What the 2026 Targeting Change Means From the First Flag to the Third

The new targeting rule for 2026 college football does not eliminate ejections. During the one-year Division I FBS trial, every upheld targeting foul still disqualifies the player for the remainder of the current game. The change concerns additional next-game punishment: a first disqualification carries no next-game suspension, a second costs the first half of the next game, and a third costs the entire next game.

This is an experimental FBS structure, not a permanent rule for every level of college football. High school, FCS, Division II and Division III staffs should not import this penalty ladder into their own programs unless the rules governing their level separately adopt it.

Related: 2026 Head Slap Rule for High School Football.

The 2026 targeting rule in one table

The practical trigger is the player’s number of confirmed targeting disqualifications during the season—not simply whether the foul occurred before or after halftime. The NCAA’s official targeting announcement establishes the following next-game penalty ladder for the 2026 FBS trial:

National Football Foundation and College Football Officiating guidance confirms that every upheld targeting foul still ends the player’s participation in the current game. It also describes the full-game next-game suspension as applying to a player’s third and subsequent targeting fouls in the same season under the experimental targeting rule.

For a first offense, the next-game result is the same regardless of the half in which the foul occurs. A player disqualified in the first quarter may lose most of the current game, while a player disqualified late in the fourth quarter may lose only the closing minutes. Neither player receives an additional next-game suspension for a first confirmed disqualification. ESPN’s report on the 2026 penalty changes also outlines the escalating next-game consequences for the first three offenses.

The coaching shorthand is simple:

• The upheld targeting ruling controls the rest of the current game.
• The player’s season offense count controls any next-game punishment.

What changed—and what did not

The immediate consequence did not change. Once targeting is upheld, the player is finished for the remainder of that game. A first offense should therefore never be described as “no penalty.” A first-quarter disqualification can remove a starter from almost the entire contest.

What changed is the automatic carryover into the next game. Under the former structure, a player disqualified for targeting in the second half generally also had to miss the first half of the next game. During the 2026 FBS trial, that carryover no longer applies when the ruling is the player’s first targeting disqualification of the season, according to the NCAA’s comparison of the former and experimental structures.

That means a player whose first confirmed targeting foul occurs in the third or fourth quarter still leaves immediately but may play from the opening snap of the next game. The time of the foul determines how much of the current game the player loses; it no longer creates a next-game suspension by itself.

Repeat offenses bring the carryover back in progressive form. A second disqualification results in a first-half suspension for the next game. A third results in a full-game suspension for the next game, with NFF and College Football Officiating guidance extending that full-game consequence to subsequent offenses as well.

The new structure is therefore progressive, not uniformly more lenient. It removes the former timing-based carryover for an initial offense while increasing the importance of a player’s confirmed season count.

Three game-by-game examples

The following situations illustrate the documented penalty ladder. They are not reports of actual players or games.

Example 1: First offense in the third quarter

A safety receives his first targeting disqualification of the season midway through the third quarter. He must leave and cannot return for the fourth quarter. Because it is his first confirmed disqualification of the season, he is eligible for the entirety of the team’s next game.

The old automatic carryover for a second-half foul does not apply. The current-game consequence remains significant because the defense must finish the contest without him.

Example 2: Second offense later in the season

The same player later receives another targeting disqualification. He is removed for the remainder of that game. Because this is his second confirmed disqualification of the season, he must also miss the first half of the team’s next scheduled game.

The second offense is the point at which the experimental progressive system imposes a next-game consequence.

Example 3: Third offense

The player subsequently receives a third confirmed targeting disqualification. He is removed for the remainder of the current game and suspended for the entirety of the team’s next scheduled game.

These examples apply only the announced penalty ladder. They should not be extended into assumptions about transfers, postseason accounting or when the season count formally resets without additional governing language.

How the repeat-offense review works

After a second targeting disqualification, the special review process can be organized into four steps:

1. A second targeting disqualification is upheld. The player is out for the remainder of the current game and faces a first-half suspension in the next game.
2. The player’s conference decides whether to initiate review. The process is optional rather than automatic.
3. The NCAA national coordinator of football officials facilitates a video review. The review may examine video from both the player’s first and second targeting infractions.
4. An overturned relevant ruling can remove the next-game suspension. The NCAA announcement expressly provides that an overturned call can allow the player to participate without serving the next-game first-half absence.

The announced process belongs to the conference. The available official material does not establish a separate route through which a player, coach or school can file directly with the national coordinator. An FBS staff seeking review should work through its conference rather than promise a player that the school can independently trigger the process.

This later review is distinct from replay during the game. In-game replay determines whether the targeting ruling and immediate disqualification stand. The conference-initiated process reviews the repeat-offense record supporting additional next-game discipline after targeting has already been upheld.

The official announcement does not specify a filing deadline, a guaranteed decision timetable or every possible result if only one of the first two rulings is overturned. Staff members should wait for direction from their conference rather than creating an internal deadline or guaranteeing an outcome.

Replay must confirm the complete targeting foul

Replay officials must confirm every required aspect of targeting for the ruling to stand. If replay cannot confirm the complete foul, the targeting ruling is overturned. CBS Sports reported that standard in its overview of the experimental 2026 rule changes.

The practical distinction for coaches is:

• In-game replay asks: Is the complete targeting foul confirmed, and does the current-game disqualification stand?
• Later conference-led review asks: Should an upheld repeat offense continue to support the next-game suspension?

The penalty ladder does not replace the targeting definition. Coaches should teach contact rules from the complete rulebook language and use the first-, second- and third-offense structure only to explain what follows after a targeting disqualification has been confirmed.

What coaches should track—and what remains unresolved

An FBS staff should maintain a simple internal record for every confirmed targeting disqualification:

Player | Game | Half | Season offense number | Next-game consequence | Conference review requested?

Record the half because it shows how much of the current game the player lost. For additional next-game discipline, however, the central question during the trial is whether the confirmed ruling is the player’s first, second, third or subsequent targeting disqualification of the season.

The record should distinguish among an initial flag, a ruling overturned by replay and a disqualification that remains upheld. Position coaches should verify the count with the head coach, compliance staff and conference contact rather than relying on memory or a sideline note.

High school and non-FBS college staffs may still use the change as a teaching point when players or assistants ask about an FBS game. The accurate answer is that the television example may be operating under the 2026 FBS experiment, while the staff’s own games remain governed by the rules issued for its level.

Several details should remain open until additional official guidance addresses them:

• Formal season-reset language
• Conference championship and postseason accounting
• Treatment of players who transfer during the season
• Conference review deadlines
• Expected decision timing
• The precise review procedure for third and subsequent offenses

Because the NCAA approved the structure as a one-year experiment, its effects on targeting frequency, deterrence, player safety and officiating accuracy cannot be declared before trial data are available.

For 2026, the operating distinction is straightforward: confirmed targeting still ends the player’s current game, while the season offense count determines any additional next-game punishment. FBS staffs should track every upheld disqualification, route repeat-offense questions through their conference and wait for post-trial NCAA action before treating the structure as permanent.