Should the Tush Push play be banned? (1 Viewer)

[Zeppelin]

 

[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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" (called or uncalled, but easy to see) ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

More than three maybe. My point is that this play is not reliant on a false start to be successful. That’s all. Can you admit that?

We’ve got people in this thread still maintaining that it’s an injury risk with zero evidence, so yeah forgive my hyperbolic responses. I’ve asked for some evidence of serial false starting and just keep getting none.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" (called or uncalled, but easy to see) ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

More than three maybe. My point is that this play is not reliant on a false start to be successful. That’s all. Can you admit that?

We’ve got people in this thread still maintaining that it’s an injury risk with zero evidence, so yeah forgive my hyperbolic responses. I’ve asked for some evidence of serial false starting and just keep getting none.

I don’t go to eagles games and film the tush push on my phone. I’ve seen the videos posted on the internet like everyone else.

 

[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.)

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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" (called or uncalled, but easy to see) ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

More than three maybe. My point is that this play is not reliant on a false start to be successful. That’s all. Can you admit that?

We’ve got people in this thread still maintaining that it’s an injury risk with zero evidence, so yeah forgive my hyperbolic responses. I’ve asked for some evidence of serial false starting and just keep getting none.

I don't think it's anymore of risk for injury than any other play, but that false starting is cheating if they are letting them get away with it most of the time and must be stopped. If they have to use the overhead camera and the booth ref calls it, then fine. By the way, someone call a false start on #74 of the Chiefs please.

 

[Terpman22]

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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

This whole “how much do they false start on this one play” means nothing if we don’t know the stats of other plays and how often this happens.

Statistics

Standard deviations

All that good stuff

One guy saying “ I found 3 times this happened”

Another guy going “Oh way more”

Then yet another guy “Gun to your head it’s DEFINITELY more than 3 times”

Like say we found 15 false starts on 100 Tush Pushes via the “super slow mo/that silly part time ref can’t see it” video angle

But then we find out actually this also happens 15/100 normal average plays.

What knowledge is gained if we only focus on one play? Re the false start at least

I knew the first response from the other side would be...."but what about all the other plays"....cause thats the "go to" and I almost included a sentence in my post about that and now I wish I would have cause I would have been right.....could have bet that **** on draftkings....this thread and discussion is about this particular play and not about all the other stuff that is missed or not missed....I will stand by the fact that nobody would bet what I said on PHI only false starting 3 times on this play....in fact....I bet if we set the number at let's say 15 where they did and it wasn't called....nobody would take the bet...and that might be low....

This response is confusing. This is sports. Everything is compared to some sort of standard.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I haven't read the thread (assume it's a trainwreck) but what would banning the tush push look like in practice? What distinguishes the tush push from other QB sneaks that would make for a clean rule that prohibits one but allows the rest?

I hate the Eagles, love rugby, and voted that it probably should not be banned. Figure out how to stop it.

 

[Terpman22]

I haven't read the thread (assume it's a trainwreck) but what would banning the tush push look like in practice? What distinguishes the tush push from other QB sneaks that would make for a clean rule that prohibits one but allows the rest?

I hate the Eagles, love rugby, and voted that it probably should not be banned. Figure out how to stop it.

Hey welcome to the thread! Its mainly people on one side repeating the same thing and people on the other side running thru a list of reasons not backed by fact.

But since you are a rugby lover, I have to ask - on a scale of 1 to 10 "How much is this play like rugby"

Bc believe it or not one of the reasons folks in here want to ban it simply "Its a rugby play"

Yet most rugby folks disagree

Curious what you think, just on that point alone

Thanks for coming by to check out the carnage!

 

[Zeppelin]

assume it's a trainwreck

It is.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I haven't read the thread (assume it's a trainwreck) but what would banning the tush push look like in practice? What distinguishes the tush push from other QB sneaks that would make for a clean rule that prohibits one but allows the rest?

I hate the Eagles, love rugby, and voted that it probably should not be banned. Figure out how to stop it.

