There is no question that the people having the biggest effect on football rules are liability insurance companies.
I've had more than one coach take issue with the targeting rule or blindside block rule, as if it was something I personally wanted and instituted. I'm not a fan of the blindside block rule. I didn't write the thing.
Insurance companies who cover school divisions -- and their sports teams -- are terrified about getting sued because of possible long term effects from football, so they are pushing the rules changes. As much as I don't like it, the alternative is that premiums to insure a school with a football team will increase so much that there's no way to afford them.
Law suits are the biggest threat to the game. If a school system is sued and loses, football is done because no school will be able to get the insurance.
On a similar note, there has been talk about parents mad at officials' rulings going to court and suing officials. If that happens, there won't be any officials. I bet there's not a football official in the state who makes more than $2000 total in an entire season calling high school football. One lawsuit, even if it's unsuccessful, would cost far more than that to defend. No one is going to keep officiating if that happens.
With respect to Officials: Sadly, there is some judge, somewhere, that will permit a case to be heard. And you are right, say goodby to most of your football officials. I find it very unlikely to happen here in Virginia, but it only takes one judge, and one good lawyer, and the genie is out of the bottle.
With respect to schools: the litigation that brings down high school football will be from a "supposed" brain injury from 10 or 15 years ago. Bringing a case to the courts for injury 20 years or more after the fact has very little chance. But starting about 15 years ago, there was a growing body of evidence that kids were being permanently brain damaged. And there was a window of about 10 years that a lawyer can say "you, (the school district), knew that kids were being harmed", "and you failed to react to a known problem". You only have to look at the litigation against the cigarette makers for the example.
In the last five years or so, the risk are extremely well documented, and basically all reasonable changes have been implemented to mitigate the possibility of injury. And there is explicit, comprehensive wording in the document that parents have to sign to allow their child to participate in football, detailing the risk. They don't sign away their rights, but they must have a much stronger argument to prevail after signing such an agreement.
In summary, if the school knew, or had reason to know, about the cumulative risk of head injuries, and made no attempt to address and educate about this syndrome, then they are wide open to litigation. Conversely, if every reasonable action has been taken, then proving the school culpable will be difficult.
Isn't it sad that the discussion about the future of high school football, and the likely rules changes, is more about litigation than running, passing and tackling?