Kiddnets
Footballguy
This - boring and the refs are clueless how to call it. Time to go.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Should the Tush Push play be banned? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
As someone who supported not abolishing the play coming into the season...if they can't officiate it correctly...then that's a position changer.
steelcityman
Footballguy
Bush push was 20 years ago.
Philly butt grab is lame, and I agree, no pushing of any player with the ball. Of course the big OL can push a ball carrier 4-5-10 yards if they want to. Its silly.
I just love how Philly pays Saquon $20M to stand around and do nothing on a lot of plays. 14 touches in a divisional matchup is crazy to me. Like driving a Ferrari at 5 mph.
Dizzy
Footballguy
It's been talked about repeatedly in recent weeks and I think this is why other teams haven't been able to run it successfully. When others (Bills comes to mind) have tried, it looks disjointed and I'm guessing it's because the guards aren't moving until after the ball is snapped. That split second is everything in a play that relies entirely on leverage and gaining the low ground.
Not sure when or why they changed the rule to allow pushing the ball carrier, but anytime you change a rule you can bet all loopholes or advantages are being explored.
Think changed around 2005, credit to the Eagles for taking advantage of a play that seemed to have been forgotten with the resources they had and spending time on figuring out how to exploit the rules to their advantage, nothing really wrong with that but the play as things stand is bad for the league, and it's now time for it to be shot into the sun.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Sean Payton on the Tush Push before last week's game
“I was one that stood up in favor of [the Tush Push]," Payton said during his Monday conference call with reporters. "The reason I stood up in favor of is pretty simple. If the powers to be don’t want it for aesthetic reasons, or competitive reasons, or it’s hard to officiate, etcetera. I’ve been involved in those meetings for a long time, and when all of the sudden health and safety was pulled into that, which might be the safest play in football, my [B.S.] nose kind of went up. It’s a quarterback sneak, and I think credit Philadelphia.
“I was one that stood up in favor of [the Tush Push]," Payton said during his Monday conference call with reporters. "The reason I stood up in favor of is pretty simple. If the powers to be don’t want it for aesthetic reasons, or competitive reasons, or it’s hard to officiate, etcetera. I’ve been involved in those meetings for a long time, and when all of the sudden health and safety was pulled into that, which might be the safest play in football, my [B.S.] nose kind of went up. It’s a quarterback sneak, and I think credit Philadelphia.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Forget how I voted but last night swayed me to “ban it” side.
If I had to coach against the push, I would bring in a few consultants to help me plan. Guys like Bill Lambier, Nolan Ryan, Ty Cobb, Ndamukong Suh, Conrad Dobler, Bill Romanowski, Tonya Harding. I may not be able to stop them, but their players are coming out of the pile missing body parts.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Yup exactly where I’m at.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
I think banning a play is bad precedent. That said, I think there are solid arguments to take the play out of the game. If the league simply brought back the rule of making it illegal to aid the runner I think it would make the play much less effective, ultimately taking the play out of the game.
jhib
Footballguy
Yeah, I compare this to the neutral zone trap in hockey. As a Devils fan, part of me always thought the rest of the league's fans just wanted it gone because the Devils were so good at it. Any other team could do it if they wanted, and if they wanted to stop it, then figure out a way to beat it! But it obviously wasn't a popular thing for the aesthetics of the game, so the NHL changed some rules to make it less effective while not explicitly banning it. Seems like they made the right move and the NFL is in a pretty analogous situation here.
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
There is no enshrinement of this play in history, it was not legal 20 years ago, as a player safety matter
I dont think the tush push per se is dangerous, but I dont like the pile moving on the other rugby scrums, I think thats inherently an injury waiting to happen
As for the push, I was agnostic if not a supporter but if they can't or won't enforce this false start component, it should go.
I equate this to when the league for a year or two allowed challenges on all calls and they got rid of it, ostensibly to give cover to the officials, IMO
They may need similar cover here as its a hard play to call and if they won't buzz in to get it right, ban it.
