Should the Tush Push play be banned? (7 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

@Ruffrodys05 has a great there here asking folks if it will be banned.

And we've had a lot of discussion on it here.

I'm interested in if people think it should be banned.

 

[rockaction]

Milquetoast answer. On the fence. Would hate the play if even the Jets ran it successfully. Puts too much strain on guys. Chris Jones was jacked up in the Super Bowl from it and had already complained about it. I’ve watched other guys limp out of there and none other than Jalen Hurts got yanked and twisted badly doing it in Tampa.

But what of player safety the rest of the game? Isn’t football always violent and every situation within the game liable to hurt someone? Well, sort of, but this seems extra bad.

Still, even with those concerns I voted on the fence and not to ban because I realize the limitations of anecdotal evidence, and the simple fact that only Philly is constantly successful with it. If you can vote out, say, seventy-yard bombs—and the only guy that can throw them is A-Rich, what’s to stop the league from outlawing seventy-yard bombs in the name of player safety?

“Gee they’re running and throwing too far. Better ban that in the name of player safety.”

And that’s the rub. The tush push is a football play that leans towards the origins of the sport, which is rugby. It’s a scrum adapted to football’s rules. It’s not imported or anything. and it is a fairly organic development.

But then again, it’s ugly and based on an action outlawed for a long time (advancing the ball carrier by his own team assisting him via shoving him forward to generate momentum and power). So there’s that to consider.

I’d lean towards banning it, but I’m okay if they don’t.

 

[msudaisy26]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Good point! Being annoyed weekly by a particular play is sacrilege. Why can't the NFL please everybody?

 

[rockaction]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

 

[ghostguy123]

No. There's only a few teams that are even good at it.

 

[rockaction]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Good point! Being annoyed weekly by a particular play is sacrilege. Why can't the NFL please everybody?

No need to be caustic. You could have thought about it and responded thoughtfully to get to the heart of her annoyance.

She probably doesn’t care that you’ve pointed out that her personal annoyance is subjective and singular, and therefore her complaint unsound in reasoning (which is what your “argument” can be characterized as saying), which is also an unsound argument in your part.

But now I’m knee deep in this thread, and I had no plans on kvetching with Philly fans or msudaisy here.

 

[msudaisy26]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

I watch football to be entertained, having 11 guys line up in a pile all within a few feet of each other to push someone forward for a few inches is boring and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of competition.

It reminds me of the defensive three second rule in the NBA.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

It’s boring. But if you don’t like it, stop it.

Watching the footage of Kelce moving the ball beyond the marker on most of them falls on the refs.

 

[rockaction]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

I watch football to be entertained, having 11 guys line up in a pile all within a few feet of each other to push someone forward for a few inches is boring and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of competition.

It reminds me of the three second rule in the NBA.

So aesthetics/excitement and an overarching violation of the spirit of the rules. Fair enough as far as I’m concerned. Hadn’t really hashed out the “spirit” part in my head yet. I get the feeling that would only leave me more confused. Maybe logic isn’t the way to go.

“The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes (a jurist I’m not too fond of, and a treacly and smarmy yet memorable and probably true quote I remember from school)

 

[msudaisy26]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

I watch football to be entertained, having 11 guys line up in a pile all within a few feet of each other to push someone forward for a few inches is boring and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of competition.

It reminds me of the three second rule in the NBA.

So aesthetics/excitement and an overarching violation of the spirit of the rules. Fair enough as far as I’m concerned. Hadn’t really hashed out the “spirit” part in my head yet. I get the feeling that would only leave me more confused. Maybe logic isn’t the way to go.

“The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes (a jurist I’m not too fond of, and a treacly and smarmy yet memorable and probably true quote I remember from school)

For a long time the NBA just had big guys parked in the paint clogging up the lane and slowing the game down because it made sense defensively and some teams did it better than others because they had better big men than other teams.

Obviously the tush push doesn't happen every play, so it isn't a perfect comparison.

