Leading with the crown of the helmet is by far the most dangerous play in football. The crown is defined as the top of the helmet and when the head is titled and lowered into a defenseless receiver, a penalty is called. But why are the consequences so unjust to the one that is said to be causing “unnecessary roughness’’ if they are putting the victim in serious danger not only in the present but in the future. So, this leads me to believe helmets should either be eliminated as a whole, or at least advanced enough to keep the head injuries at a bare …show more content…
It is said that changing this helmet rule in the NFL might change other rules as well. While that is true, it really is an aspect that has to be changed. Basically, for every rule change, their is a lot of time and hard research put into it. But, no helmets not only keeps players safe but it also has its benefits. Like stated above, some of the benefits consists of peripheral vision and convenience. It is obviously more convenient to be wearing nothing compared to be wearing a helmet and having to take it off every possession change. Also, time loss and higher costs run together in that the more injuries that happen the more time you lose along with fines for the guilty one that injured the player by helmet to helmet contact. That is just a problem the league would not have to deal with if they got rid of helmets altogether. Next, brain/head injuries are a huge conflict in the NFL. It is all because of helmet to helmet contact leading with the crown of the helmet. Getting rid of helmets would eliminate leading with the head because football players do not want to hit head on with the opponent. Finally, football players should not wear helmets because of the injuries related to the head, the negative effects on vision, the overall inconvenience, the higher costs of the helmets, and the time lost due to the