I dont think the tush push per se is dangerous, but I dont like the pile moving on the other rugby scrums, I think thats inherently an injury waiting to happen
As for the push, I was agnostic if not a supporter but if they can't or won't enforce this false start component, it should go.
I equate this to when the league for a year or two allowed challenges on all calls and they got rid of it, ostensibly to give cover to the officials, IMO
They may need similar cover here as its a hard play to call and if they won't buzz in to get it right, ban it.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Except, of course, there already is a rule regarding aiding the runner.
rockaction
Footballguy
Interesting. I’m going into Eagles Reddit but only to listen. Some rugby dudes having a debate. I’ll report, you decide.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
Correction, in 2005 the NFL lifted the ban on pushing runners.Except, of course, there already is a rule regarding aiding the runner.
How have you missed all the olinemen pushing a RB down field. There are numerous instances of this every game, or so it seems.
I know the explanation is the play is impossible to officiate.
Sounds crazy I know, but maybe a referee could try standing here at this angle so they could see?
Sounds crazy I know, but maybe a referee could try standing here at this angle so they could see?
Last edited:
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
This should just be a play they "buzz in" on
I will say, if you banned the Push half of it, Hurts Tush would still drive great success here, the guy is an athlete with burst who squats 600 pounds
I will say, if you banned the Push half of it, Hurts Tush would still drive great success here, the guy is an athlete with burst who squats 600 pounds
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
You don’t like penalties? Stop the illegal play.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
I haven’t missed it. I call it out frequently — Detroit is one of the teams that does it most often. It’s far more dangerous in open field than it is at the goalline IMO.Correction, in 2005 the NFL lifted the ban on pushing runners.Except, of course, there already is a rule regarding aiding the runner.
How have you missed all the olinemen pushing a RB down field. There are numerous instances of this every game, or so it seems.
They should go back to the old rule — for all plays, not just at the goalline.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
Yes, I agree.
The only way to keep things fair is if instead of the offense hiking at a time of their choosing the official blows the whistle to start the play. This would allow the same momentum advantage to both teams.
Much of the renewed controversy has come about because the Eagles had 4 tush pushes in a row. Maybe only allow one tush push in a row.
I don’t think it should be legal for someone to push or carry another player.
Good for the Eagles to effectively exploit current rules.
Much of the renewed controversy has come about because the Eagles had 4 tush pushes in a row. Maybe only allow one tush push in a row.
I don’t think it should be legal for someone to push or carry another player.
Good for the Eagles to effectively exploit current rules.
CottageBob
Footballguy
Look @ the Rams game. Ravens go for a tush push and fumble on 2nd effort, ball is getting scooped for a score and they blow it dead. buttt they would allow it if they scored on the 2nd effort..
they only blew it dead after the ball was clearly out and being picked up
they only blew it dead after the ball was clearly out and being picked up
pinkstapler
Footballguy
This might be the best alternative sports example I've seen on this play in another sport; really surprised I haven't seen or heard it till now. A legal play/strategy that is almost exclusively used/perfected by one team that gives them a particular advantage you can measure is statistically dominant compared to other teams usage of similar plays/strategies AND also is widely complained about by fans as being ugly/boring/ruining game flow. Wow, props to you on this one.
I remember my Devil's fan friends as the time being incredibly pissy because not only did they lift the ban on two line passes (and start calling a ton of obstruction penalties in the neutral zone) to kill the zone trap on them; but this was the same time they created the goalie trap zone rules for behind the net which everyone immediately nicknamed the Martin Brodeur rule bc it was 100% aimed at killing him handling dump offs into the corners like an ace lol. Talk about feeling like the entire league is out to get you...
jhib
Footballguy
Totally remember that feeling. Then a few years later came the Kovalchuk contract, which was technically within the rules and just a bit more extreme than what other teams were already doing, but the Devils got fined and lost draft picks for it for attempting to circumvent the salary cap (Come to think of it, another potential analogy with today's Eagles and the contract structures they've been using with guys like Hurts...) But somehow you don't care as much that it seems the league is against your team when they're winning championships.
Anyway, makes it easy to understand the feelings of a lot of Eagles fans at the moment.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
I thought of this discussion after watching the 49ers oline pull CMac into the end zone last night. I think that sort of play is even a bigger eye sore than the tush push. Like the tush push it is a consequence of changing the aiding the runner rule. The NFL needs to make it illegal to aid the runner again!
The Kerminator
Footballguy
Yes
I mean, most of the reasons people have given to ban the play are nonsense. But the refs being consistently and completely incapable of officiating it seems to at least be a legit argument. In a perfect world the refs would just get good at their jobs, of course in a perfect world refereeing NFL games wouldn't be a side hustle for lawyers and dentists.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
This play sucks
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
This
The momentum stopped call today happens on all kinds of running plays all the time. It wasn't egregious, but it was certainly early, and early shouldn't happen on a play where you routinely allow second effort to count. To be honest I thought the strip sack reversal and the OPI call were a lot worse.
That said, refs miss too much on this play. False starts, neutral zone infractions continually missed. I hate most of the arguments for banning it, but the refs clearly struggle to officiate it for some reason I just don't understand. I also am convinced it's much ado about nothing because Hurts would convert conventional sneaks at nearly the same rate
rockaction
Footballguy
One really quick thing. When the NFL locked the refs out, I believe it was the league—yes, the NFL—that wanted the officials to begin to become full-time employees. But the referees didn’t want that. I’m gonna go back and make sure, but I know I’ve read this a bunch of times, and it’s not by league sycophants.
You can say the NFL was being penurious and wanted them to be rated and ranked differently with incentives and such for good officials, and you can take labor’s side on this and call the NFL cheap or greedy (they often are), but in all seriousness I don’t think this is the issue to lead with when it comes to that. I think they wanted the officials to answer to them fully and be full-time. It was the refs, generally decent but often really missing some blatant calls, that wanted the autonomy and free time.
You can say the NFL was being penurious and wanted them to be rated and ranked differently with incentives and such for good officials, and you can take labor’s side on this and call the NFL cheap or greedy (they often are), but in all seriousness I don’t think this is the issue to lead with when it comes to that. I think they wanted the officials to answer to them fully and be full-time. It was the refs, generally decent but often really missing some blatant calls, that wanted the autonomy and free time.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
You are correct. And I’ll never forgive Peter King for leading the charge against the NFL. Being a member of the Writers’ Guild, he clearly felt it was his duty to back the union. So he made the replacement refs into a player safety issue and slammed the NFL repeatedly and rallied other writers to the cause. Opinion rapidly turned against the NFL and they caved.
90% of this board was right there with King and Kompany.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Refs struggle to officiate it because it isn’t a modern football play. Or shouldn’t be
BladeRunner
Footballguy
How so? Because it seems most of the reasons ARE legit. Or is this a case of "you don't agree with me so your reasons are nonsense"?
I’ve been firmly in the you shouldn’t outlaw a play just because one team does it better than everyone else camp, but if these officiating mistakes keep happening something needs to be done. These plays are by definition too consequential to have the outcomes be subject to such variability.
NONE of the reasons (to date) are legitimate. NO, I do not agree with you at all. YES, your reasons for eliminating the play are nonsense. Blithering nonsense. But hey, keep crying about it if it makes you feel better.
Officiating is a LEAGUE issue. It is the NFL's job to fix the officiating. Not the team running a play the officials have problems with. Eliminating this play because part-time officials are having issues with it is not the way to deal with it.
I wonder if full-time officials with no outside distractions (such as a Dental Practice or whatever they do full-time now) would be better able to deal with such an adversarial play as a QB Sneak?
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Today's was awful. It completely swung the game in favor of the Eagles all because of an egregious missed fumble call by the refs.
rockaction
Footballguy
Thanks, Grove. I usually feel like I’m out on my own island, and I’m happy you verified. I can see King doing that; I liked Peter King’s column but I wasn’t a reader then and I could have done without his polemics.
