Why Eagles' QB Sneak Should Be Banned
NFL Offseason - Guest column by Joseph Peine
The quarterback sneak has been called football's easiest play. In fact, it simplifies short-yardage situations so much that its usage has gone up 400% in the last seven seasons from 73 sneaks in 2016 to 291 in 2022. If nothing changes, those numbers figure to go up even more after what Jalen Hurts and the Philadelphia Eagles were able to accomplish last season.
Dubbed the tush push (or two-cheek sneak), the Eagles' play resembles a traditional QB sneak except for one important difference: when the quarterback lunges forward, he is pushed from behind by two rather hefty members of the offense. The simplicity begs the question of why it took someone so long to think of it.
(Ed. Note: This year's proposed rule changes for next week's annual meetings do not include a rule prohibiting teammates from pushing the ballcarrier, so if the "tush push" is going to be banned, it won't be until 2024.)
The Numbers
In 2022, there were still twice as many standard run plays (62% success rate) called on fourth-and-1 as there were QB sneaks (82% success rate), despite the difference in rate of desired outcome. Pass plays were even worse (57% success rate). These numbers will almost certainly take a radical shift next year after the Eagles converted 37 of 41 attempts into first downs or touchdowns with their new version of the play, good for a 91% success rate.
Dean Blandino, former NFL referee, has been quoted and retweeted ad nauseam after saying that the tush push "isn't skillful" or "aesthetically pleasing" and it "doesn't showcase the athleticism and skill of our athletes." I think there's a more succinct and eloquent way to say that: it's cheap.
Pros and Cons
Proponents of the tush push might rightfully say that teammates push running backs all the time, so how can the NFL allow one without the other? To answer that, might I first remind you that this isn't some Belichickian loophole that is just now being discovered and exploited? In 1950, when the game lived and died with running the ball, the Rules Committee (now Competition Committee) implemented the rule that states "the runner shall not grasp, or be pulled by, any teammate, nor shall any teammate push the runner or lift him from the ground while the ball is in play." This rule was enacted to balance the game, and it stayed in place until 2005 when it was rescinded as the league clarified blocking rules to help referees make on-field judgement calls.
Since then, yes, teammates have been able to push running backs forward. However, this version of pushing isn't any more necessary, or less cheap, than the other. Plus, it looks silly when 12 guys group-hug the running back while shuffling slowly downfield.
Aesthetics notwithstanding, allowing the tush push to exist creates several fundamental problems for the NFL, the first being that you essentially no longer need 10 yards for a first down; it becomes a freebee after 8 yards or so. When teams can average a 90%-plus success rate, having the defense on the field at that point is almost a formality. Even that isn't as bad as what it does to first-and-goal situations, though.
Once last season, the Eagles ran three consecutive sneaks, the third going in for a touchdown. Which part of that is good for the game? It's hard to imagine first down on the 5-yard line becoming a reason to take a bathroom break instead of must-see TV, but what other eventuality is there? It's almost unthinkable that there could be a more boring way to handle that situation.
Changing the rules to reduce the near-automatic nature of a play has been done before, and recently. In 2015, the NFL owners voted to increase the length of extra points after a touchdown to eliminate the almost complete inevitability of the outcome, and that little bit of extra drama is what is actually good for the game.
And, yes Dean, the tush push is not skillful. This is not a talent that is dominating the game and upsetting the balance. The tush push artificially extends drives and grants unearned success at the goal line. Ex-player and current ESPN analyst Booger MacFarland said it best: "quarterbacks can almost trip and fall and still get a first down" with the QB sneak—and that was before the Eagles adaptation.
The truth is the tush push makes the game worse in a way that even the offense-greedy NFL can't abide by: it becomes too predictable. In a numbers-driven sport, teams won't have another choice; a 25% greater success rate over other options forces their hand. New Denver head coach Sean Payton, has already publicly stated that the Broncos are going to do this with Russell Wilson, "every time next season if they don't take it out." Pete Carroll, head coach of the Seahawks, has also stated a similar intent. In short, it's obvious that the tush push will become ubiquitous, and, in doing so, it will lower the entertainment value of the sport.
Why the Sneak Works for the Eagles
Nick Sirianni, Eagles head coach and progenitor of the two-cheek sneak, insists that his team is not just running the same play every time. He claims it's not boring or predictable because Philadelphia can line up for the sneak but run a completely different play off of it, which they have done.
While this is true, the Eagles were only 68.8% successful on all of their fourth-down tries combined, while converting on 90.5% of short yardage tries on QB sneaks. While a small number of those fourth-down attempts were not short-yardage plays, these numbers betray the thinly veiled misrepresentation that those misdirection attempts were anything other than less-effective change-of-pace plays designed to keep defenses from being able to sell out against it, thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the sneak. In reality, especially in high-leverage situations, Sirianni goes back to the well time and again because the outcome is as good as predetermined, and no amount of double talk will change that.
Two of the most popular arguments for keeping this play, mostly lauded by vocal Philadelphia fans, are claims that the team's success rate is due to inherent traits specific to the Eagles themselves, not the unfairness of the play.
The first reason that's commonly suggested is the uncommon nature of Jalen Hurts' super-human lower body strength (he can notoriously squat 600 pounds). However, this does nothing to detract from the argument against banning it. Gadget players have always been popular, and all this means is that there will be one guy on each team's roster whose special skill is being big and thus being used to run a Wildcat version of this play. This, incidentally, would also help protect the quarterback.
