Will Muschamp may have just fixed college football’s most confusing rule — targeting.

You could make a strong case for saying targeting is the most controversial rule in college football. What exactly is targeting? That’s where the issue begins.

As written, the rule stats players are not permitted to use the crown of their helmet to initiate contact. Here is how the NCAA explains targeting in its official rulebook, courtesy of SB Nation:

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.

Seems simple enough on paper but it’s often hard to determine in a live game.

It’s a popular joke to make on Twitter whenever a flag is thrown on a play that may involve a targeting foul but even when those plays are reviewed and shown in slow motion, the outcome of those reviews seem to be completely up in the air.

Making the 15-yard foul even tougher is the fact that the player that is called for targeting is ejected from the game and if the hit occurs in the second half, the player is forced to miss the first half of the upcoming game.

Here’s Muschamp during his Tuesday afternoon press conference explaining the difficulty he and his coaches have coaching around the run and his players have executing the rule on gamedays, thanks to the current rules in place.

“You gotta lower your targets, can’t lower them too much — they call that, too. But you have to keep the crown of your helmet out of all contact,” Muschamp said. “When you are talking in terms of protecting a defenseless player — which a quarterback in the pocket is a defenseless player or a quarterback that is sliding is a defenseless player — obviously no head contact but you have to lower your targets. You have to get the head out of the contact, we talk to our players all the time.”

“Now, me and you sitting here having this conversation is a lot different when you are rushing the passer. You finally beat the 330-pounder that’s been – that you’ve been headbutting for four quarters and you got an opportunity for a sack but you have to remember to keep your head out of it. It’s very easy to be critical of a guy that doesn’t necessarily get his head out of it.

“We talk about it and we coach it as hard as we can right now. It’s no different than tackling right now. In conversation, of us just sitting here talking, it’s a really easy conversation but when you have a 220-pound running back barrelling down on you lowering his head, and you are telling a guy not to lower his head and have a little bit of crown contact — that’s why you wear a helmet. It’s difficult. It’s difficult.”

Here’s where Muschamp offered up a suggestion that’s easy to get on board with: why throw a player out if he doesn’t maliciously hit someone? In those situations, handing him a warning makes sense and if it’s down again, toss them out. If the initial hit appears malicious, an ejection would make sense immediately.

“I think they outta, like they have in soccer, yellow cards and (red) cards and all that? Well, some of these are malicious contact. Kick a guy out if it’s malicious contact,” Muschamp offered up. “But if it’s not malicious contact, if you want to give him a 15-yard penalty, that’s fine but we are going to kick a guy out of the game because he’s tackling a guy on our sideline — the guy weighs 220-pounds and he’s barrelling down? That’s what I think.”

He may just be on to something there. Who knows, Muschamp may have just fixed college football’s targeting rule.