I dealt with it and still would read his columns because insisting that a person separate him- or herself from his or her convictions leads to tepid writing and enervates whatever stores of courage we have saved so that we may face the great leveling impulse we are bombarded with daily. Any breath of fresh air is worth some misguided (in my mind) politics. But yeah, sounds like he could have used the common good and applied it not just to labor unions.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
That's not how this works. You need to explain what reasons and why. And are you familiar with my argument? You specify "your reasons" but don't elaborate on what you think MY reasons are. Instead, you just go straight for the personal attacks.
"I don't like anyone's reasons but my own or the ones that favor my team" is not a valid or legitimate argument. IF that is your reason, then fine, but it's not based in any form of truth or logic. You would have more justification and respect if you just admitted to blind homerism as your reasoning as opposed to dismissing all but your own arguments as "blathering nonsense".
Last edited:
Blade stated; "I don't like anyone's reasons but my own or the ones that favor my team" is not a valid or legitimate argument.
My thoughts; 100% agree with Blades statement. Which is why I have never made such a comment nor have I implied it. Please stop insinuating that I did.
If you want to accuse me of dismissing all arguments that are in favor of eliminating the play, sure, I just did that. AFTER making many prior posts detailing my unbiased thoughts on each stated argument. Debunking all of them. I simply condensed my thoughts in a general fashion this time.
I also do not have any arguments or reasons for allowing the play to be continued as-is or "keeping it" as you say. So, I am not dismissing anything in favor of "blind homerism." I should not have to. It is a legal offensive play. I do not need to convince others that it should remain. Those that want it gone are the folks that need to convince everyone else that it should go away. Me stating none of the reasons or arguments for elimination hold up is simply stating a fact. If you feel differently, convince me that your argument is valid. I do not need to convince you of anything. Vice versa. You need to convince me.
For example: If you state there is somehow an inherent propensity for players to get injured due to this play, because evidence (verifiable stats) exists that there is, I would be jumping in line to get rid of it. Player safety is paramount. If this play had a propensity to cause concussions I would be leading the charge to get rid of it. Currently neither of these arguments are factually true.
Please @BladeRunner , provide some argument that actually holds up under fact based scrutiny. If you can do that you will have convinced me to get behind the elimination movement. Good luck.
Oh, and also please stop with the "homerism" accusations. I admit when my "homerism" or biasness influences my thoughts on matters. I have been transparent when discussing this subject in these threads. I cannot recall your team right now but if they were the only team utilizing this play for the last 3+ years I would still be debunking these same argumunts.
My thoughts; 100% agree with Blades statement. Which is why I have never made such a comment nor have I implied it. Please stop insinuating that I did.
If you want to accuse me of dismissing all arguments that are in favor of eliminating the play, sure, I just did that. AFTER making many prior posts detailing my unbiased thoughts on each stated argument. Debunking all of them. I simply condensed my thoughts in a general fashion this time.
I also do not have any arguments or reasons for allowing the play to be continued as-is or "keeping it" as you say. So, I am not dismissing anything in favor of "blind homerism." I should not have to. It is a legal offensive play. I do not need to convince others that it should remain. Those that want it gone are the folks that need to convince everyone else that it should go away. Me stating none of the reasons or arguments for elimination hold up is simply stating a fact. If you feel differently, convince me that your argument is valid. I do not need to convince you of anything. Vice versa. You need to convince me.
For example: If you state there is somehow an inherent propensity for players to get injured due to this play, because evidence (verifiable stats) exists that there is, I would be jumping in line to get rid of it. Player safety is paramount. If this play had a propensity to cause concussions I would be leading the charge to get rid of it. Currently neither of these arguments are factually true.
Please @BladeRunner , provide some argument that actually holds up under fact based scrutiny. If you can do that you will have convinced me to get behind the elimination movement. Good luck.
Oh, and also please stop with the "homerism" accusations. I admit when my "homerism" or biasness influences my thoughts on matters. I have been transparent when discussing this subject in these threads. I cannot recall your team right now but if they were the only team utilizing this play for the last 3+ years I would still be debunking these same argumunts.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
If you think you are without bias you are wrong. If you think that post was done regardless of what team you root for your again…wrong.
Last edited:
