Packers Push to Ban the **** Push

[El Guapo]

It's been well documented that the Packers introduced a proposal to ban the **** push, citing player safety concerns and pace of play. I've got somewhat mixed feelings on the play.
1) The player safety issue is not really an issue, it is theoretical. There is no evidence that it has led to any significant injuries.
2) The pace of play seems to almost specifically refer to the playoff game versus Washington, where it took six **** push attempts to score due to all of the Washington penalties. That sequence wasn't pretty but it was an isolated incident and could be legislated differently without banning the play.
3) The Packers enjoyed the same kind of monopoly on the Lombardi Sweep. It wasn't the play necessarily that was unstoppable, but the personnel that Lombardi groomed were excellent executioners of the play. The same seems to apply to the **** Push. Any team can run it but you need the right players to execute it flawlessly to make it nearly unstoppable.
4) Fairness - defensive players aren't allowed to push from behind, so a LB can not push a DL from behind to stop the **** push. However, an offensive player can push the QB from behind.
4a) The NFL pendulum has swung WAY over towards the offense in recent decades. There are many things that the offense can do that the defense can not, such as hands to the face. This is no different.

I think that banning the play itself is a bit of an overstep. My solutions would be:
* Either allow the defense the same opportunity to push from behind, potentially leading to more injuries, or remove the ability for any player to push from behind to aid penetration. I would think that more pushing from behind would lead to more injuries, but since offensively it hasn't led to more injuries I would be inclined to allow the defense to do it for a season and then analyze the data the next offseason. This gives defenses a fair chance of stopping the play. Pushing from behind on kicking attempts would likely still be prohibited, but since FGs and XPs are such gimmes I would be tempted to allow it in all instances to see how things change. Wouldn't it be great if on the final drive of a close game, it's not a foregone conclusion that a team attempting a game-winning FG from the 20yd line will score?
* Change the rules to increase the penalty for committing the same or similar fouls on the same down. This would obviously require a lot of discussion to get correct. Essentially this would address the Washington/Philadelphia scenario from the playoffs. The Commanders committed 1 offsides and 3 encroachment penalties on that down. There could be a penalty escalation after the second penalty was committed.

How do you all feel?

 

[mradtke66]

4) Fairness - defensive players aren't allowed to push from behind, so a LB can not push a DL from behind to stop the **** push. However, an offensive player can push the QB from behind.

I think defenders are allowed to push from behind, the exclusion only relates to kicking plays and protecting the long snapper. On standard scrimmage plays, go nuts.

I would personally like to bring back the "assisting the runner" penalties, though I doubt it impacts the Eagles all that much. This is just a QB sneak with extra bits.

 

[gopkrs]

I would like to get rid of the push. And also the push in the middle of the field. It looks moe like rugby than football

 

[Magooch]

I can kind of see some for both directions.

I do think *something* needs to be changed there, but I'm not exactly sure what.

Practically speaking, simply eliminating the play entirely might be the simplest and easiest course of action. I have a hunch that any efforts to legislate and/or regulate specific aspects of the play would cause more issues than they'd solve. I feel like you'd end up having 5 minutes of referee-conferencing on every single QB sneak (and perhaps unintentionally on other similar plays/situations) to determine if there was or wasn't any sort of infraction. Imagine the discussions... Did he push that guy? Well, how MUCH push is allowed? Maybe he just had a hand on his back, but didn't "push". And so on, ad infinitum...

(You may recall a similar hair-splitting analysis with regards to the "aid" on the Bears' blocked kick against us)

 

[tynimiller]

IF on the defensive side you cannot do this or on special teams you cannot assist another in jumping or pushing the pile for a block you shouldn't be allowed to do it offensively - PERIOD. Make it all legal or none of it.

 

[PackerDNA]

So our biggest accomplishments this off season will be pushing to get rid of one of our best players and banning the **** push. Great.Super Bowl !!!

 

[Firethorn1001]

Everyone cites no injuries until one day a premier player will have their leg blown out and then all hell will break loose (like how the home plate rule was changed after Buster Posey had his leg broken).

It will take a catastrophic injury to happen 1st before they revert to any previous rule where you can't push the runner. I'm just surprised no one has blown out a knee yet in these scrums that break out pushing the pile.