The second claim is that it's the Eagles' premiere offensive line that made them so successful. For that, we will have to see next season.
The chances of this rule being changed by the committee (who have historically been slow to act) before next season seem to be low. The good news is that if Philadelphia's success wasn't just because of super freak Jalen Hurts and the Spartan Eagles line, and conversion rates are the same for everybody, then any argument against this play being banned becomes null.
So when Derrick "King" Henry, AJ "Quadzilla" Dillon, et al. are destroying defenses with this play next season, look for me. I'll be the one saying, "I told you so."
Joseph Peine spent 10 years as an entrepreneur starting two successful businesses before attending the Hubbard School of Journalism at the University of Minnesota. During his time there, he double majored and received a degree in psychology as well. He has also written about baseball and golf for the Minnesota Daily. Although he was technically born in Minnesota, he is a diehard Wisconsinite at heart and will root Green and Gold until he's dead and cold. Go Pack Go!
Comments
167 comments, Last at 29 Mar 2023, 2:00pm
#1 by rapierma // Mar 24, 2023 - 10:44am
That's just dumb. If the Eagles can put themselves in a position to call a play that has a high rate of success of getting the first down then you let them do it. Maybe Justin Tucker should be banned next since he converts just about every field goal.
#122 by hoegher // Mar 26, 2023 - 10:59pm
I mean, it is totally normal for leagues to ban things because one player is too good at it. Happens all the time:
https://twitter.com/JohnGasaway/status/1640107400693702656
Somewhat related: Used to be legal to inbound the ball over the backboard. That was banned when San Francisco would do so for Bill Russell dunks.
#85 by "CB" // Mar 24, 2023 - 4:53pm
How was that your interpretation of this column? Key part right here
Aesthetics notwithstanding, allowing the tush push to exist creates several fundamental problems for the NFL, the first being that you essentially no longer need 10 yards for a first down; it becomes a freebee after 8 yards or so. When teams can average a 90%-plus success rate, having the defense on the field at that point is almost a formality. Even that isn't as bad as what it does to first-and-goal situations, though.
I thought it was a good read and agree it should be banned.
#86 by halfjumpsuit // Mar 24, 2023 - 5:53pm
He describes the play as "cheap" and ends the piece with a pre-emptive "I told you so." Those are not compelling arguments nor are they arguments on football grounds. And in between those he acknowledges that the high success rate the Eagles have with it may very well be because of the unique skillset of Jalen Hurts, yet fails to either realize or address that most of the Eagles successful sneaks did not need teammates pushing Hurts.
The part you quoted is nonsense, you still need to get 10 actual yards for a first down. The author's inability to understand that is not a "fundamental problem for the NFL.” Should baseball ban elite closers for making games for his team “essentially 8 innings”?
#11 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:20am
You've already got like 2 games of data that highly suggest it's just primarily Hurts. Worked way less when Minshew was in, and it was pretty darn obvious why. He just got stood up straight at the line.
And the "that's not a good reason not to ban it, they'll just have gadget players that are great at it" isn't a good counter to that. I mean, the underthrown comeback route is waaay more of a football loophole than this.
#110 by Run dmc // Mar 25, 2023 - 8:10pm
Two things can be true. The play can work in large part because Jalen Hurts is awesome AND the same arguments against the play still hold.
I think it should be banned and my guess is the Hurts QB sneak will still be a deadly weapon just not as much without the added help.
#63 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:33pm
Because you need to find out whether the rule itself is the problem, or the combination of the Eagles players. If the rule itself only causes a 0.1% improvement, who cares. The problem is that the Eagles are the ones who are doing it, and they've got a unique combination at OL and QB.
edit: Also, just to follow up. Yes, pushing the runner used to be illegal... technically. Go try to find the last time it was called. Good luck. The last time an "aiding the runner" penalty was called was 1991, but even that wasn't "pushing" - the Chiefs lineman literally grabbed a running back and pulled him forward. In college football, of course, the "Bush Push" went completely uncalled, because... they never call it.
Right now the refs struggle even to identify clear aiding the runner cases, like Kelce last year during the regular season or the Broncos TD with Phillip Lindsay.
#64 by theslothook // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:35pm
My point was in response to the claim that this gives an unduly unfair advantage purely as an on the field tactic - essentially one any team can mimic and that the defense will be unable to stop even if they devoted 100 percent of their personnel trying to stop it(that last part is intended hyperbole to drive home the point).
To substantiate that claim, you need data analysis for it be anywhere close to a robust finding. A season's worth of data from the Hurts' led Eagles is not sufficient at all in my opinion.
#5 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:12am
"isn't skillful" or "aesthetically pleasing" and it "doesn't showcase the athleticism and skill of our athletes."
Neither does a throwaway. We should ban those, too.
In fact, we should return to the days when any incompletion was a fumble.
#9 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:17am
I would be thrilled if they got rid of dirtballs at receiver's feet to avoid sacks, I effing hate those.
