Should the Tush Push play be banned? (2 Viewers)

[Zeppelin]

For the plays where it was stuffed, Cam Jurgens was not on the field, his backup Brett Toth was in. This is why those two times they were stuffed.

Whatever you say.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Because, as I've stated about 7 times in this thread, there is simply no evidence outside of three or four replays shown over and over again of Steen jumping a hair early

Which one is Steen and that’s a pretty large hair

 

[unckeyherb]

I bring up new info: the fact the Lions were successful in stopping this play and notice how not one post since then said anything about their technique..etc.

Just more of the same narrative

I see you

It's pretty obvious what has happened. No more "jumping the snap" for Philly... so now it's just another 50/50 QB sneak.

The cheat code has been taken away.

Probably good for Barkley owners ROS. Not so much for Hurts owners.

What is this I bolded? Are you suggesting QB sneaks have a ....1 in 2 chance for failure??

Without "the jump" for the guards, the tush push is *** (just another play)... not the unstoppable force of nature where first one to the bottom wins.

I kind of disagree with this....for it's purpose....picking up a yard give or take.....it might be one of the most effective plays in the game....even without a jump....

Yeah, we can agree to disagree. I am of the belief that "the jump" is what differentiates an unstoppable play from a sometimes stoppable play. Results from SNF seem to support these claims (with PHI now under a microscope).

Let's see going forward.

Can you provide any supporting information other than your belief? Because, as I've stated about 7 times in this thread, there is simply no evidence outside of three or four replays shown over and over again of Steen jumping a hair early. They've been running this play for four years. They ran it over 100 times last year. This idea that you keep believing in was not even a thing all of last year. Last year it was "player safety"-another claim that everyone believed but was not backed up by any actual data. Now its, "the play only works when the guard jumps a split second early". Again, if you can point me to some montage of like 60 or 70 times that this play is run succesfully because of the early jump, then I'll concede the point. The reality is that I don't think you can produce 10 examples of what you are saying "makes this an unstoppable play".

I’m reading into this that you hate the play because officials allow false starts and it should be banned.

Finally someone gets me.

 

[Dizzy]

I bring up new info: the fact the Lions were successful in stopping this play and notice how not one post since then said anything about their technique..etc.

Just more of the same narrative

I see you

It's pretty obvious what has happened. No more "jumping the snap" for Philly... so now it's just another 50/50 QB sneak.

The cheat code has been taken away.

Probably good for Barkley owners ROS. Not so much for Hurts owners.

What is this I bolded? Are you suggesting QB sneaks have a ....1 in 2 chance for failure??

Without "the jump" for the guards, the tush push is *** (just another play)... not the unstoppable force of nature where first one to the bottom wins.

I kind of disagree with this....for it's purpose....picking up a yard give or take.....it might be one of the most effective plays in the game....even without a jump....

Yeah, we can agree to disagree. I am of the belief that "the jump" is what differentiates an unstoppable play from a sometimes stoppable play. Results from SNF seem to support these claims (with PHI now under a microscope).

Let's see going forward.

Can you provide any supporting information other than your belief? Because, as I've stated about 7 times in this thread, there is simply no evidence outside of three or four replays shown over and over again of Steen jumping a hair early. They've been running this play for four years. They ran it over 100 times last year. This idea that you keep believing in was not even a thing all of last year. Last year it was "player safety"-another claim that everyone believed but was not backed up by any actual data. Now its, "the play only works when the guard jumps a split second early". Again, if you can point me to some montage of like 60 or 70 times that this play is run succesfully because of the early jump, then I'll concede the point. The reality is that I don't think you can produce 10 examples of what you are saying "makes this an unstoppable play".

I don't need "supporting data" (nor care to)... this is a discussion topic, not a courtroom.

The "eyeball" test tells me that something looked very different on that play on the Eagles side of the ball Sunday night. After weeks of media meltdowns and much scrutiny, the tush push suddenly looks like every other QB sneak in the NFL. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

If true... MASSIVE bump to Barkley's fantasy value and massive BLOW to Hurts' fantasy value as his stud status is 100% reliant on tush push TDs.

 

[unckeyherb]

For the plays where it was stuffed, Cam Jurgens was not on the field, his backup Brett Toth was in. This is why those two times they were stuffed.

Whatever you say.

Sorry, which statement are you taking issue with? The fact that Jurgens wasn't on the field or my contention that the most important position in that blocking scheme is the center (which has been filled by an all-pro in Jason Kelce and a probowler in Cam Jurgens) and that tossing in a replacement ham and egger like Toth has an impact on the success rate of the play?