And thought I read that they aren't trying to ban the push in totally, but rather legislate how fast a player can be pushed. But overall agree. Either ban across the board or allow it across the board.

Personally, as a fan watching for entertainment value, I find the play mind numbingly boring and the entertainment value of randomly inserting a 30 second commercial into the middle of a drive.

 

[El Guapo]

Citing potential injuries as a justification in a sport that features violent high-speed collisions is a bit disingenuous by the Packers. If their goal was to lower injuries, they should ban hitting and tackling.

It's an add-on to make their proposal carry more weight. Pace of play is a somewhat legitimate argument but only because of the playoff snafu. Otherwise the pace is very close to a QB sneak.

The proposal is to ban the play because it seems generally unstoppable. My response would be not to let the Eagles get close to the 1st down marker.

 

[Magooch]

I do think to some extent it's using the NFL's same language and/or precedent against them, too. The league loves to cite "player safety" as a driving factor in all sorts of rule changes (and that *is* often a future justification - wherein someone *could* get injured - rather than pointing to a definitive existing increase in injuries in a given situation) and in the same way the league has outlawed "leverage" situations on defense under the guise of "player safety". You're probably right that it's more or less just an add-on argument and not really the "heart" of it but at the same time I feel like the league has kind of invited these arguments with their inconsistent approach/application of rules

 

[tynimiller]

Honestly for me there is no difference between assisting the runner by leveraging against them to advance it then at the snap you have a motioning TE get set on all fours or hands ready to launch a smaller running back into the air too high for anyone to stop them on goal line plays - pretty sure this is illegal already, if not MLF type to get Hardman ready for the canon play.

I just think it is BS to push the runner, yet not allow defensive side of the ball to do this as well to explode the line or attack the ball on kicks...

 

[El Guapo]

Generally I think that pushing a runner/teammate is more dangerous than most acts because it removes the player's ability to disengage if they feel an injury.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

It's been well documented that the Packers introduced a proposal to ban the **** push, citing player safety concerns and pace of play. I've got somewhat mixed feelings on the play.
1) The player safety issue is not really an issue, it is theoretical. There is no evidence that it has led to any significant injuries.
2) The pace of play seems to almost specifically refer to the playoff game versus Washington, where it took six **** push attempts to score due to all of the Washington penalties. That sequence wasn't pretty but it was an isolated incident and could be legislated differently without banning the play.
3) The Packers enjoyed the same kind of monopoly on the Lombardi Sweep. It wasn't the play necessarily that was unstoppable, but the personnel that Lombardi groomed were excellent executioners of the play. The same seems to apply to the **** Push. Any team can run it but you need the right players to execute it flawlessly to make it nearly unstoppable.
4) Fairness - defensive players aren't allowed to push from behind, so a LB can not push a DL from behind to stop the **** push. However, an offensive player can push the QB from behind.
4a) The NFL pendulum has swung WAY over towards the offense in recent decades. There are many things that the offense can do that the defense can not, such as hands to the face. This is no different.

I think that banning the play itself is a bit of an overstep. My solutions would be:
* Either allow the defense the same opportunity to push from behind, potentially leading to more injuries, or remove the ability for any player to push from behind to aid penetration. I would think that more pushing from behind would lead to more injuries, but since offensively it hasn't led to more injuries I would be inclined to allow the defense to do it for a season and then analyze the data the next offseason. This gives defenses a fair chance of stopping the play. Pushing from behind on kicking attempts would likely still be prohibited, but since FGs and XPs are such gimmes I would be tempted to allow it in all instances to see how things change. Wouldn't it be great if on the final drive of a close game, it's not a foregone conclusion that a team attempting a game-winning FG from the 20yd line will score?
* Change the rules to increase the penalty for committing the same or similar fouls on the same down. This would obviously require a lot of discussion to get correct. Essentially this would address the Washington/Philadelphia scenario from the playoffs. The Commanders committed 1 offsides and 3 encroachment penalties on that down. There could be a penalty escalation after the second penalty was committed.

How do you all feel?

I would favor some sort of modification to the existing rule.

For example, if a player is lined up directly under center, he cannot be assisted by his teammates. If he hands it off to another player, that player can be assisted. Or if the player lines up in shotgun/wildcat, then that player can be assisted.