But - just like this - I can't possibly see any way to do that. Any rule change you craft to get rid of it is horrible and blows up other perfectly valid situations or makes things worse. They got rid of the "can't push the runner" rule because it's virtually indistinguishable from blocking. I mean, I know every football fan says that we need more carefully-crafted specific judgement-call rules to eliminate rare things, right? That'd totally make the game better.
#22 by theslothook // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:01pm
They need to really liberalize intentional grounding. The strike zone concept for it is so poorly defined; its embarrassing. I also hate how poorly defined blocking downfield is. It gets called, but exceedingly rarely.
I would also make offensive PI a loss of downs penalty as well.
#6 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:13am
I don't understand what you're suggesting they do? Are you suggesting they reverse the '05 ban?
Fundamentally all reversing the '05 ban does is just shift the number of special skill players who can do this. Take away the "tush push" and now if you have a player who can generate probably like 40-50 pounds more force, it's the same thing. I don't actually think the "tush push" does all that much - if you watch the sneaks, the majority of the time those players can't even get any leverage because he's already leaning forward a ton.
The majority of it is Hurts. Minshew's success rate was way lower.
And really, all they'll do in those situations is just shift the shove point. It's not like you can eliminate blocking. So they'll just shove the players to the side of Hurts, who are keeping him from falling forward anyway. The main function of whether or not the push succeeds is timing, which is really really difficult to get right anyway. Too fast and you blow up the exchange, too late and you have no leverage. (See Sirianni's comments regarding using Fletcher Cox on the sneak).
You'd have to get really creative with a rule to actually prevent it without getting rid of all sneaks entirely. Like, specifically saying you can't line up in certain formations, and even that likely wouldn't work. You'd really have to like, ban Jeff Stoutland or something.
#10 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:19am
I'm curious where the parentheses were on the old rule.
nor shall any teammate push the runner or lift him from the ground while the ball is in play
Was that:
nor shall any teammate (push the runner or lift him from the ground) while the ball is in play
or
nor shall any teammate (push the runner or lift him) from the ground while the ball is in play
Is it the lift or the push what was being banned?
I have to admit, banning pushing in a sport that descends from rugby feels odd.
#12 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:25am
That's a good point. The second interpretation makes way more sense - as in, you're not allowed to make it so that the runner is not moving under his own power at all. And that ban would still make sense, as in, the QB can't leap forward and then be shoved by teammates while he's off the ground. Although again, you can still just shove the pile which is functionally the same thing.
#14 by halfjumpsuit // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:34am
No offensive player may: (a) assist the runner except by individually blocking opponents for him. (b) use interlocking interference. Interlocked interference means the grasping of one another by encircling the body to any degree with the hands or arms; or (c) push the runner or lift him to his feet.
#20 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:59am
lift him to his feet
That makes little sense to me. When is a runner who does not have his feet on the ground, but is below standing, not down?
Are they being carried like a suitcase?
\it's not lifted in the air, it's "lifted to his feet."
#26 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:07pm
That makes little sense to me. When is a runner who does not have his feet on the ground, but is below standing, not down?
When you're supporting yourself with a hand (or two) on the ground. You can't help that player back to his feet.
#52 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:05pm
To follow up (to myself!): take a look at this sneak, from the Super Bowl.
Track the two "shovers" behind Hurts. Goedert barely ever makes contact with Hurts. He's basically patting him on the back! The other player maybe helps slightly - but remember, the whole "tush push" complaint is because now multiple people are doing it. One guy shoving the QB's been there forever.
Look at the line movement right at the snap. Watch Nick Bolton (who's overtop of a Chiefs defender!). The Eagles didn't get this TD because of a special, new sneak. They got it because Kelce and Seumalo just squashed the Chiefs defender and shoved Bolton straight back into the end zone. The Chiefs line was stopped and moving backwards before either of the "pushers" touched him.
#8 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:15am
Blandino's reasoning is pretty straightforward. It hurts the Cowboys.
#15 by Theo // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:35am
Joseph Peine spent 10 years as an entrepreneur starting two successful businesses before attending the Hubbard School of Journalism
Journalists. I remember those.
[Edit] so your point it that is makes football boring if every team uses this play to convert short yardage downs.
So it most be verboten right now.
No, it might be, because in excess this play will make football boring. But that is a slippery slope fallacy.
#17 by Oncorhynchus // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:49am
Aesthetics notwithstanding, allowing the tush push to exist creates several fundamental problems for the NFL, the first being that you essentially no longer need 10 yards for a first down; it becomes a freebee after 8 yards or so. When teams can average a 90%-plus success rate, having the defense on the field at that point is almost a formality. Even that isn't as bad as what it does to first-and-goal situations, though.
1. It's not a freebee, it's just highly likely. And if we're banning plays that are almost mere formalities - then we should do away with the extra point which has a similar success rate.
2. It's not 8 yards, it's 9 yards. If it was 8 yards, the Eagles would never kick an extra point because the probability of successfully completely a 2-point conversion would be the same as the probability of kicking an extra point. Consider Newton's Law of Universal QB Sneaking: the probability of successfully converting a QB sneak is proportional to Q *(m_1/m_2) * 1/y^2. Where m_1 is the mass of the offensive line, m_2 is the mass of the defensive line, y is the yards to go, and Q is the QB quotient - with each QB having a different value here. Jalen Hurts has a high Q, Tyler Huntley a low Q. Notably the probability scales with the square of the yards to go, not linearly. This means that by the time y = 3 the probability approaches zero.
3. It was always the case that getting 9 yards in 3 downs is enough for a successful drive. Teams should almost always go for it on 4th and 1. Even if they ban the tush push - which they shouldn't - a regular QB sneak is going be only incrementally less effective.
4. I like the tush push sneak even more if it isn't a feature of the Eagles players themselves. Every team should go for it on 4th and 1. That is going to make for more exciting football. We'll see a lot more low percentage plays on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1. YOLO balls are exciting when they connect. The failures are also going to be exciting. One of the craziest, most exciting plays in football last season was the Ravens failed QB sneak.
5. You know what's not aesthetically pleasing? Punts. Punts are boring. Punts suck. They should ban punts.
#18 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:55am
Once last season, the Eagles ran three consecutive sneaks, the third going in for a touchdown. Which part of that is good for the game?
The touchdown. The NFL has been all-in on offense since the 70s.
Is it the concept of rushing that offends you? I mean, even the CFL and Arena League allows running plays. Is it different from the optics of any other three-play sequence?
#23 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:04pm
While a small number of those fourth-down attempts were not short-yardage plays, these numbers betray the thinly veiled misrepresentation that those misdirection attempts were anything other than less-effective change-of-pace plays designed to keep defenses from being able to sell out against it, thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the sneak.
That seems like shaky reasoning.
Your logical appeal is basically to the change-up in baseball -- you a throwing a less effective pitch to prevent hitters from just keying on the fastball. But here, the Eagles are sometimes using a play which is less effective, even as a surprise strategy swap. That's the opposite behavior to the change-up -- a pitch that works really well only because it has low usage. Those alternate methods should be more effective if the push is such a devastating weapon. That analysis suggests the push is at least somewhat situational -- the Eagles will go against it in some circumstances. And they have -- they used a counter of it against the Cowboys, who were actually decent at stopping the vanilla version.
#24 by Harris // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:04pm
Frankly, nothing is less aesthetic than a cheap third-and-long conversion on a defensive holding call 40 yards from the ball. Or a hideously underthrown ball that turns into a PI because the receiver jumps back into the defender. Ban those and then we'll talk.
#27 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:10pm
Or a hideously underthrown ball that turns into a PI
The reason you can't ban those is because it's indistinguishable from a comeback or stop route, and those are totally fine. It'd be nice if they were more generous about the concept of "uncatchable" in those situations, though. I totally agree that those plays are way worse.
#33 by theslothook // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:56pm
I've often felt like defensive holding should be 5 yards and not result in automatic first down. But then people have said that will tilt the balance too far in favor of defense; so maybe make it 10 yards instead?
#35 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 1:12pm
The problem with making any live ball defensive penalty not an automatic first down is that it just means you make it a tactic they can use, just like in college with pass interference, once they know they're in a losing situation. 3rd and 20 going to 3rd and 15 isn't a significant change for a defense. The only defensive penalties that aren't automatic first downs are pre-snap penalties, when the play hasn't happened.
I do agree that a minor penalty completely resetting things in favor of the offense sucks, but I'm honestly not sure how else you can deal with it without getting crazy.
#74 by All Is On // Mar 24, 2023 - 3:56pm
I've thought for a little while now that it might be worth experimenting with five yards plus returning a down to the offense. For example, defensive holding on 3rd and 20 becomes 2nd and 15. But, holding on 1st and 10 still only turns into 1st and 5. I think this tips it back towards the defense a bit while still making the penalty harsh enough that you won't just see DBs doing it because it's advantageous.
#97 by guest from Europe // Mar 25, 2023 - 8:53am
The problem is in aggregate penalties. All these minor penalties such as holding, illegal contact are tilted towards offense and over the course of a game it really adds up. Offensive holding is a lesser penalty than defensive holding and on top of that not regularly called etc.
#114 by guest from Europe // Mar 26, 2023 - 12:32pm
Yes, these penalties do exist. Are they regularly called?
There are many people complaining here that ineligible man downfield isn't called and should be enforced consistently and properly which i agree with.
Also, such penalties don't give a new set of downs like defensive penalties. If defensive penalties during play result in automatic 1st down, then offensive penalties during play should result in automatic 4th down to make it equivalent.
#120 by Pat // Mar 26, 2023 - 6:55pm
There are many people complaining here that ineligible man downfield isn't called and should be enforced consistently and properly which i agree with.
These people need to go to nflpenalties.com and look at ineligible man downfield versus previous years.
Anyone who's arguing that man downfield needs to be called more is, uh, wrong.
#123 by guest from Europe // Mar 27, 2023 - 5:23am
A penalty "called consistently" doen't equal to "be called more or less times". If it would be called every time it occurs, the players would probably stop doing it.
Theslothook wrote above it is not called enough, you say that is wrong and the disscusion leads nowhere...
The same is with illegal formation: some pass catchers moves around the line of scrimmage, barely sets his feet, the ball is snapped, he has a running start, the defense can't adjust and it is not called regularly.
Brady made a career out of this bending the rules. It was almost impossible to sack him because under pressure he would throw so many times to noone: out of bounds, at the feet of nearest player, not too obviously to the ground... and no intentional grounding was called.
All the rules should be enforced all the time. There are too many rules, so many flags would fly, i know. It would be bad television.
