NFL owners tabled a discussion on the tush push this week, delaying a decision on whether or not to ban the polarizing play that has been made famous by the Philadelphia Eagles over the past couple of seasons.
While the NFL has no objective injury or player safety data to justify banning the play, Rich McKay, the chairman of the competition committee and CEO of the Atlanta Falcons, introduced a new argument on Tuesday.
Aesthetics. It doesn’t “look” pretty.
That argument did not sit well with Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie, who proceeded to dismantle all of the arguments against banning the play on Tuesday night, specifically the aesthetics angle.
Said Lurie, via The Athletic’s, Brooks Kubena:
“You know what? I remember reading about the forward pass and they said it really is an odd play that is no part of American football. So, it was controversial when the forward pass came out. I think aestheticism is very subjective. I’ve never judged whether a play looks okay. Does a screen pass look better than an in route or an out route? I don’t know. To me it’s not a very relevant critique that it doesn’t look right or something like that. I don’t know. What looks right? Scoring. We like to win and score. “
While Lurie has a very significant interest in the play remaining legal, he is not wrong. Arguing about how a football play looks as a reason to ban it does not even pass the laugh test.
Is anything about a traditional quarterback sneak pretty? Was a fullback diving into the line in the 1980s a beautiful play? Maybe to football purists and smash mouth sickos, but it’s not exactly a thing of beauty. It is not art.
And that is okay.
Football does not always have to be pretty. It just has to be effective, and sometimes the simplest play is the most effective play.
If there were major injury concerns for banning the play, as there were with the hip-drop tackle or wedge blocking on kickoff returns, that would be one thing. But there is zero evidence — so far — to suggest that is the case.
Even more than aesthetics, it mostly comes down to one team — the Eagles — is exceptionally good at the play, and the rest of the league does not like it.
When the NFL discusses the play again next month it is anticipated that there will be new language in the proposal to ban pushing and pulling players anywhere on the field. That would at least make more sense and create some sort of consistent standard on what can be done to assist ball-carriers. Limiting it to just this one play and allowing runner assistance elsewhere is non-sensical, and mostly reeks of sour grapes from other teams.
The NFL needs 24 owners to vote in favor of banning the play to to make it official. They clearly did not have that many teams in favor of banning it on Tuesday.
