Football helmets should not be used.

The helmet is not designed to effectively protect against CTE because the brain moves around inside your head during a concussion. [1] The helmet"s primary purpose is to protect the head against violent external blunt-force trauma. Removing the helmet because it is bad at doing something that is nearly impossible is an inappropriate solution to a very difficult problem. Rebuttal: There is no helmet designed to effectively protect against CTE, and that is why it should be removed. A helmet is successful at preventing blunt-force trauma. However, what you're effectively saying that the head protection is fine doing only 50% of the job it should be. While it isn't originally designed to be, CTE wasn't known to the world at the time football helmets were implemented, and in reality, their purpose must change or they must be removed completely. If you"ve ever played football, say in the CFL for two years, proper tackling technique involves head up with chest and shoulder contact to a strike zone in the opponent"s chest (or center of gravity), wrapping with arms around the ball carrier, and accelerating through the target with force from your legs and hips. [2] Ideally, that solves the spearing problem. The NFL has a policy in place to penalize spearing as unsportsmanlike conduct and the targeting rule (for intentional head contact) which results in an ejection and fine. The league is not ignoring this problem, rather it is changing the way people play the game by harshly penalizing dangerous hits. Rules specifically prohibit helmet contact with a quarterback, defenseless players like receivers and return men, running backs lowering their head, and of course, spearing. [3] However, the ball carrier, also has an objective to absorb the tackle impact. The ball carrier accelerates with legs and hips, and (this is the important part) lowers his center of gravity below that of the the tackler. This is instinctive for most athletes. It would be nice, if the ball carrier remained nice and high, elongated, and exposed. Then the target zone, instead of moving at a very high speed and attempting to evade the tackle, would absorb a nice hit and plant directly into the ground. No heads would be damaged in this experience. Which brings me back to the images above. Even with attempts at proper tackling technique, two opposing forces drop shoulders and head because the head is attached to the shoulders and chest. The top image shows outstanding shoulder to chest contact, but the heads still collide. The bottom image shows poor tackling technique (but excellent running technique) and the player suffers a concussion, leaving fans with fears of the player injured his neck or spine. Neither situation demonstrates what you labeled "spearing". It's normal football. Both situations demonstrate the vulnerability of the head due to high-speed collisions while players wear body armor, designed specifically for protecting the player against those high-speed collisions. Players feel invulnerable so players hit harder. Good technique goes for a target zone in close proximity to the head. Heads get hit as a result of the speed of the game, the size of the players, the extensive armor, and the desire to impose one"s will physically on the opponent. None of those will change if you remove the helmet. The helmet is designed to protect the head (and neck) from external blunt forces that could cause serious injury, paralysis, and death. Removing the helmet without changing the rest of the body armor is extremely dangerous even with proper tackling technique. Rebuttal: Just because you managed to provide two examples of attempts to correctly tackle resulting in helmet-to-helmet hits does not mean the tackle attempt is always proper: https://www.youtube.com... That is a hit on Jeremy Maclin. No attempt is made to properly tackle, it's simply a headbutt. Furthermore, are you really so naive as to think that a $10,000 fine means anything to a player who makes millions in a calendar year? It doesn't. Players aren't following the rules. The helmet has also not done a stellar job protecting the neck, as you said its job is. A hard shell doesn't protect the neck from locking up in a head to head collision. Finally, have you ever heard of risk homeostasis theory? If a player has a body part (the head in this case) protected, it is naturally instinct to lead with that body part, as it is "protected." Of course, in reality, the helmet has been proven not to protect against CTE. It doesn't matter if that's its purpose, it needs to be, as CTE is becoming an epidemic among football players. Now that I've put my weapons away, thanks for a great discussion so far.