was debatable.

The question is: Do sports fans desire education and understanding about why calls are or aren’t made, or do they just crave confirmation that a call went against their team unfairly? Unfortunately, the social-media feedback loop tends to favor the latter.