 

[renesauz]

Whether or not the play is dangerous (IE injury causing) shouldn't be up for debate. It isn't. While it's reasonable to insist more data is needed, the data to date suggests it's likely safer then the average play

 

[rockaction]

Whether or not the play is dangerous (IE injury causing) shouldn't be up for debate. It isn't. While it's reasonable to insist more data is needed, the data to date suggests it's likely safer then the average play

No, you guys insisted on doing this in the other thread and it’s simply a declaration that holds no weight. So yell all you want that it doesn’t cause injuries and that the injury issue is therefore settled, we’re going to discuss it as we please.

You have no data.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

Whether or not the play is dangerous (IE injury causing) shouldn't be up for debate. It isn't. While it's reasonable to insist more data is needed, the data to date suggests it's likely safer then the average play

No, you guys insisted on doing this in the other thread and it’s simply a declaration that holds no weight. So yell all you want that it doesn’t cause injuries and that the injury issue is therefore settled, we’re going to discuss it as we please.

You have no data.

Rock, I hear you. So, my question becomes, why does that declaration hold no weight? What data exists that does holds weight? Has something (data) been posted in one of these threads that clearly shows injuries occur during this play at a higher rate than any other physical football play?

I'm interested. Please discuss. No snark here.

On another note. This whole discussion about this one singular play is just unfathomable, really, to me. It does not resonate with me as being genuine, at all. I'm a competitor by nature, I prefer to compete against the best. To be the best you have to beat the best, that sort of thing.

I'm a fan of the great game of football. Huge fan. Eagles fan also.

Anyone can claim BS to the following sentences if you like but, i assure you it is all true.

If the Dallas Cowboys had a legal play they used on offense to great success and the Eagles were one of the teams unable to stop the play my suggestion would be that the Eagles better figure out how to stop it.......damn quick. I would not become salty. I would not want my team to petition the league to ban the play. To me, that would be hugely embarrassing. It reeks of "hurt fee-fees."

As of yet I've seen no valid reason for the elimination of this modified QB sneak that 100% adheres to current league rules. To modify the rules in an effort to find a way of limiting the success of the play is disingenuous. If facts do not support rule modifications than those changes should not be made.

Just In:
The NFL Competition Committee has announced they have tabled discussion of the "tush-push" play until a later date.

 

[ghostguy123]

I've seen the tush push a hundred times and don't think I've seen an injury.
It sure doesn't seem like injury concerns should have anything to do with whether or not they keep it legal

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think another thread on the subject should be banned.

 

[rockaction]

Whether or not the play is dangerous (IE injury causing) shouldn't be up for debate. It isn't. While it's reasonable to insist more data is needed, the data to date suggests it's likely safer then the average play

No, you guys insisted on doing this in the other thread and it’s simply a declaration that holds no weight. So yell all you want that it doesn’t cause injuries and that the injury issue is therefore settled, we’re going to discuss it as we please.

You have no data.

Rock, I hear you. So, my question becomes, why does that declaration hold no weight? What data exists that does holds weight? Has something (data) been posted in one of these threads that clearly shows injuries occur during this play at a higher rate than any other physical football play?

I'm interested. Please discuss. No snark here.

On another note. This whole discussion about this one singular play is just unfathomable, really, to me. It does not resonate with me as being genuine, at all. I'm a competitor by nature, I prefer to compete against the best. To be the best you have to beat the best, that sort of thing.

I'm a fan of the great game of football. Huge fan. Eagles fan also.

Anyone can claim BS to the following sentences if you like but, i assure you it is all true.

If the Dallas Cowboys had a legal play they used on offense to great success and the Eagles were one of the teams unable to stop the play my suggestion would be that the Eagles better figure out how to stop it.......damn quick. I would not become salty. I would not want my team to petition the league to ban the play. To me, that would be hugely embarrassing. It reeks of "hurt fee-fees."

As of yet I've seen no valid reason for the elimination of this modified QB sneak that 100% adheres to current league rules. To modify the rules in an effort to find a way of limiting the success of the play is disingenuous. If facts do not support rule modifications than those changes should not be made.

Just In:
The NFL Competition Committee has announced they have tabled discussion of the "tush-push" play until a later date.

The declaration that it is not an injurious play holds no weight with me because the counter-argument goes that even if nobody has ripped up their knee yet, the players are asked to be in compromising positions because of the play, and that these compromised positions could lead to injury.

I agree that this is problematic. First of all, we haven't really seen it happen other than to Jones, Hurts, and one other, and none of them were debilitated or had to miss games. Secondly, you'll see in one of my posts that I have a problem with banning the play because of the exact reason you go over in your Dallas example. It sounds like a league that can't stop a particular strategy or play banding together under the guise of "player safety" to ban an effective play that nobody else can really pull off. (I used seventy yard bombs and Anthony Richardson in my example.) Thirdly, I've admitted that it's a legal football play and that it has its origins in the sport that is the reason American football exists—the sport of rugby. It borrows from that sport's ideas and methods (the scrum) and adapts it for American football.

I see that it's been tabled. We can re-visit it another time. But I assure you that these days I've thought this tush push thing through, and I would lean towards banning it but would urge caution for those three reasons, especially the reason that you could theoretically get enough teams to ban any effective tactic that only one team runs under the guise of "player safety." That has potential for abuse and is unfair to the team that can run the play and also not sporting and unethical to ban it just because it works.

We shall see how the committee decides. I don't think they'll ban it. I was reading The Athletic late last night about it, and the coaches just didn't seem in favor of banning it and gave good reasons why not. So they won't ban the tush push qua tush push. If it is banned in essence, I think it's going to have to be from a new rule against aiding the runner at any time by pushing them forward from behind them. That's what I think.

Thanks for the well-thought out response. I appreciate it, Ruffrodys05. Take care, man.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

As I’ve said before I don’t really care what they do with this stupid play. I kind of would like to see it banned just to watch eagles fans heads explode.
I don’t care for the play but it’s far from a big deal to me

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I voted "probably not" because I've yet to hear a good argument against the play but am open to the possibility I've missed something. Absent a more compelling argument, I'm definitely against a ban directed at this specific play and I think there would be unplanned negative ramifications from any attempt to draft a rule that bans this play. The proposed text of the new rule we saw a few weeks ago would in my opinion be nearly worthless and cause more harm than good.

For what its worth, I don't think its a boring play. I think its fun watching them run a play that everyone knows is coming and still can't stop it. I also think there's more to it than just a glorified QB sneak. I think the best response from the league in terms of rules and enforcement would be asking the referees to do a better job recognizing and calling penalties for offside, neutral zone and illegal blocking that often occurs on these plays.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

I watch football to be entertained, having 11 guys line up in a pile all within a few feet of each other to push someone forward for a few inches is boring and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of competition.

It reminds me of the defensive three second rule in the NBA.

The alternative is a traditional QB sneak which isn't entertaining either. Should that be banned?

What about QB kneels at the end of games to run out the clock? Totally not entertaining.

 

[Grahamburn]

I've seen the tush push a hundred times and don't think I've seen an injury.
It sure doesn't seem like injury concerns should have anything to do with whether or not they keep it legal

It hurts my eyes.

 

[msudaisy26]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

I watch football to be entertained, having 11 guys line up in a pile all within a few feet of each other to push someone forward for a few inches is boring and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of competition.

It reminds me of the defensive three second rule in the NBA.

The alternative is a traditional QB sneak which isn't entertaining either. Should that be banned?

What about QB kneels at the end of games to run out the clock? Totally not entertaining.

A traditional qb sneak is different because they can lineup in different formations and run fakes off of it.

You are just nitpicking with the kneel down. The game is over. In reality they should just allow the clock to be run out and the game is over without a snap if the math dictates it.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

I watch football to be entertained, having 11 guys line up in a pile all within a few feet of each other to push someone forward for a few inches is boring and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of competition.

It reminds me of the defensive three second rule in the NBA.

The alternative is a traditional QB sneak which isn't entertaining either. Should that be banned?

What about QB kneels at the end of games to run out the clock? Totally not entertaining.

A traditional qb sneak is different because they can lineup in different formations and run fakes off of it.

You are just nitpicking with the kneel down. The game is over. In reality they should just allow the clock to be run out and the game is over without a snap if the math dictates it.

The Eagles have run different plays out of the tush push as well.

 

[msudaisy26]

Yes, but not because it is unfair or dangerous. It is just an annoying play I don't want to see and I don't care who is good at it or bad at it.

Yes it is, but why does it annoy you? It can’t be the amount of time it takes—they’re on the clock.

Is it aesthetics, then? Or is it because of the automatic nature of the result? Or does the formation and subsequent movement annoy you?

I’m curious because I’m trying to think of what is annoying about it and it’s probably one of those three things. My contention is that aside from aesthetics the other two reasons should give you pause when you say, in effect, “It annoys me, so you should ban it.”

Just a thought.

I watch football to be entertained, having 11 guys line up in a pile all within a few feet of each other to push someone forward for a few inches is boring and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of competition.

It reminds me of the defensive three second rule in the NBA.

The alternative is a traditional QB sneak which isn't entertaining either. Should that be banned?

What about QB kneels at the end of games to run out the clock? Totally not entertaining.

A traditional qb sneak is different because they can lineup in different formations and run fakes off of it.

You are just nitpicking with the kneel down. The game is over. In reality they should just allow the clock to be run out and the game is over without a snap if the math dictates it.

The Eagles have run different plays out of the tush push as well.

I will take your word for it since I don't watch all their games, but I have never seen it so it must be rare and I have never seen another team do it, unless you count what the Cowboys did with Zeke a few years ago.

 

[wlwiles]

I've had no issue with the Tush Push, but I will say that Mark Schlereth makes an interesting point about it

 

[FreeBaGeL]

A traditional qb sneak is different because they can lineup in different formations and run fakes off of it.

There are fakes run out of the tush push formation fairly regularly.

Are you not entertained?!

Also (ffwd to 16 seconds in the video)

Also

Also (this was a fun one)

There were a bunch more as well.

 

[Gatorman]

Personally, I feel any play where an offensive player pushes another offensive player forward from behind (or pulls them as well) should be Blown dead at the spot.

Basically I do not want to see a lineman come flying in when there is a scrum so that would also include the Tush push in that definition.

Its not a hard thing to see or call bc all you you really need to see is the ballcarrier being aided by someone elses contact.

 

[msudaisy26]

A traditional qb sneak is different because they can lineup in different formations and run fakes off of it.

There are fakes run out of the tush push formation fairly regularly.

Are you not entertained?!

Also

Also

Also (this was a fun one)

There were a bunch more as well.

I hadn't seen those since I am not an Eagles fan and don't watch a lot of their games.

It still leaves me with my original point, that I don't like the play, I think it goes against the spirit of competition even though it is legal. Like the NBA defensive three second rule that was implemented years ago.

 

[renesauz]

Whether or not the play is dangerous (IE injury causing) shouldn't be up for debate. It isn't. While it's reasonable to insist more data is needed, the data to date suggests it's likely safer then the average play

No, you guys insisted on doing this in the other thread and it’s simply a declaration that holds no weight. So yell all you want that it doesn’t cause injuries and that the injury issue is therefore settled, we’re going to discuss it as we please.

You have no data.

Point to ONE injury (not a random guy wincing after and back in 2 plays plater) that has occurred. ONE.

No momentum, no big collisions, little to no awkward angles. These are the mechanisms that cause injuries in the NFL.

 

[renesauz]

Personally, I feel any play where an offensive player pushes another offensive player forward from behind (or pulls them as well) should be Blown dead at the spot.

Basically I do not want to see a lineman come flying in when there is a scrum so that would also include the Tush push in that definition.

Its not a hard thing to see or call bc all you you really need to see is the ballcarrier being aided by someone elses contact.

This one bothers me. We watch defensive players come flying in and hit offensive players moving backwards and or/clearly already heading to the ground (often already ONE THE GROUND) offensive players all the time. Many of those hits cause injury, many of those hits clearly un necessary.

 

[sm8680]

Personally, I feel any play where an offensive player pushes another offensive player forward from behind (or pulls them as well) should be Blown dead at the spot.

Basically I do not want to see a lineman come flying in when there is a scrum so that would also include the Tush push in that definition.

Its not a hard thing to see or call bc all you you really need to see is the ballcarrier being aided by someone elses contact.

This one bothers me. We watch defensive players come flying in and hit offensive players moving backwards and or/clearly already heading to the ground (often already ONE THE GROUND) offensive players all the time. Many of those hits cause injury, many of those hits clearly un necessary.

Continuing your thought here

These plays pose an even greater risk than the tush push, which is essentially a chaotic scrum designed to gain a yard or two. A pulling guard crashing into a cornerback with full force. A wide receiver making a daring move across the middle, only to be met with a brutal hit. A kick returner blindsided the instant he secures the ball. A placekicker focusing on his kick, only to be leveled by the defense.

 

[RandyDB]

Personally, I feel any play where an offensive player pushes another offensive player forward from behind (or pulls them as well) should be Blown dead at the spot.

Basically I do not want to see a lineman come flying in when there is a scrum so that would also include the Tush push in that definition.

Its not a hard thing to see or call bc all you you really need to see is the ballcarrier being aided by someone elses contact.

This one bothers me. We watch defensive players come flying in and hit offensive players moving backwards and or/clearly already heading to the ground (often already ONE THE GROUND) offensive players all the time. Many of those hits cause injury, many of those hits clearly un necessary.

Continuing your thought here

These plays pose an even greater risk than the tush push, which is essentially a chaotic scrum designed to gain a yard or two. A pulling guard crashing into a cornerback with full force. A wide receiver making a daring move across the middle, only to be met with a brutal hit. A kick returner blindsided the instant he secures the ball. A placekicker focusing on his kick, only to be leveled by the defense.

The NFL will do away with these brutal hits by converting to flag football in the next decade.

 

[miqws]

I've had no issue with the Tush Push, but I will say that Mark Schlereth makes an interesting point about it

Defense cannot do likewise, so I say ban it or allow the defense to do it too. Even if banned, I think Philly would still be very, very successful with the QB sneak.

 

[massraider]

Whether or not the play is dangerous (IE injury causing) shouldn't be up for debate. It isn't. While it's reasonable to insist more data is needed, the data to date suggests it's likely safer then the average play

No, you guys insisted on doing this in the other thread and it’s simply a declaration that holds no weight. So yell all you want that it doesn’t cause injuries and that the injury issue is therefore settled, we’re going to discuss it as we please.

You have no data.

Point to ONE injury (not a random guy wincing after and back in 2 plays plater) that has occurred. ONE.

No momentum, no big collisions, little to no awkward angles. These are the mechanisms that cause injuries in the NFL.

https://x.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1907163080523464838?t=k2Jd7V7_pKkssRDzbXmYcA&s=09

"NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell acknowledged there is little data but a clear potential risk with the tush-push"


The commissioner admits there is nothing backing up the injury talk when he's saying clear potential risk.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

my contribution...which may be honda as I haven't read the thread:

Topic was discussed on GMFB today. I was not surprised (I'm not a fan of GMFB) that THE salient issue wasn't even brought up. The ball carrier is advanced through the use of formational leverage. There are precedents which disallow this, but this was not discussed. Formational leverage is a tactic which is employed in rugby and which runs counter to the intent of ball carrier only advancement of the football (whether the carrier received the ball from center, from handoff or from pass). Those who disagree will point to other less organized use of formational leverage such as qbs or rbs being pushed by a lineman which has been allowed. I would argue that the tush push is a consequence of failing to regulate the less organized examples given, and that its acceptance / refusal to legislate the play out of football changes the game in a way that works contrary to the intent of ball carrier based advancement of the football. I don't care enough about this issue enough to argue my point vehemently, but you'll not convince me that the group which most successfully collectively pushes the ball forward is the better football team. That's not football; it's rugby.

 

[BigJim®]

One vote for yes. I don’t like the concept of physically aiding an offensive player. Penalizing pulling, but not pushing, is just plain silly. If anything it should be the other way around given the rarity, and difficulty to execute a pull player being out ahead of the action on the down/distance plays it makes sense to scheme. JMHO.

 

[Yenrub]

I've had no issue with the Tush Push, but I will say that Mark Schlereth makes an interesting point about it

It is an interesting question. I always thought it was illegal to push the offensive player forward in that manner but maybe it was just a college rule that I am miss remembering.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I've had no issue with the Tush Push, but I will say that Mark Schlereth makes an interesting point about it

It is an interesting question. I always thought it was illegal to push the offensive player forward in that manner but maybe it was just a college rule that I am miss remembering.

It was illegal until 2005, at which point it was made legal with zero resistance because everyone hated that it was illegal and it was extremely difficult to officiate consistently.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I've had no issue with the Tush Push, but I will say that Mark Schlereth makes an interesting point about it

It is an interesting question. I always thought it was illegal to push the offensive player forward in that manner but maybe it was just a college rule that I am miss remembering.

It was illegal until 2005, at which point it was made legal with zero resistance because everyone hated that it was illegal and it was extremely difficult to officiate consistently.

I'm too ignorant to comment on the accuracy of your statement, but Google AI seems to disagree with you....

• Rule 9, Section 2, Article 3b:
  This rule specifically prohibits defensive players from using their hands to add momentum to the charge of a teammate who is on the line of scrimmage.
  
  

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Further, and this is interesting and something I did not know....

NFL Rule 9, Section 2, Article 3b, which prohibits defensive players from pushing or assisting a teammate on the line of scrimmage, was changed in 2005 to allow offensive players to push the runner.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Original Rule:
  Before 2005, NFL Rule 9, Section 2, Article 3b specifically prohibited defensive players from using their hands to add momentum to the charge of a teammate who was on the line of scrimmage.
• The "Tush Push" and the Rule Change:
  The rule change in 2005, or 2006, legalized offensive players pushing the runner, often referred to as the "tush push".
• Continued Prohibition for Defensive Players:
  While offensive players were allowed to push, the rule change did not alter the prohibition against defensive players assisting each other in this manner.
• Current Rule:
  The rule still prohibits defensive players from using their hands to add momentum to the charge of a teammate who is on the line of scrimmage.

 

[pinkstapler]

I've had no issue with the Tush Push, but I will say that Mark Schlereth makes an interesting point about it

This is how I feel too. Feels like if one side of the ball can do something, they both should be able to.

I think the often overstated, blanket answer to Stink here though is in general the league passes (or doesn't pass) rules that help the offense much more than the defense because offense is "exciting"; it gets better engagement numbers on TV and social media. The league wants explosive plays, offensive shoot outs, broken records, high scoring games, games that are still in contention late in the 4th quarter, etc. So whether consciously or not, they fit and adjust the rules to promote and get more of that in the game.

 

[renesauz]

my contribution...which may be honda as I haven't read the thread:

Topic was discussed on GMFB today. I was not surprised (I'm not a fan of GMFB) that THE salient issue wasn't even brought up. The ball carrier is advanced through the use of formational leverage. There are precedents which disallow this, but this was not discussed. Formational leverage is a tactic which is employed in rugby and which runs counter to the intent of ball carrier only advancement of the football (whether the carrier received the ball from center, from handoff or from pass). Those who disagree will point to other less organized use of formational leverage such as qbs or rbs being pushed by a lineman which has been allowed. I would argue that the tush push is a consequence of failing to regulate the less organized examples given, and that its acceptance / refusal to legislate the play out of football changes the game in a way that works contrary to the intent of ball carrier based advancement of the football. I don't care enough about this issue enough to argue my point vehemently, but you'll not convince me that the group which most successfully collectively pushes the ball forward is the better football team. That's not football; it's rugby.

I think this is a much more reasonable stance. But is it not reasonable to point out that football grew out of rugby?

TO be perfectly honest, I don't care if it gets banned...the Eagles will continue to be dominant on QB sneaks. What I care about is the lame reasoning presented by most for it...it is not a particularly dangerous play, and "i don't like how it looks" is almost as bad. Those excuses lack credibility and simply come off as sour grapes. And the funny thing is that it really isn't all that much more successful then the traditional sneak.

 

[unckeyherb]

This is much ado about nothing. The rule was changed 20 years ago because it was very difficult to officiate accurately and the rule change got no opposition. It then took damn near two decades for anyone to capitalize on the rule change on a consistent basis.

I don't buy the player safety concern because, as an Eagles fan I KNOW that there have never been any Eagles injured on this play. Jalen has never been injured. Lane, Becton (and before him Landon Dickerson), Cam Jurgens (and before him Kelce) Seumalo, Mailata, Goedert, Davonta. These are all the guys that are generally lined up on that play with Goedert and Davonta doing the pushing. None of them have ever missed a down due to this play, to my knowledge. They've certainly never had to go to the tent or miss a series. To be honest, I can't factually say that the same applies to every defensive lineman that has ever lined up against this, but do not recall any. The most cited example is from the Super Bowl where Chris Jones is seen wincing in pain on the sideline after the play. He ended up going back in a couple plays later, played the whole game and to my knowledge did not sustain any actual injury.

With regards to the aesthetics argument, I have a couple of points. 1. Banning a play on a subjective basis is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of. I personally love the play. Why should an opinion on 'how the play looks' even be considered? I hate the kneel-down at the end of the half and to close out a win. Its ugly to watch a QB get -1 rushing yard intentionally. I don't want to ban it though. 2. I've heard many folks say that it 'just doesn't look like a football play'. To this I would say this play is quintessential football. Eleven players imposing their will on eleven defenders to gain a yard. May the best man win. Matriculation if you will.

All that being said, I definitely do not think it should be banned, however at this point I just say ban it and be done with it. I'm tired of having the same circuitous argument and while my favorite team does this play batter than everyone else by a long shot, I have no concerns about the impact on their chances of winning. They beat seven shades of **** out of the opposition in the NFCCG and the Superbowl-not because of this play-but because they were the superior team. Also, Jalen will probably convert on 92% of traditional sneaks anyways (another "ugly" play that no doubt no one wants to ban).

 

[Snotbubbles]

This is much ado about nothing. The rule was changed 20 years ago because it was very difficult to officiate accurately and the rule change got no opposition. It then took damn near two decades for anyone to capitalize on the rule change on a consistent basis.

I don't buy the player safety concern because, as an Eagles fan I KNOW that there have never been any Eagles injured on this play. Jalen has never been injured. Lane, Becton (and before him Landon Dickerson), Cam Jurgens (and before him Kelce) Seumalo, Mailata, Goedert, Davonta. These are all the guys that are generally lined up on that play with Goedert and Davonta doing the pushing. None of them have ever missed a down due to this play, to my knowledge. They've certainly never had to go to the tent or miss a series. To be honest, I can't factually say that the same applies to every defensive lineman that has ever lined up against this, but do not recall any. The most cited example is from the Super Bowl where Chris Jones is seen wincing in pain on the sideline after the play. He ended up going back in a couple plays later, played the whole game and to my knowledge did not sustain any actual injury.