 

[Zeppelin]

For the plays where it was stuffed, Cam Jurgens was not on the field, his backup Brett Toth was in. This is why those two times they were stuffed.

Whatever you say.

Sorry, which statement are you taking issue with? The fact that Jurgens wasn't on the field or my contention that the most important position in that blocking scheme is the center (which has been filled by an all-pro in Jason Kelce and a probowler in Cam Jurgens) and that tossing in a replacement ham and egger like Toth has an impact on the success rate of the play?

The issue is making excuses.

 

[unckeyherb]

I bring up new info: the fact the Lions were successful in stopping this play and notice how not one post since then said anything about their technique..etc.

Just more of the same narrative

I see you

It's pretty obvious what has happened. No more "jumping the snap" for Philly... so now it's just another 50/50 QB sneak.

The cheat code has been taken away.

Probably good for Barkley owners ROS. Not so much for Hurts owners.

What is this I bolded? Are you suggesting QB sneaks have a ....1 in 2 chance for failure??

Without "the jump" for the guards, the tush push is *** (just another play)... not the unstoppable force of nature where first one to the bottom wins.

I kind of disagree with this....for it's purpose....picking up a yard give or take.....it might be one of the most effective plays in the game....even without a jump....

Yeah, we can agree to disagree. I am of the belief that "the jump" is what differentiates an unstoppable play from a sometimes stoppable play. Results from SNF seem to support these claims (with PHI now under a microscope).

Let's see going forward.

Can you provide any supporting information other than your belief? Because, as I've stated about 7 times in this thread, there is simply no evidence outside of three or four replays shown over and over again of Steen jumping a hair early. They've been running this play for four years. They ran it over 100 times last year. This idea that you keep believing in was not even a thing all of last year. Last year it was "player safety"-another claim that everyone believed but was not backed up by any actual data. Now its, "the play only works when the guard jumps a split second early". Again, if you can point me to some montage of like 60 or 70 times that this play is run succesfully because of the early jump, then I'll concede the point. The reality is that I don't think you can produce 10 examples of what you are saying "makes this an unstoppable play".

I don't need "supporting data" (nor care to)... this is a discussion topic, not a courtroom.

The "eyeball" test tells me that something looked very different on that play on the Eagles side of the ball Sunday night. After weeks of media meltdowns and much scrutiny, the tush push suddenly looks like every other QB sneak in the NFL. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

If true... MASSIVE bump to Barkley's fantasy value and massive BLOW to Hurts' fantasy value as his stud status is 100% reliant on tush push TDs.

lol ok.

For the plays where it was stuffed, Cam Jurgens was not on the field, his backup Brett Toth was in. This is why those two times they were stuffed.

Whatever you say.

Sorry, which statement are you taking issue with? The fact that Jurgens wasn't on the field or my contention that the most important position in that blocking scheme is the center (which has been filled by an all-pro in Jason Kelce and a probowler in Cam Jurgens) and that tossing in a replacement ham and egger like Toth has an impact on the success rate of the play?

The issue is making excuses.

not making excuses. Providing a retort to the idea that because they can’t jump off sides, the play will be stuffed. They run the play successfully without jumping off sides all the time. The reason it got stuffed against Detroit, is because they had a journeyman back up at the most important position. That’s all.

 

[unckeyherb]

Because, as I've stated about 7 times in this thread, there is simply no evidence outside of three or four replays shown over and over again of Steen jumping a hair early

Which one is Steen and that’s a pretty large hair

Yep, that’s one of the false starts I already mentioned. If you can find the other couple you win. It’s the same three or four examples littering this thread for the past two months.

I would think, with this play being run successfully 100+ times in the last calendar year, but only being successful with false starting, that there would be just myriad examples pointing all of the uncalled false starts out.

But there aren’t. Because they don’t exist. Everyone just keeps posting the same three or four clips and then stating that they represent the other 145 times it’s been run.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

then stating that they represent the other 145 times it’s been run.

I didn’t state that. I replied because you said it’s one guy leaving a hair early

 

[JohnnyU]

Because, as I've stated about 7 times in this thread, there is simply no evidence outside of three or four replays shown over and over again of Steen jumping a hair early

Which one is Steen and that’s a pretty large hair

Yep, that’s one of the false starts I already mentioned. If you can find the other couple you win. It’s the same three or four examples littering this thread for the past two months.

I would think, with this play being run successfully 100+ times in the last calendar year, but only being successful with false starting, that there would be just myriad examples pointing all of the uncalled false starts out.

But there aren’t. Because they don’t exist. Everyone just keeps posting the same three or four clips and then stating that they represent the other 145 times it’s been run.

You’re persistent, I’ll give you that. A lot of the same thing being said over and over and over again.

 

[the moops]

If true... MASSIVE bump to Barkley's fantasy value and massive BLOW to Hurts' fantasy value as his stud status is 100% reliant on tush push TDs.

His tush push TD's are generally 1 yard in length. 2022 - 2025 1 yard QB sneaks across the league are successful 83% of the time. The Eagles were successful 90% of the time. So take off a few points over the year for Hurts but not enough to crater his stud status

 

[Zeppelin]

The reason it got stuffed against Detroit, is because they had a journeyman back up at the most important position. That’s all.

The Lions were the reason it got stuffed.

 

[unckeyherb]

Because, as I've stated about 7 times in this thread, there is simply no evidence outside of three or four replays shown over and over again of Steen jumping a hair early

Which one is Steen and that’s a pretty large hair

Yep, that’s one of the false starts I already mentioned. If you can find the other couple you win. It’s the same three or four examples littering this thread for the past two months.

I would think, with this play being run successfully 100+ times in the last calendar year, but only being successful with false starting, that there would be just myriad examples pointing all of the uncalled false starts out.

But there aren’t. Because they don’t exist. Everyone just keeps posting the same three or four clips and then stating that they represent the other 145 times it’s been run.

You’re persistent, I’ll give you that. A lot of the same thing being said over and over and over again.

hey, everyone keeps making the declarative statement that false starting is the only reason this play works. I'm simply asking for some evidence. I'll stop asking.

 

[need2know]

The hate in here makes you powerful

 

[JohnnyU]

I remember watching rugby back in the 70s. Looks like more fun to play than watch. Same thing with hockey and soccer.

 

[renesauz]

ONly problem was that the false start probably should have been encroachment instead.

If you mean encroachment on the offense then yes. You cannot reach out and touch your opponent prior to the snap (either side). I really don't understand how this would not be a penalty on the offense. The offense of player reached out and made contact with the defense. That is a false start/encroachment.

Yea, not sure why people are being so obtuse about this thing. The defense is allowed to be in the neutral zone until the ball is snapped. Up until that time it is not a penalty unless his move to into the zone makes an offensive player jump

true, but false start means simulating the start of the play....and that wasn't the case either. Whole thing was awkward

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I remember watching rugby back in the 70s. Looks like more fun to play than watch. Same thing with hockey and soccer.

I personally watch a ton of rugby and think its a near--perfect spectator sport. But as has been stated before in here, this football play has nothing at all to do with rugby and doesn't resemble anything that commonly happens in a rugby game.

 

[JohnnyU]

I remember watching rugby back in the 70s. Looks like more fun to play than watch. Same thing with hockey and soccer.

I personally watch a ton of rugby and think its a near--perfect spectator sport. But as has been stated before in here, this football play has nothing at all to do with rugby and doesn't resemble anything that commonly happens in a rugby game.

It's the scrum aspect of it I was referring to and only that.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I remember watching rugby back in the 70s. Looks like more fun to play than watch. Same thing with hockey and soccer.

I personally watch a ton of rugby and think its a near--perfect spectator sport. But as has been stated before in here, this football play has nothing at all to do with rugby and doesn't resemble anything that commonly happens in a rugby game.

It's the scrum aspect of it I was referring to and only that.

sure and I'm not going to nitpick this, but in a scrum the ball is always on the ground. There's no ballcarrier in a scrum. The two teams' scrums are pushing against each other - typically for a second or two at most until the ball is out. There's a rugby action called a "maul" that may somewhat resemble a tush push in a still photo but its a minor play in rugby and the action is a completely different with different rules and goals. I understand there's a former player or coach reportedly involved in the design or coaching of this play and can understand that in terms of teaching leverage, but this is an American football play that has nothing to do with rugby.

 

[Joe Bryant]

hey, everyone keeps making the declarative statement that false starting is the only reason this play works. I'm simply asking for some evidence. I'll stop asking.

Not sure what others think, but I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts. That's why I said I hope they never change it.

I still think my admittedly crazy idea about making a new position officials and calling the official something like a Line Judge could work. But who knows.

 

[JohnnyU]

I remember watching rugby back in the 70s. Looks like more fun to play than watch. Same thing with hockey and soccer.

I personally watch a ton of rugby and think its a near--perfect spectator sport. But as has been stated before in here, this football play has nothing at all to do with rugby and doesn't resemble anything that commonly happens in a rugby game.

It's the scrum aspect of it I was referring to and only that.

sure and I'm not going to nitpick this, but in a scrum the ball is always on the ground. There's no ballcarrier in a scrum. The two teams' scrums are pushing against each other - typically for a second or two at most until the ball is out. There's a rugby action called a "maul" that may somewhat resemble a tush push in a still photo but its a minor play in rugby and the action is a completely different with different rules and goals. I understand there's a former player or coach reportedly involved in the design or coaching of this play and can understand that in terms of teaching leverage, but this is an American football play that has nothing to do with rugby.

Ok, you win. I wasn't trying to make it seem like they were exact, but just the rugby feel to it as far as I remember back in the 70s. I don't even know the rules of rugby. This probably went further than it needed to.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Ravens ran a great fake tush push on 4th and inches for the game-winning touchdown on Sunday, set up by prior variations they'd used on the play involving Andrews and Jackson.

https://x.com/Filmwatchers1/status/1990572037262438615?s=20

 

[Terpman22]

Ravens ran a great fake tush push on 4th and inches for the game-winning touchdown on Sunday, set up by prior variations they'd used on the play involving Andrews and Jackson.

https://x.com/Filmwatchers1/status/1990572037262438615?s=20

Thats just like a rugby run into the in goal area though, right?

 

[Gally]

Thats just like a rugby run into the in goal area though, right?

Not even close. I mean he didn't even "touchdown" the ball in the endzone

 

[unckeyherb]

hey, everyone keeps making the declarative statement that false starting is the only reason this play works. I'm simply asking for some evidence. I'll stop asking.

Not sure what others think, but I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts. That's why I said I hope they never change it.

I still think my admittedly crazy idea about making a new position officials and calling the official something like a Line Judge could work. But who knows.

Read the thread if you're not sure what other think. Most of the detractors here have moved on from "its an injury risk" or the subjective aesthetic complaints to stating that the only way this play is successful is by jumping early. Theres examples on this page and preceeding 3-4 pages.

I guess this is my point Joe. The bolded makes it sound like this is happening every time they run it. I've pointed to three games where this happened. Week 2 against the Chiefs where Steen jumped a milli second early (IMO really only noticable via slow mo replay); Week 3 against the Rams where two guiys jumped early (again, only noticeable via slo mo); Week 10 against GB where Steen and Dickerson both jumped very early (this one was very obvious and every Eagles fan conceded that that should have triggered a flag). It should be noted that minutes before that last one, GB ran a QB sneak where their entire line jumped early and it wasn't called (so maybe bad officiating could be the culprit on that.)

 

[JohnnyU]

rinse / repeat

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Ravens ran a great fake tush push on 4th and inches for the game-winning touchdown on Sunday, set up by prior variations they'd used on the play involving Andrews and Jackson.

https://x.com/Filmwatchers1/status/1990572037262438615?s=20

Thats just like a rugby run into the in goal area though, right?

You’re trying too hard

 

[Terpman22]

Ravens ran a great fake tush push on 4th and inches for the game-winning touchdown on Sunday, set up by prior variations they'd used on the play involving Andrews and Jackson.

https://x.com/Filmwatchers1/status/1990572037262438615?s=20

Thats just like a rugby run into the in goal area though, right?

You’re trying too hard

It takes hard work to get people to understand their own hypocrisy and "moving of the goalposts" so yeah maybe I am.

I'm sure there are folks in this very thread posting 10x the amount I do though

But we have made progress, we are slowly learning some of the complaints about this play are not true

The "ITS RUGBY" thing is no longer a thing with an actual rugby guy coming in and saying thing that everyone keeps saying is just like rugby turns out to be...

not like rugby at all

Injury risk
ITS RUGBY!

 

[Joe Bryant]

hey, everyone keeps making the declarative statement that false starting is the only reason this play works. I'm simply asking for some evidence. I'll stop asking.

Not sure what others think, but I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts. That's why I said I hope they never change it.

I still think my admittedly crazy idea about making a new position officials and calling the official something like a Line Judge could work. But who knows.

Read the thread if you're not sure what other think. Most of the detractors here have moved on from "its an injury risk" or the subjective aesthetic complaints to stating that the only way this play is successful is by jumping early. Theres examples on this page and preceeding 3-4 pages.

I guess this is my point Joe. The bolded makes it sound like this is happening every time they run it. I've pointed to three games where this happened. Week 2 against the Chiefs where Steen jumped a milli second early (IMO really only noticable via slow mo replay); Week 3 against the Rams where two guiys jumped early (again, only noticeable via slo mo); Week 10 against GB where Steen and Dickerson both jumped very early (this one was very obvious and every Eagles fan conceded that that should have triggered a flag). It should be noted that minutes before that last one, GB ran a QB sneak where their entire line jumped early and it wasn't called (so maybe bad officiating could be the culprit on that.)

I read the thread.

I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts.

 

[JohnnyU]

hey, everyone keeps making the declarative statement that false starting is the only reason this play works. I'm simply asking for some evidence. I'll stop asking.

Not sure what others think, but I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts. That's why I said I hope they never change it.

I still think my admittedly crazy idea about making a new position officials and calling the official something like a Line Judge could work. But who knows.

Read the thread if you're not sure what other think. Most of the detractors here have moved on from "its an injury risk" or the subjective aesthetic complaints to stating that the only way this play is successful is by jumping early. Theres examples on this page and preceeding 3-4 pages.

I guess this is my point Joe. The bolded makes it sound like this is happening every time they run it. I've pointed to three games where this happened. Week 2 against the Chiefs where Steen jumped a milli second early (IMO really only noticable via slow mo replay); Week 3 against the Rams where two guiys jumped early (again, only noticeable via slo mo); Week 10 against GB where Steen and Dickerson both jumped very early (this one was very obvious and every Eagles fan conceded that that should have triggered a flag). It should be noted that minutes before that last one, GB ran a QB sneak where their entire line jumped early and it wasn't called (so maybe bad officiating could be the culprit on that.)

I read the thread.

I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts.

Not sure it’s very funny to the fans of opposing teams.

 

[BladeRunner]

hey, everyone keeps making the declarative statement that false starting is the only reason this play works. I'm simply asking for some evidence. I'll stop asking.

Not sure what others think, but I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts. That's why I said I hope they never change it.

I still think my admittedly crazy idea about making a new position officials and calling the official something like a Line Judge could work. But who knows.

Read the thread if you're not sure what other think. Most of the detractors here have moved on from "its an injury risk" or the subjective aesthetic complaints to stating that the only way this play is successful is by jumping early. Theres examples on this page and preceeding 3-4 pages.

I guess this is my point Joe. The bolded makes it sound like this is happening every time they run it. I've pointed to three games where this happened. Week 2 against the Chiefs where Steen jumped a milli second early (IMO really only noticable via slow mo replay); Week 3 against the Rams where two guiys jumped early (again, only noticeable via slo mo); Week 10 against GB where Steen and Dickerson both jumped very early (this one was very obvious and every Eagles fan conceded that that should have triggered a flag). It should be noted that minutes before that last one, GB ran a QB sneak where their entire line jumped early and it wasn't called (so maybe bad officiating could be the culprit on that.)

All of the previous arguments are still valid. No one has moved on. We're simply discussing the false start aspect of it now. You're assuming incorrectly to try and prove your clearly biased position. I think it's safe to say that you, nor any Eagles fan, would be zealously defending this very-questionable-at-best play if it was a different team.

 

[unckeyherb]

hey, everyone keeps making the declarative statement that false starting is the only reason this play works. I'm simply asking for some evidence. I'll stop asking.

Not sure what others think, but I don't think the false starting is the only reason this play works.

I think the officials comically refusing to call the false starting over and over puts the comedy value off the charts. That's why I said I hope they never change it.

I still think my admittedly crazy idea about making a new position officials and calling the official something like a Line Judge could work. But who knows.

Read the thread if you're not sure what other think. Most of the detractors here have moved on from "its an injury risk" or the subjective aesthetic complaints to stating that the only way this play is successful is by jumping early. Theres examples on this page and preceeding 3-4 pages.

I guess this is my point Joe. The bolded makes it sound like this is happening every time they run it. I've pointed to three games where this happened. Week 2 against the Chiefs where Steen jumped a milli second early (IMO really only noticable via slow mo replay); Week 3 against the Rams where two guiys jumped early (again, only noticeable via slo mo); Week 10 against GB where Steen and Dickerson both jumped very early (this one was very obvious and every Eagles fan conceded that that should have triggered a flag). It should be noted that minutes before that last one, GB ran a QB sneak where their entire line jumped early and it wasn't called (so maybe bad officiating could be the culprit on that.)

All of the previous arguments are still valid. No one has moved on. We're simply discussing the false start aspect of it now. You're assuming incorrectly to try and prove your clearly biased position. I think it's safe to say that you, nor any Eagles fan, would be zealously defending this very-questionable-at-best play if it was a different team.

Validate that it’s an injury risk play. I’ll wait.

 

[Zeppelin]

None of this will matter next year when it's banned.