#136 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 12:55pm
If it would be called every time it occurs
It's not possible to do that. Literally not - the officials have line-of-sight issues, they have multiple things that they need to be looking for, etc. Officials were told to watch for ineligible man downfield more last year, and the numbers skyrocketed... and holding and DPI dropped. There's only so much you can ask officials to look for.
Brady made a career out of this bending the rules.
Every player makes a career out of bending the rules. They're professionals. They ride the line exactly. They flat out say that in interviews.
See, the funny thing is that I believe you're actually arguing for what I've argued for: more subjectivity in the rules. All those dirtballs you saw from Brady? Easily 90%+ of them were totally and completely legal. Absolutely against the spirit of the rules, sure, but the NFL rules over time have evolved to less subjectivity and more specificity, and that's what (paradoxically) leads to inconsistent calling, because the refs aren't (and can't be) robots.
Every time I mention this I get severe pushback from people because it seems completely backwards: let the officials make judgement calls and that'll make officiating more consistent? How does that work? But it's because right now they're being asked to pay attention to too many things, so they "key" off certain details rather than the intent of the rule.
#149 by guest from Europe // Mar 27, 2023 - 5:35pm
There's only so much you can ask officials to look for.
Of course, i agree. That's why either get more officials to look at line-play, add 3-4 more officials or what i suggest, apply the rules very, very strictly. In case of a doubt, it's a penalty! On all plays! When the players realize they can't bend the rules at all, they will stop doing it. As i wrote, it would be really bad television and many yellow flags would fly. This way they managed to almost eradicate hits to the head.
I don't understand why all of these rules exist, fans know even obscure rules, and they are or aren't called depending on what? What referee thinks? Either enforce the rules or delete them. And the rules are defined quite precisely. There is no doubt in those definitions.
(The only rules that are followed strict enough to me are DPI and what is or isn't a catch (with a benefit of review). On the same plays OPI is not called enough. This is my unimportant opinion)
To me absolutely none of those throws (by Brady or anybody) are legal. I wrote that because it is obvious cheating. By any QB. Name is not important.
Every time I mention this I get severe pushback from people because it seems completely backwards: let the officials make judgement calls and that'll make officiating more consistent? How does that work?
This way it is done in European soccer. However, we don't have strict rules what is or isn't a foul.
#157 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:01pm
And the rules are defined quite precisely. There is no doubt in those definitions.
Yeah... this isn't remotely correct. Pretty much all the rules in the NFL have "incidental" or "away from the play" exceptions, and there are plenty of "you need to know the game" aspects in how they're written (punts, point after tries, field goal tries, drop kick tries being the classic example - all of those have formational rules but what's actually allowed in certain formations isn't clarified). Plus you've got goofball non-logical definitions ('impetus' is super-weird). They're definitely not precisely defined.
#162 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 3:48pm
Maybe i am totally wrong. I was refering to rules such as a player can't be hit in head and neck area but can in other body parts. A pass catcher can't be interfered during a pass when the ball is in the air, but can afterwards... the ball has to cross the plane of the end zone, what happen afterwards doen't matter, a horsecollar tackle is precisely described etc. etc. all precisely described.
There are rules like forward progress and a "player completes a football move" which are just vague descriptions.
The intentional grounding is described where a passer is, what he does with the ball. They just act: "i am a dumb QB, i meant to throw the ball to that RB, i am so bad i can only throw it to the ground 1-2 yards away from him, i really don't know how to throw with precision, don't call for intentional grounding. Or i wanted to throw to a WR but the ball got out of bounds to sideline coaches." It is always intentional grounding.
Most of the other rules and exceptions i do not know. Only the most frequent ones described during games which cause all of this dissagreement.
So i will correct my statement: all the rules that are precisely described should be upheld all the time.
#142 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 27, 2023 - 3:51pm
>These people need to go to nflpenalties.com and look at ineligible man downfield versus previous years.
>Anyone who's arguing that man downfield needs to be called more is, uh, wrong.
It's possible that the number of calls can be increasing and it needs to be called more. The RPO is an offensive staple now.
#29 by Sporran // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:28pm
While this is true, the Eagles were only 68.8% successful on all of their fourth-down tries combined, while converting on 90.5% of short yardage tries on QB sneaks. While a small number of those fourth-down attempts were not short-yardage plays,
This is misleading at best, and patently false at worst. The Eagles had quite a number of 4th-down attempts that were not QB sneaks.
Jimmy Kempski chronicled all 35 of the Eagles 4th-down attempts. I count 14 QB sneaks. The Eagles had more 4th-down attempts that were not QB sneaks. Certainly not a "small number".
https://www.phillyvoice.com/journey-through-all-35-nick-siriannis-4th-down-go-it-calls-2022/
#34 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 24, 2023 - 12:57pm
It seems like the impetus to ban it should be safety, not aesthetics or game balance. If a defender is hitting the QB high, like Chris Jones did in the Super Bowl, while an offensive player is pushing the QB low in the opposite direction - it seems not far from the high-low danger presented by a chop block. Further, defenders will *have* to go high because the OL is going low, meaning more shots to the QB's facemask.
#55 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:17pm
The reason that ban was eliminated was because it's too hard to tell the difference between shoving the runner and blocking or shoving a blocker. If a guy goes to shove a lineman and gets crashed into by a DL and ends up shoving the runner, it's nuts to call that a penalty.
#57 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:22pm
If a guy goes to shove a lineman and gets crashed into by a DL and ends up shoving the runner,
Intent matters, and there are already numerous penalties where a guy might have been "crashed into" by another player and accidentally hit a QB low, or punt returner, or a kicker, and we count on the refs to sort that out.
#76 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 4:04pm
Yeah. And again: how well did that work last time?
Literally anything that makes an official's job harder, I'm against by default. And there's no real reason. It's not "unstoppable." He *was* stopped. And it's only him, which means: get stronger guys.
#82 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 24, 2023 - 4:22pm
I never opposed it for game-balance reasons, I oppose it because it puts the QB in a vulnerable position. Look at the Josh Allen fumble vs. Minnesota (the rear angle starts at 1:03), Kendricks and Harrison Smith launch have to launch themselves high on Allen, and if he hadn't gone down to recover the fumble, one or both of them would have nailed him in the face. There's nothing dirty about it, that's pretty much exactly what they have to do.
#58 by Theo // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:23pm
You mean the difference between shoving a runnerr or a tackler?
Bc the dif between a runner and blocker is quite easy to see.
If a blocker gets shoved into a runner then that wouldnt be a penalty, but if he continues to push the runner, that that would be a penalty, under that rule.
#116 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 26, 2023 - 3:48pm
By NFL rule, only 4 guys can be in the backfield at the snap. 1 of them has the football. So only 3 players have to figure out who the runner is (the other 7 are in front of him, attacking defenders), and it should be pretty obvious which is which. If a guy is so confused that he can't tell Jalen Hurts from Jason Kelce at arm's length, he needs to be in concussion protocol.
#119 by Pat // Mar 26, 2023 - 6:54pm
If a guy is so confused that he can't tell Jalen Hurts from Jason Kelce at arm's length, he needs to be in concussion protocol.
I'm not talking about the players. I'm talking about the officials. You can barely tell who's making contact with who from the overhead cameras zoomed in. The officials basically have no chance.
#121 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 26, 2023 - 8:57pm
The post I responded to reads: "On sneaks it's too crowded to make out who you're actually making contact with" which only makes sense if you're referring to a player. But since we're talking about refs, there are - at most - three players who could contact the QB from behind on a sneak. The other seven have to be on the LOS in front of him. It is not difficult at all to see if any of those three drive into the QB's back.
Besides, if the rule is changed, teams won't employ guys behind the QB slamming up into the pile to try to move a guard. It would risk a penalty for minimal benefit, it would make much more sense to move them out of the backfield and try to lighten the box.
#128 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 11:44am
The post I responded to reads: "On sneaks it's too crowded to make out who you're actually making contact with" which only makes sense if you're referring to a player.
No, it doesn't. Read it as if you're an official. Sorry if the grammar was confusing.
The other seven have to be on the LOS in front of him.
"On the line of scrimmage" does not mean that the players physically form a line. They form a curved pocket, since the OT's is typically 2-ish feet behind the (straight) line, since his helmet only needs to be at the beltline of the center.
In addition, once the play starts, depending on the depth of the QB (he doesn't always start under center) the pocket can be collapsing before the players reach the QB. Neither the ref nor the umpire line up straight behind, so they're likely to have an occluded view very quickly.
teams won't employ guys behind the QB slamming up into the pile to try to move a guard. It would risk a penalty for minimal benefit
I don't know why you think it would be minimal benefit. Driving the guard/center forward is the same thing as driving the QB forward. It's a wall.
#143 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 27, 2023 - 3:59pm
"On the line of scrimmage" does not mean that the players physically form a line. They form a curved pocket, since the OT's is typically 2-ish feet behind the (straight) line, since his helmet only needs to be at the beltline of the center.
And? The point is those guys are going forwards, they are not going to end up behind the QB.
In addition, once the play starts, depending on the depth of the QB (he doesn't always start under center)
We might be using different terminology here then, because I've only ever referred to a play as a "sneak" when the QB is under center.
A QB taking a snap from the pistol or shotgun would be a number of different things based on how the play is designed (power, sweep, draw, whatever), but in any event it seems like the play would be built around the QB's own ability to find and hit the hole, rather than relying on a halfback to shove him. I don't recall seeing the "tush push" from any other position other than an under center straightforward play, but I honestly didn't watch that many Eagles games.
#146 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:30pm
And? The point is those guys are going forwards, they are not going to end up behind the QB.
They don't. The guys trying to get past them do. Watch the play linked above, or any other one as well. Basically shortly after the play starts it's a total mess and you're just not going to have good viewing angles as a ref. You can see the approach, but once everyone collides it's who knows.
We might be using different terminology here then, because I've only ever referred to a play as a "sneak" when the QB is under center.
Nah, any time the QB rushes forward they pretty much call it a sneak now. Direct handoff under center kinda sucks because of the difficulty of getting the ball around.
I don't recall seeing the "tush push" from any other position other than an under center straightforward play
See the play linked above. Note Hurts's depth - he's not like, "shotgun" depth but he's much farther than under center. Philly's got literally over a dozen different sneak formations.
#151 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 27, 2023 - 5:55pm
See the play linked above. Note Hurts's depth - he's not like, "shotgun" depth but he's much farther than under center.
Could you clarify which play you're talking about that's "linked above"? If you are referring to the image I posted at the top of the comment chain, that comes from this play (2:50)
This is the formation the Eagles used on that snap. If that does not qualify as "under center" then I think we're talking about separate plays.
Philly's got literally over a dozen different sneak formations.
Ok, how many of them involve a player intentionally pushing Hurts? The only ones I've ever seen including the push start with him under center. If you have a different example, please post it.
#158 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:02pm
Then I'm still not sure what you mean. The only play you've linked was in post 52, the first TD from the Super Bowl.
Jalen Hurts is under center on that play. You physically can't get any more under center.
What is the play where he is "not like, "shotgun" depth but he's much farther than under center."
#161 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 28, 2023 - 3:31pm
At this point its clear we're either talking about different plays, or are so far apart on terminology that the discussion is getting nowhere. Hurts' hands are touching Kelce's backside. Kelce hands him the football rather than throwing it. That has meant "under center" as long as I've ever known the term. His stance is different because he is not even pretending that he might drop back, but it doesn't change the fundamentals of what's happening here.
#72 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 24, 2023 - 3:33pm
I'm the OP. I said "Defenders" will have to go high, not just the DL. A normal sneaking QB can't easily go over the top because he has to start under center and can't build momentum. But if he's just getting shoved over the top, the defense will have to meet him there.
#38 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 1:19pm
OK, this article is officially the first time the "upvote/downvote" things have been interesting. Immediate reactions to the article are all super critical (like "wtf dis $#!+" level critical), and downvoted pretty strongly. Then the more measured critical reactions come in, and now even basically all of the heavily-critical comments are neutral or positive.
My interpretation is that some people just hate the "tush push" play and want it gone, but whenever you start to think about it more and actually look at things... nothing really makes sense. No one's even suggested a rule that would work to change it (other than just "revert 2005") above.
Honestly, to me this really feels like it's the equivalent of the league coming out and saying "let's ban Randy Moss" during the 2007 season, because dear Lord did he feel like a cheat code with Brady. There just aren't a lot of players out there who are built such that you can do this freely. The Chiefs flat out refuse to sneak Mahomes anymore because of the knee injury he had, for instance.
#96 by Noahrk // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:17pm
What I'm getting out of the comments today is that most people do like pushing. I see a lot rationalizations and justifications, but no reasons are necessary. As long as most people like it, pushing will likely stay. When/if this changes, pushing will likely be banned. The how is immaterial, the way the game is now is just one out of a gazillion possibilities. It can be shaped in many different directions and, yes, it's the aesthetics that the general public prefers, along with safety, that will most likely be the driving force behind any future changes or lack thereof.
#39 by AH // Mar 24, 2023 - 1:20pm
So if the QB push is so successful, then why did the Eagles lose the Super Bowl? Why didn't they run this play on every down? It's like the Wildcat - give defenses a year or two to figure it out and it'll go away.
If we're going to ban "failure-proof" plays then start by banning field goals from within the 10 yard line. Think how much more exciting the game would be if teams always had to go for it on 4th and goal.
#43 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 24, 2023 - 1:30pm
If we're going to ban "failure-proof" plays then start by banning field goals from within the 10 yard line.
We also decided a Super Bowl on that play -- after a team intentionally refrained from scoring a TD.
#51 by kujo76 // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:03pm
It would actually benefit the Eagles the most if the play was banned. Other teams are going to use it more against the Eagles, and the Eagles QB sneak would still be fairly unstoppable without it. It's good that it will still be in play in 2023, though. If it's really the play and not the team, then we'll see all teams with a 90% success rate. If the Eagles end up being far and away the best at it again, then banning it would be very anticompetitive.
#53 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 2:15pm
Yeah, this is a great point. It's almost like Philly's saying "OK, if you think it's so advantageous, have a blast. Go for it. You guys try."
I highly doubt it's going to make any difference. It's just really hard to actually get any push from multiple guys. I think the only reason Philly does it is just a numbers game - it's easier to land a shove if multiple people try.
#77 by Pat // Mar 24, 2023 - 4:07pm
I actually prefer to say rugby and football diverged because of the US Government.
College football was too deadly in the early 20th. They were given two choices by the US: widen the field, or legalize the forward pass. Football chose one, rugby chose the other.
Yes, it's inaccurate and dramatized, but sounds cool.
#101 by Pat // Mar 25, 2023 - 10:36am
Yeah, I know. I said it was inaccurate. Rugby league's actually played on a narrower field. Dramatic license.
Back when I used to watch rugby union/league and football with a British colleague, we spent most of the time trying to understand the games relative to the other sports. Basically we came to the conclusion (which might be fairly controversial) that the forward pass does more to differentiate the two than Camp's changes, although it might be a synergy thing.
Then it became:
Brit: "Okay, so why did football adopt the forward pass?"
Me: "By order of the President."
Brit: "Typical."
#135 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 27, 2023 - 12:54pm
A touch overly reductive.
Roosevelt formed the IFC, which after a sufficient period of graft and patronage would become the NCAA. This commission was tasked with, among other things, safening up football.
