A multiyear study conducted by the Pac-12 Conference has determined that plays involving one player targeting another's head “are higher risk for concussion than other plays in American football.”
As reported by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, the study found that concussion risk was 39 times higher during targeting plays than during all other plays.
Log in to view the full article
A multiyear study conducted by the Pac-12 Conference has determined that plays involving one player targeting another's head “are higher risk for concussion than other plays in American football.”
As reported by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, the study found that concussion risk was 39 times higher during targeting plays than during all other plays.
“The Pac-12 has been looking at this stuff for years,’’ said Utah athletic director Mark Harlan, who serves on the influential NCAA Football Oversight Committee and chairs the subcommittee on practice and playing. “You look at the overall data, and it appears to have altered the game in a positive way.”
The targeting penalty — in both college football and the NFL — was designed to reduce blows to the head, thereby limiting instances of concussions and making the sport safer. Its implementation has frustrated coaches and players, and the NCAA last month revised its suspension policy for players who incur targeting penalties.
In games that have instant replay, when a targeting foul occurs in the second half, the carryover penalty (of sitting out the first half of that player's next game) will be eligible for further appeal, the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel decided April 20.
Related: NCAA Revises Targeting, Flopping Rules for Football
“There has been a lot of discussion and debate about targeting and whether it’s called too frequently, so we wanted to look at the data,’’ said Dr. Doug Aukerman of Oregon State, one author of the study, which was published by the National Library of Medicine.
“There was an increased relative risk of concussion diagnosis whether targeting was upheld or overturned.”
Conducted by 10 doctors and researchers affiliated with the conference, the study examined 538 Pac-12 games over a four-year period (2016-19).
The schools provided injury information so instances of concussion could be identified in the plays under review. The researchers filtered for plays in which targeting was called.
Key findings of the study include:
— 68,670 plays were reviewed, during which 213 concussions occurred (15 during plays where targeting was called and 198 on other plays)
— The incidence of concussion was 106.4/1000 plays for targeting plays and 2.9/1000 plays for non-targeting plays.
— The risk of concussion during targeting plays was 36.9 times greater than that for all other plays.
— The risk of concussion during targeting plays upheld was 49.0 times greater than that for all other plays.
“The targeting penalty, whether it meets the criteria or not, just the fact that the official threw the flag means it’s significant and the participants should be checked to make sure they’re okay,’’ Aukerman said.
The penalty itself, the frequency of concussions, the study and conclusions — it’s all significant when cast against one of the most serious threats to the long-term health of college football on the West Coast.
The Pac-12’s talent pipeline is drying up, folks, and it’s drying up faster than those in other Power Five leagues, the Tribune reported.
According to data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations, prep football participation in California dropped by 11.7 percent over a five-year stretch prior to the pandemic (2014-18).
The decline was comparable in Arizona (11 percent) and even worse in Oregon (14 percent).
According to Tribune writer Jon Wilner, the Pac-12 has a participation problem that could continue unabated unless high school players and their parents across the conference footprint believe the game is being made safer.
“The more information we can get to the public,” Aukerman said, “and the more engaged health professionals can be in helping shape and evaluate the rules to create safer environment for a wonderful sport — hopefully, that will be reassuring that there are ways to play the game to mitigate risk.”