He welcome to the thread! Its mainly people on one side repeating the same thing and people on the other side running thru a list of reasons not backed by fact.

But since you are a rugy lover, I have to ask - on a scale of 1 to 10 "How much is this play like rugby"

Bc believe it or not one of the reasons folks in here want to ban it simply "Its a rugby play"

Yet most rugby folks disagree

Curious what you think, just on that point alone

Thanks for coming by to check out the carnage!

I think the similarities to rugby are superficial. There are a lot of differences between the tush push and any play that happens in rugby. They're very different games.

Besides, even if it was true that "it's a rugby play," that's not a cogent argument against it. Kicking a ball is a soccer play, should kicking be banned from football? Passing a ball forwards to a teammate is a basketball play, should that be banned from football?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I haven't read the thread (assume it's a trainwreck)

Some people have questioned and even been critical of Philadelphia.

I'll let you guess how that went.

For me, I love all our fans.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Mainly just curious what people actually want written into the rule book. Like if all 32 teams voted to ban "the tush push" tomorrow, what is the actual rule we're putting in place to stop it? I'm assuming we all still want our teams to be allowed to run a QB sneak on 4th & inches.

 

[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.

I would suggest that you head on over to your local optometrist.

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.

I am gonna go out on a limb here and guess that he will not validate anything.

^Cute^ I'm going to suggest that you curl up to a bag of sand and a hammer.

 

[unckeyherb]

Mainly just curious what people actually want written into the rule book. Like if all 32 teams voted to ban "the tush push" tomorrow, what is the actual rule we're putting in place to stop it? I'm assuming we all still want our teams to be allowed to run a QB sneak on 4th & inches.

I've said more than once that the only cogent argument to "ban" the play is the point that takes issue with offensive players assisting a ball carrier. To ban the tush push, you would need to go back to the pre-2005 rule that disallowed this. Of course, the rule that allows assistance to the runner was put into place because....the prior rule against was, wait for it.... too hard to officiate, lol.

And of course, that would affect lots of other plays. Like I said, last Sunday I watched ten different times where a RB or QB got stood up at the goaline and the rest of the offense came and pushed the pile over. All of those examples would end up being flags also, fwiw.

 

[unckeyherb]

I haven't read the thread (assume it's a trainwreck)

Some people have questioned and even been critical of Philadelphia.

I'll let you guess how that went.

For me, I love all our fans.

Who was critical of Philadelphia?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I haven't read the thread (assume it's a trainwreck) but what would banning the tush push look like in practice? What distinguishes the tush push from other QB sneaks that would make for a clean rule that prohibits one but allows the rest?

I hate the Eagles, love rugby, and voted that it probably should not be banned. Figure out how to stop it.

what would look different is you cannot push the ball carrier directly in the back.....like the defense isn't allowed to line up and push the nose tackle directly in the back....it would at lease level the playing field a little in that regard....

while they could get rid of pushing the "pile" as well.....I don't see that happening as it happens on both sides and is legal for both the offense and the defense......so those piles being pushed at the goal line and other areas of the field would still happen....the critical piece would be not "pushing, pulling, or carrying" the actual ball carrier.....while still somewhat difficult on occasion to see if someone is pushing someone attached to the pile instead of the actual ball carrier, it would at least be a step in the right direction to try and even out this particular tush push play...

theoretically teams could still line up the way they do now in the tush push and try to get low, etc....just eliminating the push in the back....so you could still have what we all know as the more traditional QB sneak....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" (called or uncalled, but easy to see) ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

More than three maybe. My point is that this play is not reliant on a false start to be successful. That’s all. Can you admit that?

We’ve got people in this thread still maintaining that it’s an injury risk with zero evidence, so yeah forgive my hyperbolic responses. I’ve asked for some evidence of serial false starting and just keep getting none.

I don't think it's anymore of risk for injury than any other play, but that false starting is cheating if they are letting them get away with it most of the time and must be stopped. If they have to use the overhead camera and the booth ref calls it, then fine. By the way, someone call a false start on #74 of the Chiefs please.

I agree risk of injury is not an issue....but I also don't think it's cheating, they are simply playing within the rules.....if the play is officiated correctly, they should be flagged if they do something wrong,,,,,thats not cheating.....

#74 will have at least two penalties on Sunday ....and I would take the over...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

what would look different is you cannot push the ball carrier directly in the back.....like the defense isn't allowed to line up and push the nose tackle directly in the back....it would at lease level the playing field a little in that regard....

while they could get rid of pushing the "pile" as well.....I don't see that happening as it happens on both sides and is legal for both the offense and the defense......so those piles being pushed at the goal line and other areas of the field would still happen....the critical piece would be not "pushing, pulling, or carrying" the actual ball carrier.....while still somewhat difficult on occasion to see if someone is pushing someone attached to the pile instead of the actual ball carrier, it would at least be a step in the right direction to try and even out this particular tush push play...

That used to be the rule, and they changed it, because it was too hard to officiate.

 

[Terpman22]

what would look different is you cannot push the ball carrier directly in the back.....like the defense isn't allowed to line up and push the nose tackle directly in the back....it would at lease level the playing field a little in that regard....

while they could get rid of pushing the "pile" as well.....I don't see that happening as it happens on both sides and is legal for both the offense and the defense......so those piles being pushed at the goal line and other areas of the field would still happen....the critical piece would be not "pushing, pulling, or carrying" the actual ball carrier.....while still somewhat difficult on occasion to see if someone is pushing someone attached to the pile instead of the actual ball carrier, it would at least be a step in the right direction to try and even out this particular tush push play...

That used to be the rule, and they changed it, because it was too hard to officiate.

Don't ban "scrums" that happen organically on the field.

Only ban the play where someone directly is pushed in the back

Which is the Eagles

And ^still^ the *reasons* why are either still vague, made up/debunked, or just straight up "No way around it, targeted to just make the Eagles stop running it for ...well just because"

This last point is why us Eagles fans are so up in arms about it b/c the argument at this point is almost a political one where we are saying things that aren't true, even if we know it (injuries!) or we are exaggerating stuff without actually bringing evidence to the table (The Eagles false start *EVERY* time on the play!), and it just sure feels like folks are just going to say whatever they want anyway to support banning it because....

 

[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.)

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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" (called or uncalled, but easy to see) ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

More than three maybe. My point is that this play is not reliant on a false start to be successful. That’s all. Can you admit that?

We’ve got people in this thread still maintaining that it’s an injury risk with zero evidence, so yeah forgive my hyperbolic responses. I’ve asked for some evidence of serial false starting and just keep getting none.

I don't think it's anymore of risk for injury than any other play, but that false starting is cheating if they are letting them get away with it most of the time and must be stopped. If they have to use the overhead camera and the booth ref calls it, then fine. By the way, someone call a false start on #74 of the Chiefs please.

I agree risk of injury is not an issue....but I also don't think it's cheating, they are simply playing within the rules.....if the play is officiated correctly, they should be flagged if they do something wrong,,,,,thats not cheating.....

#74 will have at least two penalties on Sunday ....and I would take the over...

Sorry for sneaking in the #74 often in this thread. I do it mostly in jest, but not all jest. The Chiefs get penalized on the road a lot, but not at home. They are the 4th fewest penalized team at home and I think #74 gets away with those penalties more at home. In fact, I'd be willing to bet he commits a false start or lines up illegally on pass plays 80% time. I have nothing to base that on except what I see and a feeling.

 

[Terpman22]

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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" (called or uncalled, but easy to see) ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

More than three maybe. My point is that this play is not reliant on a false start to be successful. That’s all. Can you admit that?

We’ve got people in this thread still maintaining that it’s an injury risk with zero evidence, so yeah forgive my hyperbolic responses. I’ve asked for some evidence of serial false starting and just keep getting none.

I don't think it's anymore of risk for injury than any other play, but that false starting is cheating if they are letting them get away with it most of the time and must be stopped. If they have to use the overhead camera and the booth ref calls it, then fine. By the way, someone call a false start on #74 of the Chiefs please.

I agree risk of injury is not an issue....but I also don't think it's cheating, they are simply playing within the rules.....if the play is officiated correctly, they should be flagged if they do something wrong,,,,,thats not cheating.....

#74 will have at least two penalties on Sunday ....and I would take the over...

Sorry for sneaking in the #74 often in this thread. I do it mostly in jest, but not all jest. The Chiefs get penalized on the road a lot, but not at home. They are the 4th fewest penalized team at home and I think #74 gets away with those penalties more at home. In fact, I'd be willing to bet he commits a false start or lines up illegally on pass plays 80% time. I have nothing to base that on except what I see and a feeling.

Had to look it up. Per PFF 69th ranked OT of 77 that qualify. So he's terrible even though he also is the most penalized player the past half decade.

Yikes.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

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.

I'm not going to relitigate the injury issue we already went thru on the first 8 pages of this thread.

And, to be very clear here, YOU not accepting people's arguments on the injury risk is NOT, in any way, proof that the injury risk doesn't exist or is an invalid argument. That's just you unwilling to accept anything other than your own extremely biased narrative and talking points.

I will repeat: 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.

So just to be clear, in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, you still maintain this play is an injury risk. The fact that no one has gotten injured on this play, in your opinion, doesn’t make a difference to that argument at all.

Similarly to the false start issue, there being 3 examples against the hundreds of times they’ve run the play doesn’t move the needle for you.

Talk about biased narrative and talking points lol. You’re one step away from sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping and yelling. Good lord.

3 times lol

So how many then? I’ve posted three games where there’s video. How many more times do you think? 5? 25? 100? Any other examples other than the three I posted or is it just your gut? Let me guess, you’re not going to waste your time but you just know it’s more.

I would imagine if push came to shove (no pun intended) and somebody called your bluff....and forced you to exchange verified personal information....and then put let's say the value of your house and cars and savings and retirement accounts on the line .....(you know to make it worth it).....and said they were going to take the time to find down the line video plays of PHI tush push plays and bet they could find more then the "three" (called or uncalled, but easy to see) ....you would tuck tail and crawl into a corner and start pissing yourself....so maybe pump the brakes on the bravado a little.....

More than three maybe. My point is that this play is not reliant on a false start to be successful. That’s all. Can you admit that?

We’ve got people in this thread still maintaining that it’s an injury risk with zero evidence, so yeah forgive my hyperbolic responses. I’ve asked for some evidence of serial false starting and just keep getting none.

I don't think it's anymore of risk for injury than any other play, but that false starting is cheating if they are letting them get away with it most of the time and must be stopped. If they have to use the overhead camera and the booth ref calls it, then fine. By the way, someone call a false start on #74 of the Chiefs please.

I agree risk of injury is not an issue....but I also don't think it's cheating, they are simply playing within the rules.....if the play is officiated correctly, they should be flagged if they do something wrong,,,,,thats not cheating.....

#74 will have at least two penalties on Sunday ....and I would take the over...

Sorry for sneaking in the #74 often in this thread. I do it mostly in jest, but not all jest. The Chiefs get penalized on the road a lot, but not at home. They are the 4th fewest penalized team at home and I think #74 gets away with those penalties more at home. In fact, I'd be willing to bet he commits a false start or lines up illegally on pass plays 80% time. I have nothing to base that on except what I see and a feeling.

we all see it....don't apologize....he probably deserves his own thread.....pretty much every pass play we hope and pray not to see the yellow flag signal fire up on the TV screen and if we do....dollars to donuts it's on him..

I'm not a big fan of the other comments that basically littered the shark pool for the last few years (and yours here) that the league is on the take to help KC or whatever....like I mean it sounds like there are 3 teams that get fewer penalties called on them at home.....but of course we don't talk about them...

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Fans of 31 DIFFERENT teams:

Ewww Brother what’s that?!?

Eagles fans:

Democracy is at stake!!!