Just a thought...I'm open to other suggestions.

 

[Magooch]

I think Goodell's recent comments/approach on the matter makes it clear he is intending to get rid of the play and IMO it's a matter of "when" rather than "if" at this point. The straw-poll was not particularly close, last I heard with only 16 votes in favor rather than the requisite 24. The fact that they then elected to "table" the matter until next month suggests to me they're planning to revise their approach and continue with trying to remove it (if you were indifferent and just polling opinion and came back with those results, I think you'd just move on rather than review again a month later, but that's just my opinion). But it sounds more and more like the intention is to roll back to the pre-2005 "aiding the runner" rules; in this way it serves to eliminate the "**** push" while also not appearing to single out Philly:

"I think that makes a lot of sense in many ways because that expands it beyond that single play...There are a lot of plays where you see people pushing or pulling somebody that are not in the **** push formation that I think do have an increased risk of injury. So I think the Committee will look at that and come back in May with some proposals.”

In any case I think the thing to remember is that the league is ultimately in the entertainment business. They will bring up player safety concerns (and I'm not saying it isn't a concern at all) but at the end of the day they are going to try and present the most entertaining three-ish hour "program" that they can. I saw some poll on ESPN today where something like 70%+ of respondents said it was not an "entertaining" play to watch, and I think many coaches share the same sentiment. So basically I think the league's looking at it and thinking they can remove a portion of their "show" that the majority of viewers simply don't find entertaining. It's nothing against Philly personally and I think injury concerns are secondary; they just think people don't like watching it very much (and they're probably right) and want to trim away the "less entertaining" bits wherever possible.

(Of course, I don't really know how to reconcile that with the kickoff/onside changes, but whatever...)

 

[Magooch]

As far as keeping the play (which again, at this point I don't think is very likely), the most sensible solution I can think of is to approach it similar to how they're doing onside kicks right now (which, admittedly - I don't like that either, lol). Make the offense "declare" that they are going to run that play; if nothing else it lets the defense stack the box and barrel down without worrying about a fake or something. That would serve to level the playing field to some degree at least, although does nothing for alleged injury concerns (and if anything would likely increase them). I could also see it being legislated to only be allowed to "declare" that play on 4th down or something; I saw a stat recently that showed there were something like a dozen third-and-short situations where Philly ran the **** Push, failed to pick up the first, then ran it again on 4th and converted for a first something like 98% of the time in total. So, i dunno.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Bit of a tangent here, but there was a time when the "**** push" was highly illegal:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Did you know that in the famous Ice Bowl Sneak photo, Chuck Mercein (#30) isn't signaling a touchdown?
He actually thought he was the one getting the ball on this play, when he realized he wasn't, he couldn't slow himself down due to the field conditions. At the time, it was a penalty to push another player forward, so in order to show the refs he wasn't pushing Bart, he threw his hands up in the air creating the iconic photo.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Thirteen Below]

Bit of a tangent here, but there was a time when the "**** push" was highly illegal:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Did you know that in the famous Ice Bowl Sneak photo, Chuck Mercein (#30) isn't signaling a touchdown?
He actually thought he was the one getting the ball on this play, when he realized he wasn't, he couldn't slow himself down due to the field conditions. At the time, it was a penalty to push another player forward, so in order to show the refs he wasn't pushing Bart, he threw his hands up in the air creating the iconic photo.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That was one hell of a heads-up play by Mercein. Extraordinary situational awareness, and a very impressive split-second decision in an incredibly stressful and totally unexpected situation. Ever since I learned this just a few years back, I've thought very highly of Mercein.

I've often wondered whether his decision was the factor that sent us to Super Bowl II.

 

[El Guapo]

There were many amazing aspects about that play, including Mercein. If I remember correctly, in the complete Ice Bowl DVD that I own they interview Mercein where he tells that story.

The rule didn't change until 2005.

It sounds like they are looking to rescind the rule change with some modifications.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I would like to get rid of the push. And also the push in the middle of the field. It looks moe like rugby than football

It does look like Rugby!

One reason it works so well for Philly is Hurts. The guy squats 550 lbs, same as Barkley. Hurts gets an explosive start after the snap. Of course the shoving puts it all together, but I don't think a play should be banned because it requires a freakishly athletic QB to carry it out.