Tush Push - Do the rules apply for this play or not? Doesn't seem like it (1 Viewer)

[Gally]

f anyone ran this play, I'd hate it. It's changing the whole game. They're now beginning to do it on third and two. What's to stop them from running nearly every play if they get two yards out of it each time?

Awful play for the sport.

If they only get two yards every time they won't every get a first down. Simple math. (I guess you weaseled out with the word "nearly") hahahahaa


In seriousness this is my complaint and dislike of the play. I expect most teams to get to a point of perfecting this play and I believe it gives an unfair advantage to the offense since they deliver the blow knowing the snap count that they will get that 1-3 yards every time. If I am wrong and the Eagles are just an exception then let it keep going. it's their good execution and shouldn't be disallowed. But if every team starts being proficient as I expect and then it turns 2nd and 5 or less into just running this until they get the first it will be bad for the game as it's not the football game we like.

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage

Sorry, but using a lineman to climb up his back to block a kick is the very definition of the word leverage.

 

[infantsam]

it's not the football game we like.

Well yeah it is if that's OK w/ you.

Salt-N-Pepa - Push It (Official Music Video)

REMASTERED IN HD!Official Music Video for Push It performed by Salt-N-Pepa.Listen now to "Push It"https://saltnpepa.lnk.to/PushItVDFollow Salt-N-Pepa:Faceboo...

www.youtube.com

 

[SwampDawg]

Can't stand this play and wish the NFL would have banned it. I am surprised more teams haven't done it, maybe worried about the QB getting injured? I don't see the Eagles stopping unless the NFL does something or Hurts get stomped on/crushed and misses games because of it.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

This is the best point I’ve heard for those who are against the play.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

This is the best point I’ve heard for those who are against the play.

Ditto, kudos to Johnny U.

What’s funny is people assume anyone opposed is an Eagles hater. But I’ve loved the Eagles since 1982. First jersey ever was #31 Wilbert Montgomery. (as a kid growing up in Green Bay)

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

This is the best point I’ve heard for those who are against the play.

Counterpoint -- just because "leverage" is illegal in one situation (a special teams play) doesn't mean it necessarily has to be illegal in all other settings in the game, such as an offensive play from scrimmage. For example, defenders can make contact with receivers on some parts of the field but not others; players can grab and hold other players in some situations but not others. Its fine that leveraging off another player when defending a field goal is illegal (although I think that would be fun if allowed) but doesn't necessarily follow that leveraging off another player on an offensive play from scrimmage also necessarily has to be illegal just because its also a case of "leverage." On a normal QB sneak, as well as any running play, the ballcarrier can slam into the backs of his OL to create leverage going forward. For me, its not all that different for a player to come from behind and drive the ball carrier forward.

I also think the injury discussion is a red herring. Certain actions like targeting, crack-back blocking, grabbing a face mask, hitting a kicker or a defenseless player, horsecollar, etc. are illegal because they are clearly dangerous and risk injury based on actual experience. I don't see the inherent danger in this play at all. In football, large men are constantly bashing into each other from all angles.

In any event, its been an interesting discussion for me to follow so thanks to all who've participated, other than those few ignorant souls who insist on calling this a rugby play.

 

[FarFromHome]

It's always kind of fun when players or coaches force leagues to make rule changes. My favorite is Shaq. Obviously forced the league to change backboards, but he was literally the driving force to forcing to league to allow zone defense. Crazy. Will the league be forced to change rules in this specific case? Who knows.

 

[Moonlight]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

This is the best point I’ve heard for those who are against the play.

Counterpoint -- just because "leverage" is illegal in one situation (a special teams play) doesn't mean it necessarily has to be illegal in all other settings in the game, such as an offensive play from scrimmage. For example, defenders can make contact with receivers on some parts of the field but not others; players can grab and hold other players in some situations but not others. Its fine that leveraging off another player when defending a field goal is illegal (although I think that would be fun if allowed) but doesn't necessarily follow that leveraging off another player on an offensive play from scrimmage also necessarily has to be illegal just because its also a case of "leverage." On a normal QB sneak, as well as any running play, the ballcarrier can slam into the backs of his OL to create leverage going forward. For me, its not all that different for a player to come from behind and drive the ball carrier forward.

