BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Texas A&M was fined $50,000 and coach Mike Elko formally reprimanded by the Southeastern Conference after a review by the national coordinator of football officiating concluded the team violated NCAA rules governing injury timeouts.
It won’t help the Razorbacks, though, other than probably giving some of the fans a reason to mumble about something.
The violation occurred during Texas A&M’s Oct. 18 win over Arkansas, when a defensive back went to the ground after the ball had already been spotted, creating what officials deemed “the appearance of an injury” despite no contact and a return to play moments later.
The conference release noted that a staff member was seen signaling toward the player immediately before he went down.
Under SEC policy, when the national coordinator determines that a feigned injury has likely occurred, the first offense carries a financial penalty and public reprimand.
Texas A&M became the first institution in the league to incur the fine under the updated enforcement system.
The league’s statement said, “As determined by the National Coordinator, the action by the player, especially with the concurrent action by the coach in the team area, is a clear attempt to gain an unmerited advantage by stopping the game to be awarded an injury timeout. The action violates the spirit of the injury timeout and fair play and was conducted in a manner that appears to attempt to circumvent the NCAA’s injury timeout rule to avoid the team being charged a timeout.”
Texas A&M issued a response acknowledging the ruling but denying intent to deceive.
“We respect the SEC’s decision and understand the importance of upholding the integrity of the game,” the university’s statement said. “While we accept the ruling, we do not agree with the decision and want to be clear that we never coach or instruct our players to feign injury.”
The rule at the center of the controversy was established to prevent teams from using injury stoppages strategically to slow down opposing offenses or gain an extra timeout.
Beginning with the 2025 season, if a player goes down after the ball has been spotted for the next play and there is no apparent contact, the team is charged a timeout. If no timeouts remain, a five-yard delay-of-game penalty is applied.
The fine arrives as Texas A&M remains unbeaten in SEC play and pushing for postseason contention.
While the penalty does not alter the outcome of the Aggies’ 45–42 win over Arkansas, but at least it provides some proof of the SEC’s commitment to maintaining integrity in officiating and rule enforcement.
A league spokesperson said the conference’s intent is to ensure consistency and accountability.
“We expect all member institutions to uphold the standards of fair competition,” the statement read. “Injury timeouts are designed for player safety and not for competitive advantage.”
Under the current SEC disciplinary structure, a second violation in the same season would result in a $100,000 fine, with additional infractions potentially leading to a head coach suspension.
The conference has not indicated that further review or sanctions are pending for Texas A&M beyond the announced measures.
The decision also sends a message across college football. With the NCAA and conferences seeking to speed up gameplay and reduce stoppages, enforcement of injury-timeout rules is becoming a growing focus.
Many coaches have privately expressed concern that players risk being penalized for legitimate injuries, but the NCAA has insisted the new standards rely on clear, observable evidence and postgame video review to determine intent.
For Texas A&M, the violation and fine add an unusual chapter to an otherwise strong start under Elko. The Aggies have won every SEC game this season but now face increased scrutiny regarding sideline behavior and compliance with game-management procedures.
Even though the incident did not change the result on the field, it could reshape how programs across the country handle player substitutions, injury reporting, and tempo management.
The SEC’s actions indicate a willingness to use both public reprimands and financial penalties to set a precedent during the rule’s first season of enforcement.