Sorry, more targeting talk. One of the biggest reasons I see that there has to be some sort of targeting penalty is that if the rules makers don't make constant, concerted efforts to try to prevent head injuries then they could be held liable for CTE class action lawsuits down the line.


My question is three-fold. First, why would football organizations be held liable for repeated injuries sustained in a sport played voluntarily for profit? Why wouldn't other contact sports like MMA or boxing where the head is a literal target for the sport not seem to have the same level of concerns for being held liable for CTE?


Second, if organizations like the NFL and NCAA are accepting some level of CYA by trying to cater rules to avoid head injuries, then aren't they admitting some level responsibility for any debilitating injury sustained en masse? And third; if there above is true, couldn't we just as lsee class action law suits by former players with debilitating back, hip, leg, and knee injuries claiming that the rules forced tacklers to go lower, causing these injuries?


I'm not interested in a "boys need to toughen up" debate, please don't misunderstand my intention. Just curious between the difference between other sports and football, why the focus is solely CYA against head injuries, and why there is no concern for other debilitating injuries caused by the current rules.

I'm not sure it's that deep. Targeting is a mechanism to prevent head injuries because head injuries are bad, not necessarily because lawsuits are coming. If an effort can be made to reduce a genuinely bad thing (head injuries) without severely modifying the game, there's an argument that it should be done. That's what targeting is, imo.
Has it worked? Maybe. Hard to say. Unfortunately, the penalty itself has caused controversy over the years, both from the inconsistency of how it has been called and the severity of the punishment (missing a game).

I agree that was the intent originally when they banned the practice of spearing. However, the current rules came out right at the same time of all the CTE data coming out to the public 10-15 years ago. I don't think it's hard to draw a correlation between the two.

There was a rule limiting horse-collar tackles for the same reason: the tackle caused repeated injury. Face mask rules are in the same category.

Other injuries have prompted rules like cut blocking (only allowed on LOS) and blocking in the back (defenseless player).

Safety rule changes have been happening almost since the beginning of the game.

The forward pass rules were greatly liberalized to improve player safety after Teddy Roosevelt threatened to ban the game.

"1905 had been a bloody year on the gridiron; the Chicago Tribune reported 19 players had been killed and 159 seriously injured that season.[6] There were moves to outlaw the game, but United States President Theodore Roosevelt personally intervened and demanded that the rules of the game be reformed.

The final meeting of the Rules Committee tasked with reshaping the game was held on April 6, 1906, at which time the forward pass officially became a legal play.[4] The New York Times reported in September 1906 on the rationale for the changes: "The main efforts of the football reformers have been to 'open up the game'that is to provide for the natural elimination of the so-called mass plays and bring about a game in which speed and real skill shall supersede so far as possible mere brute strength and force of weight."

Targeting doesn't just protect the targeted, but also the person doing the targeting from neck compression, hence the crown of the helmet part.


I rememeber a story of someone who moved to Texas from a foreign country in HS so he did not have years of experience in how to tackle. He tucked his head down in an early practice, hit with the crown of his head and broke his neck

You need basic rules for protection. If its just anarchy and people are getting injured all thr time the sport would fall out of favor. Nobody would ever want to punt, play QB..etc

Australian rules football players do not use helmets. Concussion is less common in ARF than other tackling sport. Helmets weaponize players.

I imagine it was more similar to how football was played prior to 1906. Why was football much more violent at that time? Was it due to having set plays and so you had more brutal collisions?