Packers Push to Ban the **** Push

[Curly Calhoun]

Actually, it was arguably one of the most iconic plays in the history of the NFL. I'd have a hard time thinking of very many more, but that's possibly because (as a Packer fan) I've seen it hundreds of times over the years, in both film clips and still photos. Giants fans, New Orleans fans, etc probably don't see it the same way.

Cowboy fans probably don't think much of it either.

 

[OldSchool101]

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?

The first thing I thought of was Aaron Rodgers catching player substitutions. It’s part of the rule but I could see someone similarly proposing to ban that?.
It’s not like they are shot putting the player over the 1st down marker or gymnasts stacking into a pyramid and collapsing over marker. Teams should be able to reverse Engineer an answer.

Find middle ground that if a team use
that play more than once per game, it costs them a Timeout.

 

[Poppa San]

By banning the "assist the ball carrier" ability they also get rid of the scrum 10 yards downfield when the defense stands up the runner and the OL comes flying downfield to give the pile a shove forward. That has an opportunity for injuries when someone's leg gets caught.

 

[ben_pursell]

Any team that wants to ban the QB push, holds that position because they are ineffective at executing it. Many teams run the play and only the Eagles have had extraordinary success with it. There is no safety issue and there is no fairness issue, since every team has the same opportunity to use it. Attempting to ban this play is weak and cowardly.

 

[rmontro]

I have no objection to the push. In fact, it's my girlfriend's favorite play.

 

[gopkrs]

Any team that wants to ban the QB push, holds that position because they are ineffective at executing it. Many teams run the play and only the Eagles have had extraordinary success with it. There is no safety issue and there is no fairness issue, since every team has the same opportunity to use it. Attempting to ban this play is weak and cowardly.

I don't like it because I'm a purist. Been around for a long time and it's never been a part of the game. Pushing RBs forward in the middle of the field like in rugby with the idiot announcer saying what strength he has. It's a joke. Saying it's all a matter of self interest is a joke imo too.

 

[lambeaulambo]

I don't like it because I'm a purist. Been around for a long time and it's never been a part of the game. Pushing RBs forward in the middle of the field like in rugby with the idiot announcer saying what strength he has. It's a joke. Saying it's all a matter of self interest is a joke imo too.

Those kids better get the hell off my lawn too!!!!

 

[OldSchool101]

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’d say I like just Ban pushing unless you are 2 yards area past LOS.

Such as OL pushing a player fighting for yards downfield already.

 

[Poppa San]

I have no objection to the push. In fact, it's my girlfriend's favorite play.

I know.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

And the effort to end the push gets voted down. The push lives on.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/45252032/proposal-ban-****-push-nfl-fails-two-votes-sources-say

 

[gopkrs]

I liked that you gave us the news. Not that they kept it

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Eagles made sure that the Packers knew the news.

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My stance on the "Push", at least right now, I agree that they continue to allow it. The more I think about it, it is really no different than the TE, O-line or anyone else aiding a RB, WR, TE, etc. that is carrying the ball after a pass or handoff. If you want to go back to the old rules of "no aiding a runner", than fine, but I don't think the NFL should pick or choose when it is or isn't ok to aid a runner.

Teams that can't stop the play or can't run it, need to think about it in another way. "If you can't beat em', than join em'. Defenses will figure out a way to stop the play, but until such time, every offense should be putting this play in their playbook and perfecting it. We actually saw the Packers do it a few times with Tucker Kraft going in motion and then stopping to take the snap from center. I believe both times were a success (made 1st down). Personally, I would rather not see the Packers run that play too many times. I think the odds of a defense stopping it or a fumble occurring, are higher than Love taking the snap.

All that said, what I would like to see done is a tweaking of the neutral zone rules and enforcements. If the center can line up on the ball (inside the neutral zone), than why should the defense be able to do the same, with at least one player. Also, refs need to keep an eye on offensive centers. They should not be able to move the ball forward from the original LOS. I see this happen all the time. If it is 4th and inches and the center moves the ball forward a foot before snapping it, than not only is the play starting past the first down marker, but the neutral zone has been incorrectly moved by that same distance.

I'm also tired of the flinches by either side of the ball getting called as illegal procedure or encroachment. As long as everyone is on their side of the LOS before the ball is snapped, its fair game.

 

[El Guapo]

Eagles made sure that the Packers knew the news.

Yet Florio is reporting that the league office asked the Packers to carry the proposal, it wasn't a proposal by Green Bay. Much like a legislator, we were just carrying the bill - not its champion.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profo...uited-packers-to-propose-failed-****-push-ban

 

[Thirteen Below]

I wonder why they asked us. Florio is right; it made us look like crybabies because they beat us twice last year. Hope we get some sort of payback down the road on some issue or another.

By the way, clicking on that link doesn't work because of the "****" put there by the profanity filter. The way to get around that is to click the link, and then when the page doesn't open, replace the "****" with the actual word.

 

[tynimiller]

2 votes from passing. 22-10 is 2/3 but sounded like they needed 24 if I got numbers right.

 

[El Guapo]

Correct - that is what I heard on Sportscenter this morning was that 24 votes were required.

 

[gopkrs]

Isn't there something actually in the rulebook against it?

 

[mradtke66]

I wonder why they asked us.

We don't have an owner to look bad proposing this. And our proxy owner, Mark Murphy, is retiring in a couple of months.

Perfect reason for us to float it.

 

[gopkrs]

We don't have an owner to look bad proposing this. And our proxy owner, Mark Murphy, is retiring in a couple of months.

Perfect reason for us to float it.

How do you look bad when the majority don't want it?

 

[Voyageur]

To me, the **** push should be illegal. It being legal really destroys the old rule that said you could not aid a ball carrier to move the ball forward. If you can push him, the next thing is they'll let them grab the guys in front of them and be a flying wedge.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To me, the **** push should be illegal. It being legal really destroys the old rule that said you could not aid a ball carrier to move the ball forward. If you can push him, the next thing is they'll let them grab the guys in front of them and be a flying wedge.

They changed the rule several years ago, to allow "aiding the runner." That is why you see big Olineman plowing into a pileup, moving the ball carrier forward.

If they go back to the old rules, than yes, the fanny push would be a penalty.

 

[gopkrs]

So can two big guys take a really small guy, and throw him into the endzone?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So can two big guys take a really small guy, and throw him into the endzone?

Only in cartoons.

Would they call that the "Douche toss"?

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

 

[Voyageur]

So can two big guys take a really small guy, and throw him into the endzone?

In a way that's what they're doing. If you watch the play the guy with the ball barely has his feet on the ground. I just don't understand how they can say that a "wedge formation" is dangerous therefore illegal and turn right around and say that a wedge play like this is the exception to the rule.

They say they can push them forward but can't physically hold them up. Tell me that they aren't keeping that guy upright so they can move the whole pile forward. There's no way an official could possibly see that they were doing it because the guy with the ball is surrounded by his own players.

Only in cartoons.

Would the call that the "****** toss"?

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

I believe that guy is Comrade Pushkin who lives in Moscow and works for Putin. It seems like every time an oligarch or high government official decides to take a header out of a window, old Pushkin is nearby.