I also think the injury discussion is a red herring. Certain actions like targeting, crack-back blocking, grabbing a face mask, hitting a kicker or a defenseless player, horsecollar, etc. are illegal because they are clearly dangerous and risk injury based on actual experience. I don't see the inherent danger in this play at all. In football, large men are constantly bashing into each other from all angles.

In any event, its been an interesting discussion for me to follow so thanks to all who've participated, other than those few ignorant souls who insist on calling this a rugby play.

The few, the proud, the ignorant will call it a rugby play and something they just do not like. Sign me up.

 

[Amused to Death]

Sirianni had a message for the critics.

"I get that some people are complaining about it, but stop it. Stop the play. It’s not as automatic as people think as we’re seeing across the NFL. Our players make it work, right?" he said.

 

[Deamon]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

 

[Deamon]

What's to stop them from running nearly every play if they get two yards out of it each time?

Ummm... 4th and 4?

 

[Deamon]

When we see it being run on second and six

Do you think there's 5 downs in the NFL?

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

 

[Deamon]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t. I think you can see the difference.

 

[Deamon]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

 

[Deamon]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

Why is it legal for an RB to use a lineman for leverage?

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

Why is it legal for an RB to use a lineman for leverage?

I suppose being pushed from behind by a lineman can be interpreted as leverage. Leverage is being used against the defense for both the blocked field goal attempt and a running play. One is illegal and one isn’t.

 

[Deamon]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

Why is it legal for an RB to use a lineman for leverage?

I suppose being pushed by a lineman can be interpreted either way. Leverage is being used against the defense for both the blocked field goal attempt and a running play.

Ya, you've lost me on all this leverage stuff but you seem to not want to get off of that word. If you want to ban all "leverage" plays, then you're going to go down a rabbit hole and the NFL as we know it will change completely. And like someone else said, why does all leverage need to be banned? Hitting is okay in some senses, but not in others. Pushing a guy is okay in some scenarios, but not in others.

But IF you really are focused on only 2 plays and ignoring all the rest, and IF you really are needing all leverage (in these two plays only) to be equally banned, then I'd say that they are different in that:

Player A is performing an action by pushing HIMSELF up to achieve something he (player A) couldn't do without using his teammates body for.

In this sense, Player A is performing an action by pushing his teammate, and player A isn't the one benefiting from this. (The guy pushing the QB isn't personally jumping higher, running faster, etc. because of his action. Player A is not using player B for any leverage.)

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

Why is it legal for an RB to use a lineman for leverage?

I suppose being pushed by a lineman can be interpreted either way. Leverage is being used against the defense for both the blocked field goal attempt and a running play.

Ya, you've lost me on all this leverage stuff but you seem to not want to get off of that word. If you want to ban all "leverage" plays, then you're going to go down a rabbit hole and the NFL as we know it will change completely. And like someone else said, why does all leverage need to be banned? Hitting is okay in some senses, but not in others. Pushing a guy is okay in some scenarios, but not in others.

But IF you really are focused on only 2 plays and ignoring all the rest, and IF you really are needing all leverage (in these two plays only) to be equally banned, then I'd say that they are different in that:

Player A is performing an action by pushing HIMSELF up to achieve something he (player A) couldn't do without using his teammates body for.

In this sense, Player A is performing an action by pushing his teammate, and player A isn't the one benefiting from this. (The guy pushing the QB isn't personally jumping higher, running faster, etc. because of his action. Player A is not using player B for any leverage.)

Sorry, but that is the only example I can come up with at this time. It seems like cheating to me, just as climbing up the back of a linem to block a kick is.

 

[Deamon]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

Why is it legal for an RB to use a lineman for leverage?

I suppose being pushed by a lineman can be interpreted either way. Leverage is being used against the defense for both the blocked field goal attempt and a running play.

Ya, you've lost me on all this leverage stuff but you seem to not want to get off of that word. If you want to ban all "leverage" plays, then you're going to go down a rabbit hole and the NFL as we know it will change completely. And like someone else said, why does all leverage need to be banned? Hitting is okay in some senses, but not in others. Pushing a guy is okay in some scenarios, but not in others.

But IF you really are focused on only 2 plays and ignoring all the rest, and IF you really are needing all leverage (in these two plays only) to be equally banned, then I'd say that they are different in that:

Player A is performing an action by pushing HIMSELF up to achieve something he (player A) couldn't do without using his teammates body for.

In this sense, Player A is performing an action by pushing his teammate, and player A isn't the one benefiting from this. (The guy pushing the QB isn't personally jumping higher, running faster, etc. because of his action. Player A is not using player B for any leverage.)

Sorry, but that is the only example I can come up with at this time. It seems like cheating to me, just as climbing up the back of a linem to block a kick is.

"Cheating" would be breaking a rule. The people who make the rules have concluded that this is perfectly legal, and is not 'cheating'.

That's like playing Monopoly by the rules and calling someone a cheater for following those rules.

 

[JohnnyU]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

Why is it legal for an RB to use a lineman for leverage?

I suppose being pushed by a lineman can be interpreted either way. Leverage is being used against the defense for both the blocked field goal attempt and a running play.

Ya, you've lost me on all this leverage stuff but you seem to not want to get off of that word. If you want to ban all "leverage" plays, then you're going to go down a rabbit hole and the NFL as we know it will change completely. And like someone else said, why does all leverage need to be banned? Hitting is okay in some senses, but not in others. Pushing a guy is okay in some scenarios, but not in others.

But IF you really are focused on only 2 plays and ignoring all the rest, and IF you really are needing all leverage (in these two plays only) to be equally banned, then I'd say that they are different in that:

Player A is performing an action by pushing HIMSELF up to achieve something he (player A) couldn't do without using his teammates body for.

In this sense, Player A is performing an action by pushing his teammate, and player A isn't the one benefiting from this. (The guy pushing the QB isn't personally jumping higher, running faster, etc. because of his action. Player A is not using player B for any leverage.)

Sorry, but that is the only example I can come up with at this time. It seems like cheating to me, just as climbing up the back of a linem to block a kick is.

"Cheating" would be breaking a rule. The people who make the rules have concluded that this is perfectly legal, and is not 'cheating'.

That's like playing Monopoly by the rules and calling someone a cheater for following those rules.

I said it seems like cheating to me. Obviously it isn’t.

 

[Chaka]

Can't get away from it. Start the car to leave to work and its 1what my sports radio station is discussing. Smh. They did bring up a good point. It does put the defensive lineman at increased injury risk. They kept saying after the first star defensive player injury the NFL will address this. Maybe I guess.

Not gonna happen. Folks in here have already told us that there is no increased injury risk. How do they know? Because it hasn’t happened so far, thus it never will.

Never is a long time. That isn't the reason for banning it however. It's called leverage. If a defensive player can't climb the back of a lineman to block a field goal, then why should a player be allowed to push someone from behind? Both plays require using another player as leverage.

Having someone climb up and stand on the shoulders of a D-lineman to block a punt is not leverage and is certainly not comparable to the play we're talking about. How about when a RB is running behind a blocker and literally pushes him into an oncoming tackler. You see that all the time. That is the definition of using another player as leverage. Or gang tackling like @Snotbubbles said above.

And regarding the injury thing, I'd submit that you can get injured on any play. However, typically injuries occur when some or all of the players are running at full or near full speed and collide with each other OR someone is being tackled in an awkward way. There is almost no movement on this play and no one is tackling the ball carrier in this scenario.

Yep... @JohnnyU's repeated "leverage" comparison isn't remotely accurate, but he's gonna keep posting about it.

I only saw one post countering it. Everyone else wants to ignore it. Some agree.

So are you against all leverage posts, meaning you want to change the entire game and not allow RB's to push blockers into tacklers?

No, but one is designed and one isn’t.

So smarty pants, why is it illegal for a defensive player to use lineman as leverage on one play and not illegal for lineman to use a ball carrier as leverage for another?

Because they're entirely different plays.

 

[need2know]

Looking forward to this thread going on for years

 

[Chaka]

I think it's an ugly play for sure. But it isn't uglier than traditional a QB sneak or slamming a RB into the center of a scrum.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Amused to Death]

I think it's an ugly play for sure. But it isn't uglier than traditional a QB sneak or slamming a RB into the center of a scrum.

Much ado about nothing.

And when the league does eventually ban the play, the Eagles will still run it but without the pushing. And they'll still convert at a high rate as long as they have a top O line.

 

[ChicoCat]

I do think last night there was an instance where Dallas Goedert was carrying Hurts during the Brotherly Shove that probably should have been called a penalty. As it stands, I'm not sure those two guys behind Hurts are actually doing a helluva lot to move that pile. I think the Eagles superior O line and a strong QB that is good at finding the hole in the line are the overwhelming main reason it's been successful.

ETA: 3rd and Goal with 9+ left in the 3rd.... the Bucs stoppd them on this play. It looks like a Goedert grab/pull though.....

 

[Mitchie]

I think it's an ugly play for sure. But it isn't uglier than traditional a QB sneak or slamming a RB into the center of a scrum.

Much ado about nothing.

And when the league does eventually ban the play, the Eagles will still run it but without the pushing. And they'll still convert at a high rate as long as they have a top O line.

well ok then that seems fine.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Great football.

By the way, I saw other teams doing it thins weekend. It worked every time. This is not something the Eagles alone are proficient at or specialize in. It's a stupid arrangement and a stupid play.

What were the other teams? I'd like to go back and verify the plays as I'm trying to get a count on conversions so far this year. But it's weird, every time someone makes a comment like this and I ask them which team it was, they suddenly forget where they saw it

I've seen it run 6 times by other teams this year and it's worked 3 out of 6

Colts - failed
Jags - failed
Dolphins - failed
Patriots - success (twice)
Giants - success

The Dolphins one was really interesting as they actually lined up their Fullback (Alec Ingold) at QB to run the play. He lined up under center and got the push, but they still failed. I would have thought it would've been mentioned here since it was a pretty noteworthy attempt with the FB lined up, and it was on redzone during the most talked about game of the week.

 

[rockaction]

Patriots against the Jets on Sunday. It actually came up almost short. One of the Jets nearly used Mac Jones as someone whose head you twist off.

There was another success, but I can't recall it.

You probably should take people's words for it. it's beginning to happen all over, FreeBaGeL's inventory notwithstanding.

 

[da_budman]

This kind of reminds me of the shovel pass play that KC runs at the goal line. (without the argument about whether it is legal or not lol) Other teams try it but as of yet I havent seen anybody as successful with it as KC is.

 

[Terpman22]

This thread is funny.

I'm just here so I don't get fined.

 

[Biabreakable]

13 pages about this and counting?

I mean clever rhyme and funny euphamism but what?

Super boring play that is situationally effective for most teams as long as I can remember now being questioned as unfair?

Im shuked.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I have just been informed on my Facebook page that this is no longer to be called the "tush push". The name going forward is to be the "brotherly shove".

 

[Da Guru]

Why was a defender jumping on the back of another defender to block a FG try banned?

 

[FarFromHome]

I have just been informed on my Facebook page that this is no longer to be called the "tush push". The name going forward is to be the "brotherly shove".

I actually like it. Hope it sticks

 

[trader jake]

Pat McAfee just told you all to shut your yaps and get over it.

Well, that counts as "analysis" on ESPN nowadays.

And when the league does eventually ban the play

At least we all agree there.

As it stands, I'm not sure those two guys behind Hurts are actually doing a helluva lot to move that pile.

Um, no. That's exactly why those players are there and a huge reason the (soon to be illegal and sometimes currently illegal) play is so successful.

 

[Amused to Death]

At least we all agree there.

It'll be banned at some point when enough people whine about it. Can't beat it, ban it.

 

[-OZ-]

Patriots against the Jets on Sunday. It actually came up almost short. One of the Jets nearly used Mac Jones as someone whose head you twist off.

There was another success, but I can't recall it.

You probably should take people's words for it. it's beginning to happen all over, FreeBaGeL's inventory notwithstanding.

Let’s assume all 32 teams start using it.
So what? I’d not want the panthers to run it with Bryce, but they can direct snap to Chuba instead.
It seems unlikely that all 32 would have equal success. But if the titans are able to consistently be successful with tannehill running the push play, I’d have to say the play is unfair. As it stands, it’s just that the eagles are really good in the trenches.

 

[Football Jones]

The play is currently legal. I’d expect the Eagles to continue to run it as long as it’s successful.

That said, it’s getting too much attention for its own good now. It’s a hot topic on call-in radio shows & there’s even petitions being sent to NFL headquarters from irate fans, lol.

The CC decided to let it go another year & see what happens, but rules get changed all the time for various reasons, including fan enjoyment. I’m neutral on it. You can only run the play with a yard or so to go & lots of plays work with 3rd/4th & 1.

The play was illegal less than 20 years ago & it’ll no doubt be changed back to where there’s no pushing allowed next season. And let’s face it…it’s their only option because who wants to hear about this nonsense all the time? We’re 3 games in & I’m sick of it already.

The bottom line is it’s not worth the aggravation. Nobody is going to win the Super Bowl because of the fanny pack, anyway.

 

[unckeyherb]

Why was a defender jumping on the back of another defender to block a FG try banned?

ugh we're back to this one?

 

[Insein]

Breaking: Grown men still crying about a modified QB sneak. More at 11

 

[unckeyherb]

Pat McAfee just told you all to shut your yaps and get over it.

Well, that counts as "analysis" on ESPN nowadays.

And when the league does eventually ban the play

At least we all agree there.

As it stands, I'm not sure those two guys behind Hurts are actually doing a helluva lot to move that pile.

Um, no. That's exactly why those players are there and a huge reason the (soon to be illegal and sometimes currently illegal) play is so successful.

As I said previously, I don't know about other teams running this play BUT I've seen every single one of the Eagles running it. Jalen gets the first down/TD on his own often. Other teams do it and even with the guys behind, they often fail. Jalen is the reason the play is so successful for the Eagles. He can squat two interior linemen.

 

[Amused to Death]

The play was illegal less than 20 years ago & it’ll no doubt be changed back to where there’s no pushing allowed next season.

Prior to 2005, it was a penalty to push or aid the ball carrier, not the QB, but any ball carrier. To be clear, this is what you think they should go back to - no pushing of any ball carrier anywhere on the field?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

13 pages about this and counting?

I mean clever rhyme and funny euphamism but what?

Super boring play that is situationally effective for most teams as long as I can remember now being questioned as unfair?

Im shuked.

I guess you have a short memory then, because it hasn’t been around forever. Nor has it even been legal forever.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I think it's an ugly play for sure. But it isn't uglier than traditional a QB sneak or slamming a RB into the center of a scrum.

Much ado about nothing.

And when the league does eventually ban the play, the Eagles will still run it but without the pushing. And they'll still convert at a high rate as long as they have a top O line.

This
Without a doubt
They are just the best at EVERYTHING

Might as well just cancel the season now imo

 

[Biabreakable]

13 pages about this and counting?

I mean clever rhyme and funny euphamism but what?

Super boring play that is situationally effective for most teams as long as I can remember now being questioned as unfair?

Im shuked.

I guess you have a short memory then, because it hasn’t been around forever. Nor has it even been legal forever.

Say again?

How is this any different than a QB sneak besides a different name?