With regards to the aesthetics argument, I have a couple of points. 1. Banning a play on a subjective basis is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of. I personally love the play. Why should an opinion on 'how the play looks' even be considered? I hate the kneel-down at the end of the half and to close out a win. Its ugly to watch a QB get -1 rushing yard intentionally. I don't want to ban it though. 2. I've heard many folks say that it 'just doesn't look like a football play'. To this I would say this play is quintessential football. Eleven players imposing their will on eleven defenders to gain a yard. May the best man win. Matriculation if you will.

All that being said, I definitely do not think it should be banned, however at this point I just say ban it and be done with it. I'm tired of having the same circuitous argument and while my favorite team does this play batter than everyone else by a long shot, I have no concerns about the impact on their chances of winning. They beat seven shades of **** out of the opposition in the NFCCG and the Superbowl-not because of this play-but because they were the superior team. Also, Jalen will probably convert on 92% of traditional sneaks anyways (another "ugly" play that no doubt no one wants to ban).

A part of me would love nothing more than for the Eagles to go to a straight traditional QB sneak. Convert them at a higher percentage than the tush push. Then have Sirianni hold a press conference and say, "Is that what ya'll wanted to see?"

 

[Joe Bryant]

my contribution...which may be honda as I haven't read the thread:

Topic was discussed on GMFB today. I was not surprised (I'm not a fan of GMFB) that THE salient issue wasn't even brought up. The ball carrier is advanced through the use of formational leverage. There are precedents which disallow this, but this was not discussed. Formational leverage is a tactic which is employed in rugby and which runs counter to the intent of ball carrier only advancement of the football (whether the carrier received the ball from center, from handoff or from pass). Those who disagree will point to other less organized use of formational leverage such as qbs or rbs being pushed by a lineman which has been allowed. I would argue that the tush push is a consequence of failing to regulate the less organized examples given, and that its acceptance / refusal to legislate the play out of football changes the game in a way that works contrary to the intent of ball carrier based advancement of the football. I don't care enough about this issue enough to argue my point vehemently, but you'll not convince me that the group which most successfully collectively pushes the ball forward is the better football team. That's not football; it's rugby.

I think this is a much more reasonable stance. But is it not reasonable to point out that football grew out of rugby?

TO be perfectly honest, I don't care if it gets banned...the Eagles will continue to be dominant on QB sneaks. What I care about is the lame reasoning presented by most for it...it is not a particularly dangerous play, and "i don't like how it looks" is almost as bad. Those excuses lack credibility and simply come off as sour grapes. And the funny thing is that it really isn't all that much more successful then the traditional sneak.

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I don't see much of the lame discussion. I see mostly a good discussion. Much of it by people who are like you and seem pretty neutral on it. It feels kind of lazy to frame it as Eagles Haters vs Eagles Fans I think. Like most rule changes, it's about the game of football for most of us here.

And I do think it's mostly about the "formational leverage" aspect. When people say it's ugly, I think that's what they're talking about. And the advantages one gets from other players assisting each other.

I think it's an interesting discussion.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't like it. My biggest complaint is that the refs can't possibly accurately spot the ball or see where forward progress is stopped. I'm just not a fan of guessing on spots more than necessary. Also, if the offense is allowed to push players, the defense should be allowed to vault players over / into the pile.

 

[Grahamburn]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[eighsse2]

I don't like it. My biggest complaint is that the refs can't possibly accurately spot the ball or see where forward progress is stopped. I'm just not a fan of guessing on spots more than necessary. Also, if the offense is allowed to push players, the defense should be allowed to vault players over / into the pile.

First point applies to any QB sneak, right?

 

[Biabreakable]

Honda.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I love the play and would adore it if my team ran it.

I think its ugly and not in the spirit of the game.

Both can be true.

I would vote to NOT ban it. Partly because I dont want to have to read about it here for the rest of my life and part because eventually teams will figure out a way to stop it.