LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Sports Medicine/Football Targeting Is a Bad Thing
Sports Medicine

Football Targeting Is a Bad Thing

February 9, 2022 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Secondary#concussion#ncaatargetingrules

Eliminating or reducing targeting from football reduces concussion risk, according to a new study.

The study, “Risk of Concussion After a Targeting Foul in Collegiate American Football”, was published online on February 4, 2022 in Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.

“The targeting rule was adopted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association in 2008 to discourage dangerous contact during collegiate American football competition. Although targeting rules have been emphasized as a means to reduce concussion rates, there is currently no evidence that targeting plays are higher risk for concussion than other plays in American football,” the researchers wrote.

They sought to compare the rate of concussion occurring during targeting versus nontargeting plays in collegiate football.

They gathered data on concussion occurring in games in the 2016-2019 Pac-12 Conference and classified them as having occurred during either a play where a targeting penalty was called and all other plays. Then targeting plays were further categorized to either those in which the call was upheld or overturned after replay review.

The researchers reviewed 538 games with 68,670 plays. There were 213 concussions, 15 during plays where targeting was called and 198 on other plays and 141 targeting penalties were called.

The incidence of concussion was 106.4/1000 plays for targeting plays (including 141.2/1000 upheld targeting fouls and 53.6/1000 overturned targeting fouls) and 2.9/1000 plays for nontargeting plays.

The risk of concussion during targeting plays was 36.9 (95% CI, 22.4-60.7) times greater than that for all other plays. The risk of concussion during targeting plays upheld was 49.0 (95% CI, 28.5-84.2) times greater than that for all other plays.

Advertisement

“Concussion risk was significantly higher during plays in which targeting was called, especially those in which targeting fouls were upheld,” the researchers reported.

“This study supports eliminating or reducing targeting from American football. The results of this study suggest that players should be screened for concussion after targeting plays are called.”

Study authors included Douglas F. Aukerman, M.D, of the Samaritan Health Services in Corvallis, Oregon., Adam D. Boher, Ph.D. of the University of Colorado Boulder,, Sourav K. Poddar, M.D. of the University of Colorado School of Medicine in aurora, Colorado, Russell Romano, M.A. of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, David J. Petron, M.D., of University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Jamshid Ghajar, M.D., of Stanford University, Stanford, California, Christopher C. Giza, M.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, Angela Lumba-Brown, M.D., of Stanford University School of Medicine, Matthew B. McQueen, Sc.D. of University of Colorado, Boulder and Kimberly G. Harmon, M.D., of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy