Cowboys’ Micah Parsons Doesn’t Believe NFL Should Ban Eagles’ ‘Tush Push’

[Jake]

I'm sure if the Cowboys were running that play so effectively, rather than the Eagles, no one here would call for banning it.

I'll go one further, any discussion to ban it would then portrayed as more evidence of the NFL's bias against the Cowboys.

 

[reddyuta]

I agree with Micah too,most teams are unable to replicate this because they dont have that good of an Oline.

 

[Beast_from_East]

There are only 2 reasons to ban a play.

A. The play has an increased chance of causing serious injury, see the horse collar tackle made famous by Roy Williams.

B. The play is "cheese" and takes advantage of the rules in such a way that the offense has a clear competitve advantage over the defense, meaning the play is almost impossible to stop.

As to point A, I have seen no significant injuries resulting from this play and nobody has shown any evidence that this play in particular has a higher chance of injury than just a standard QB sneak. Thus, as of right now point A seems moot. As to point B, if the play itself was so called "unstoppable" then other teams should be able to use the same play and acheive similar results. However, this is not the case. Many teams have tried to copy this play and have had little to no success with it. Thus, it seems there is something specific Philly is doing or they just have better personnel to run the play better than most other teams.

Thus, there is currently no reason to ban this play.

 

[KingCorcoran]

For a long time you couldn't push one of your offensive teammates and it makes sense from a football perspective to not be able to do so. It should be banned IMO. It just doesn't look like Football. But that's an offseason discussion.

As far as Philly goes, Hurts and Philly will still be the best in the NFL at QB sneaks by far. With Hurts' strength and their great OL, I'm not really sure it would be all that different. I think the idea of the "tush push" has outgrown the actual incremental benefit over a regular QB sneak at this point. On most plays the QB is already stopped or past the yards to gain by the time a teammate behind him touches him. It's usually almost an immediate thing. Philly will still dominate on 4th and 1.

Don’t overdue it with the Philly number one stuff. But pushing the ball carrier was allowed starting with the 2006 season. It is not new. The short yardage play the Eagles developed is unique now, but every team is pushing the ball carrier when the opportunity present itself. It is the owners call. They changed the rule after the 2005 season. They can change it back if the spirit moves them. They won’t.

 

[StarLord]

On game day, he's everyone's favorite player. But the media talks to him...

 

[DuceizBak]

It's funny because we're one of the few teams with a QB and line that is strong enough to do it.

Dak can do it, Josh Allen can do it, and maybe Richardson

 

[Flamma]

There are only 2 reasons to ban a play.

A. The play has an increased chance of causing serious injury, see the horse collar tackle made famous by Roy Williams.

B. The play is "cheese" and takes advantage of the rules in such a way that the offense has a clear competitve advantage over the defense, meaning the play is almost impossible to stop.

As to point A, I have seen no significant injuries resulting from this play and nobody has shown any evidence that this play in particular has a higher chance of injury than just a standard QB sneak. Thus, as of right now point A seems moot. As to point B, if the play itself was so called "unstoppable" then other teams should be able to use the same play and acheive similar results. However, this is not the case. Many teams have tried to copy this play and have had little to no success with it. Thus, it seems there is something specific Philly is doing or they just have better personnel to run the play better than most other teams.

Thus, there is currently no reason to ban this play.

Yep. It was assumed this play would be used by all teams with great success. That hasn't happened. So there isn't any reason to ban it.

At one time the NFL had a rule that you couldn't directly push or aid a player with the ball. When did they change that rule, and why?

 

[Pola_pe_a]

As I mentioned, people against the Tush Push play claim injuries occur to RUGBY players. The argument to ban the play is for safety. I am not claiming it is factually or empirically correct.

Here is an abstracts of a study on the subject. I did not read the study because it requires payment but the study was conducted out of concern for injuries that occur in RUGBY scrums. This is the same concern voiced by those proposing a ban on the Tush Push play. Where heads and neck are concerned, the NFL has tended to be very cautious lately.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/49/7/425

A scrum in rugby is totally different than what happens in the Brotherly Shove. Rugby scrum has so much greater forces involved.

The hooker is completely off the ground, held up by the props. When the scrums engage if the hooker gets his head pushed the wrong way the force of the scrum will break their neck. I saw it firsthand at a college rugby match.

Nothing remotely close to that happens in the shove.

 

[Pola_pe_a]

Hurts’ strength is way overplayed in regards to the shove. The biggest thing Hurts does is give the line half a count before really pushing forward. Too many QBs immediately fire out w/ the o-line which is a mistake. He also keeps his feet. Again lots of QB’s try to jump. Once you lose your feet you aren’t going anywhere.

Go back and watch Brady, he was great at sneaks because he gave a pause and kept his feet.

 

[Pola_pe_a]

Have you really never seen the defense holding up a ball carrier while he's still struggling for yards and an offensive lineman come up and try to knock the pile forward? They are certainly ramming into a pile. The scenario you give is the problem with it and the problem with the tush push IMO. You are fighting for yardage with all your strength against players trying to push you back. Eventually your body gives against the pressure being put on it instead of snapping. However, when it is not just your body fighting against the pressure, there is less give for it. Eventually IMO someone is going to be pushing the QB while defenders are trying to shove him back and we're going to see a knee buckle because his body can't naturally react to the pressure by giving or releasing against it.

We're not made for the force of contact that NFL players receive, which is one of the main reasons why there are so many injuries in the league. When you increase that force, you increase the chance of injury. The tush push increases that force on the QB sneak.

Now, note that I am not talking about blocking. I'm talking about pushing. If defenders come up to gang-tackle a running back and an offensive lineman tries to dislodge them with a block, that's different than pushing. There are examples of both in this video:

If you’re concerned about the forces than mandate once a defensive player engages a ball carrier, no one else can help. That’s the only fair way to address the ”injury risk”. After all, why should only d players be allowed to pile on.
In reality those pushing scrums don’t cause injuries.

Just because one team is better at something than others doesn’t mean it’s unfair or should be outlawed. And trying to wrap the argument in the banner of player safety is disingenuous since there’s been nothing demonstrating a higher injury risk.

 

[Creeper]

There are only 2 reasons to ban a play.

A. The play has an increased chance of causing serious injury, see the horse collar tackle made famous by Roy Williams.

B. The play is "cheese" and takes advantage of the rules in such a way that the offense has a clear competitve advantage over the defense, meaning the play is almost impossible to stop.

As to point A, I have seen no significant injuries resulting from this play and nobody has shown any evidence that this play in particular has a higher chance of injury than just a standard QB sneak. Thus, as of right now point A seems moot. As to point B, if the play itself was so called "unstoppable" then other teams should be able to use the same play and acheive similar results. However, this is not the case. Many teams have tried to copy this play and have had little to no success with it. Thus, it seems there is something specific Philly is doing or they just have better personnel to run the play better than most other teams.

Thus, there is currently no reason to ban this play.

I am not disagreeing, but how many times has this play been run in the last 2 seasons? It is not a large enough sample size to determine the chance of injury accurately. It will take only 1 broken neck or serious injury for this play to be banned. That's how the NFL works.

The real issues it the play became possible when the league ended the rule that penalized pushing a ball carrier forward. But we see linemen pushing RBs forward more often than they run this scrum play. It happens all the time. Pushing the pile is a common scene in the NFL now. I don't see how you can ban the scrum play while allowing linemen to push RBs anywhere else on the field.

 

[Creeper]

A scrum in rugby is totally different than what happens in the Brotherly Shove. Rugby scrum has so much greater forces involved.

The hooker is completely off the ground, held up by the props. When the scrums engage if the hooker gets his head pushed the wrong way the force of the scrum will break their neck. I saw it firsthand at a college rugby match.

Nothing remotely close to that happens in the shove.

First, I am not making this argument, the opponents of the play are. I do not know enough about Rugby to make this argument. However, I have found studies done on neck injuries to rugby players directly resulting from "scrummaging". So there is concern in rugby regarding this time of physical activity.

The argument I have heard about the scrum play in football is that the offensive and defensive linemen are getting low and them ramming into each other full force and then other players are behind them pushing them forward adding additional force to the down linemen. The argument is all this force applied to the neck of a player could potential cause an injury. I think they are worried that one guy gets his head in the wrong position and all that force is applied from the front and behind and the result will be something catastrophic.

Again, I am not making the argument. My point is those looking to ban the play are not doing it because it is successful. They are doing to because there is a concern for injury. These people might be overestimating the actually forces involved. I don't know. But what I do know is if there is even an injury, those opponents of the play will win out. Even then, it does not make them right.

 

[Pola_pe_a]

First, I am not making this argument, the opponents of the play are. I do not know enough about Rugby to make this argument. However, I have found studies done on neck injuries to rugby players directly resulting from "scrummaging". So there is concern in rugby regarding this time of physical activity.

The argument I have heard about the scrum play in football is that the offensive and defensive linemen are getting low and them ramming into each other full force and then other players are behind them pushing them forward adding additional force to the down linemen. The argument is all this force applied to the neck of a player could potential cause an injury. I think they are worried that one guy gets his head in the wrong position and all that force is applied from the front and behind and the result will be something catastrophic.

Again, I am not making the argument. My point is those looking to ban the play are not doing it because it is successful. They are doing to because there is a concern for injury. These people might be overestimating the actually forces involved. I don't know. But what I do know is if there is even an injury, those opponents of the play will win out. Even then, it does not make them right.

It’s a flawed argument there is zero similarity between this and a rugby scrum. Literally zero.