Philadelphia Eagles proprietor Jeffrey Lurie.
Mark J. Rebilas-Imagn Photographs
By Adam Gretz
|
Final up to date Apr 1, 2025 9:09 PM ET
NFL homeowners tabled a dialogue on the tush push this week, delaying a choice on whether or not or to not ban the polarizing play that has been made well-known by the Philadelphia Eagles over the previous couple of seasons.
Whereas the NFL has no goal harm or participant security knowledge to justify banning the play, Wealthy McKay, the chairman of the competitors committee and CEO of the Atlanta Falcons, launched a brand new argument on Tuesday.
Aesthetics. It does not “look” fairly.
“It wasn’t about one specific well being and security video or dialogue. It was rather more in regards to the play, the aesthetics of the play. Is it what soccer has been historically or is it extra of a rugby play”
Competitors Committee Co-Chairman Wealthy McKay on debate about Tush Push pic.twitter.com/2pRwI053Ub
— Eliot Shorr-Parks (@EliotShorrParks) April 1, 2025
That argument didn’t sit effectively with Eagles proprietor Jeffrey Lurie, who proceeded to dismantle the entire arguments towards banning the play on Tuesday night time, particularly the aesthetics angle.
Mentioned Lurie, via The Athletic’s, Brooks Kubena:
” what? I keep in mind studying in regards to the ahead move they usually stated it truly is an odd play that’s no a part of American soccer. So, it was controversial when the ahead move got here out. I believe aestheticism could be very subjective. I’ve by no means judged whether or not a play appears okay. Does a display move look higher than an in route or an out route? I do not know. To me it is not a really related critique that it does not look proper or one thing like that. I do not know. What appears proper? Scoring. We prefer to win and rating. “
Whereas Lurie has a really important curiosity within the play remaining authorized, he isn’t mistaken. Arguing about how a soccer play appears as a purpose to ban it doesn’t even move the snort check.
Is something a few conventional quarterback sneak fairly? Was a fullback diving into the road within the Eighties a good looking play? Possibly to soccer purists and smash mouth sickos, however it’s not precisely a factor of magnificence. It isn’t artwork.
And that’s okay.
Soccer doesn’t all the time should be fairly. It simply needs to be efficient, and generally the best play is the best play.
If there have been main harm issues for banning the play, as there have been with the hip-drop deal with or wedge blocking on kickoff returns, that may be one factor. However there’s zero proof — up to now — to counsel that’s the case.
Much more than aesthetics, it largely comes down to at least one staff — the Eagles — is exceptionally good on the play, and the remainder of the league doesn’t prefer it.
When the NFL discusses the play once more subsequent month it’s anticipated that there will likely be new language within the proposal to ban pushing and pulling gamers wherever on the sphere. That might at the least make extra sense and create some type of constant commonplace on what might be accomplished to help ball-carriers. Limiting it to simply this one play and permitting runner help elsewhere is non-sensical, and largely reeks of bitter grapes from different groups.
The NFL wants 24 homeowners to vote in favor of banning the play to to make it official. They clearly didn’t have that many groups in favor of banning it on Tuesday.
Adam Gretz is a contract author primarily based in Pittsburgh. He covers the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA. Baseball is his favourite sport — he’s almost midway by means of his purpose of seeing a sport in each MLB ballpark. Catch him on Twitter @AGretz
Extra must-reads:
