Should Eagles' tush push be banned? It was not long ago.

[notorious]

People are starting to get tired of the once illegal "Tush Push".

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/should-...222308344.html

Should Eagles' tush push be banned?

Frank Schwab

The NFL has banned plays or strategies for different reasons through its history.

Sometimes it's for safety reasons. Once in a while it's because a play becomes uncompetitive. Oftentimes the league bans things just for the aesthetics of the game.

The Philadelphia Eagles' "tush push" checks all of those boxes.

When the Eagles have faced a third- or fourth-and-short the past two seasons, everyone knows what's coming and everyone knows it'll work. The Eagles align with Hurts under center, with a couple of teammates right behind him. On the snap, Hurts sneaks it forward and gets pushed from behind by his teammates. Just about every time it's a first down or a touchdown. Even if it's stopped once, good luck stopping it a second time.

It's pretty much unstoppable, and the frustration of it has gotten to the unfortunate point in which people are wishing harm on Hurts.
Eagles run tush push better than anyone else

It's surprising the NFL didn't ban the play last offseason. Like plenty of other strategic innovations, like the shift in Major League Baseball, sometimes leagues tip their cap to inventive teams and ban a play or strategy for the good of the game.

But the play stayed. And the Eagles keep running it. Hurts was asked about it Wednesday, and didn't seem to care if it got banned.

But, until that happens, the Eagles are still going to be unstoppable doing it.

"I have no thoughts on it," Hurts told the media Wednesday, when asked if the tush push should be banned. "We're the only people that are doing it as well as we are. There was a guy who wanted me hurt for it, too."

Hurts didn't clarify what he meant by the last comment. Though Wednesday, Chris Simms of NBC Sports said that if he was a defensive coach he'd be asking his players to go "headhunting" on the quarterback. Yikes.

Nobody, except maybe Simms, is saying the Eagles are doing anything wrong. It's within the rules and the Eagles take advantage of it.

Maybe it will take an injury to get the NFL's competition committee to reconsider. There seems to be a reasonable risk of injury when a large man is being pushed from behind into a scrum of much larger men. It's not a play that has a lot of suspense, after the Eagles run it over and over to success.

Then again, maybe if you ban the push, the Eagles would still be as good at quarterback sneaks. Having a quarterback with an insanely strong lower body running behind the NFL's best offensive line is probably going to work too, as former NFL defensive lineman J.J. Watt pointed out.

We're going to see a lot more of the play this season. But let's not insinuate that Hurts deserves to be injured just because the Eagles found a practically unstoppable play.

[DrunkBassGuitar]

I don't really have a problem with it but I kinda think they should get rid of it because its so boring and predictable now but mostly i want it to be banned because it would be another thing for eagles fans to be mad about and that's funny to me

[BWillie]

Since we are too big of a group of pussies to do it...yes.

[wazu]

I don't really care if it's banned or not, but since it's not I wish we would do it. Probably not with Patrick but it doesn't need to be a QB when it's that blatantly obvious what you're doing anyway.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Maybe? But I really hate making rules clearly meant to impact one team. If it's so easy to exploit, other teams would be doing it.

I think it takes a pretty specific skill set at QB and IOL to run it correctly so often.

I’m fine with banning any play that the Chiefs don’t run, because it benefits us.

I just don’t see it happening.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

No.
Don't like it? Git gud.

This is my opinion on stuff like this. Find a way to stop it. Bitching to the league office is not a valid method for this.

[jettio]

If teams want the rule change, they need to start a fight every time the opponent runs the play.

If it is for a first down in the middle of the field, offer no resistance to the linemen and let them burrow on the ground, then stand on them and then beat the living shit out of the ball carrier while holding him up and helping him keep getting slow forward progress. try to make him fumble, and keep beating the shit out of him and have a scrum fight that involves too many players to kick out anyone.

The way to make it a player safety issue is the same way taunting became a player safety issue. Have Aqib Talib rip off Michael Crabtree's chains and then say taunting has to be outlawed to prevent fighting provoked by taunting.

[LoneWolf]

As long as my wife doesn't ban the tush push, I don't care what the NFL does.

[Red Dawg]

Definitely bad for TV and totally a pussy move.

[TEX]

It's an ugly play for sure, but I don't want it banned. Just figure out a way to stop it.

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by jettio

If teams want the rule change, they need to start a fight every time the opponent runs the play.

If it is for a first down in the middle of the field, offer no resistance to the linemen and let them burrow on the ground, then stand on them and then beat the living shit out of the ball carrier while holding him up and helping him keep getting slow forward progress. try to make him fumble, and keep beating the shit out of him and have a scrum fight that involves too many players to kick out anyone.

The way to make it a player safety issue is the same way taunting became a player safety issue. Have Aqib Talib rip off Michael Crabtree's chains and then say taunting has to be outlawed to prevent fighting provoked by taunting.

Guess the problem is that football is violent, short yardage is violent, injuries happen on just about every play.

This play is actually probably has less a risk of injury given no one really has a running start. It is not like a ball carrier getting blown up 2 yards in the backfield by a defender coming free.

Using risk of injury is more of a wink wink we do not like the play. Though I think the NFL should look at how the center and other lineman are aligned in the formation. A lot of times Kelce looks to have his head almost passed the ball. Maybe they should go to a true neutral zone and no ones helmet can be in the area of the ball...

[Gravedigger]

I think the league should've put a squash on it when they had the chance before the season. Now that you've let that time pass without change it'll be harder to justify changing it now.

[jettio]

Originally Posted by Shields68

Guess the problem is that football is violent, short yardage is violent, injuries happen on just about every play.

This play is actually probably has less a risk of injury given no one really has a running start. It is not like a ball carrier getting blown up 2 yards in the backfield by a defender coming free.

Using risk of injury is more of a wink wink we do not like the play. Though I think the NFL should look at how the center and other lineman are aligned in the formation. A lot of times Kelce looks to have his head almost passed the ball. Maybe they should go to a true neutral zone and no ones helmet can be in the area of the ball...

My view is that assisting the runner was banned for most of football history.

This play is the extreme example of assisting the runner that was not contemplated when the rule was changed to allow assisting the runner.

A lot of time when a law or rule is changed to end a prohibition, there will arise an example that proves why there was a prohibition in the first place.

I think it is okay to assist the runner if it is not part of the initial play design, like CEH's TD on Sunday.

But I am not in favor of a play that has a formation where some of the players' jobs are to push the ball carrier as soon as ball is snapped.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

I hated it when the aiding the runner rule was changed to make it legal. The refs also blow the whistle way to late for forward progress on this play as well. If it's stopped, the whistle should blow, but they wait until moment is achieved again and then blow the whistle.

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by jettio

My view is that assisting the runner was banned for most of football history.

This play is the extreme example of assisting the runner that was not contemplated when the rule was changed to allow assisting the runner.

A lot of time when a law or rule is changed to end a prohibition, there will arise an example that proves why there was a prohibition in the first place.

I think it is okay to assist the runner if it is not part of the initial play design, like CEH's TD on Sunday.

But I am not in favor of a play that has a formation where some of the players' jobs are to push the ball carrier as soon as ball is snapped.

I have no problem with outlawing the assist of the runner. Just disagree that it would be for safety reasons. I also not sure it will change a lot on the play. The play really is tough to stop on how low the OL gets, the Ol's size and strentgh and Hurts leg drive. Maybe a fine point but the other players would be still allowedd to push the OL guys to move the pile.

[Hammock Parties]

As soon as someone's QB gets his leg broken doing this teams will stop.