The earliest idea was expanding the field size. The issue there was Harvard had just built a permanent stadium to current field dimensions, and could not accommodate a larger field. As in all things, the constantly whining of an Ivy League school established the rules going forward. (The Ivy League exists because they were offended by the concept of the poors getting scholarships)
So John Heisman finally got his way, and they legalized the forward pass instead. It had been intermittently or regionally legal before -- Walter Camp is generally credited with the first actual legal forward pass, back around 1879. Heisman had seen it in a game in 1895 and was intrigued.
Roosevelt, as was typical, got the credit but wasn't responsible or or present for carrying his effort through to its permanent state.
#138 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 1:38pm
Oh, it's more than reductive, it's almost completely wrong - but I don't let facts get in the way of a good quip. The colleges that Roosevelt got together were just Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (who formed the IFA), and while a lot of times the IFA gets credit, it was really the "everybody else" that drove the reforms. If Camp had refused to join the other schools, they would've just gone ahead without him.
#71 by BigRichie // Mar 24, 2023 - 3:13pm
Wasn't the Josh Allen lost fumble (against Minnesota) due to the Tush Push? What I recall them saying after the game was that, after the fumbled snap, Gabe Davis pushing Allen on the butt in order to propel him forward is what kept Josh from recovering the fumble.
#79 by halfjumpsuit // Mar 24, 2023 - 4:10pm
Doesn't seem a very hard push to me, but even if it was that's another reason why the play isn't automatic. Also maybe don't do it on 1st and 10 from your own goal line.
#78 by All Is On // Mar 24, 2023 - 4:08pm
Ex-player and current ESPN analyst Booger MacFarland said it best: "quarterbacks can almost trip and fall and still get a first down" with the QB sneak—and that was before the Eagles adaptation.
At the risk of disagreeing with a former professional football player about the inherent difficulty of playing professional football, I don't think Jason Kelce, Isaac Seumalo, et al would agree that there is no physical difficulty in executing this play. Football is a team game - it's not just the guy with the ball who is expected to do all (or even most!) of the work.
And besides, if this was a no-effort, no-risk play, we wouldn't see teams holding their high-dollar QBs out of doing it, but it's well known that Mahomes and Roethlisberger (and probably others I'm not aware of) largely haven't done it to avoid getting hurt. Ben was, famously, Big, I bet he would've been a reasonably good sneaker.
#89 by Beavis // Mar 24, 2023 - 6:46pm
Let's get serious. If we are talking about aesthetics let's do it right. We need a panel of 5 judges. Each TD/FG/Safety will be scored for technical merit and artistic impression. We will throw out the low and high scores and then average the remaining scores to arrive at the value for each particular scoring play. Problem solved.
#91 by scraps // Mar 24, 2023 - 7:17pm
One year of one team's success on running a play, and banning is the answer?
How about we watch and see if it spreads to other teams, with the same success? You know, not just hysterically pointing to one team's success for one year? Because right now, it's just a fan complaining.
#92 by adamcarley // Mar 24, 2023 - 7:37pm
In rugby, teams respond to a coordinated push (in a ruck) by doing the same in response. NFL defenses could give that a shot. Linebackers would put their shoulders to the tackles' butts, just like the backfield players do to the QB. I think it would be more demanding on the defense though, as you're trying to coordinate at least 4 - 5 players.
Counter plays to the sneak would become even more effective though.
#102 by Pat // Mar 25, 2023 - 11:04am
This is a good point: I actually think part of the Eagles' success is just that defenses kinda, well, suck at responding to a sneak. If you look at what most defenses try to do vs Philly, it's just... bizarre. They like, with two guys stacked, one super low to the ground and the other kinda over them to try to shove more guys in the middle.
Except they're clearly not used to it. They've literally lined up way too far forward on some plays. One sneak didn't even matter because the defender was violently offside in anticipation.
The entire idea of lining two guys up like that is weird, because basically both of them are off-balance. The center basically splits the two of them, shoving one guy to the ground and knocking the other off his base. It does like, nothing. I think they'd be way better off for one guy aiming to line straight up on the center and attempt rushing the snap like you're suggesting.
Of course then when you over commit like that, that's when you spring to the outside. But now you're just talking football.
#104 by halfjumpsuit // Mar 25, 2023 - 11:30am
I actually think part of the Eagles' success is just that defenses kinda, well, suck at responding to a sneak.
I think part of that is from the game moving so far towards passing the ball that DTs are increasingly pass rushers first, run stoppers second. So if you have a literally strong OL you have an pretty good advantage in this situation. Especially if the play before was a passing situation and go no huddle.
#93 by adamcarley // Mar 24, 2023 - 7:37pm
In rugby, teams respond to a coordinated push (in a ruck) by doing the same in response. NFL defenses could give that a shot. Linebackers would put their shoulders to the tackles' butts, just like the backfield players do to the QB. I think it would be more demanding on the defense though, as you're trying to coordinate at least 4 - 5 players.
Counter plays to the sneak would become even more effective though.
#95 by Sifter // Mar 24, 2023 - 11:14pm
I mostly agree with the writer - thank you sir! I don't think it's the type of play that should be encouraged. That is ultimately what regulation is all about, either: a) stopping an unfair advantage (definitely pretty arguable when it converts 90% of the time, but i'll at least hear your 'its a skill' arguments), or b) discouraging behavior that is not good for the sport. I don't think adding scrums to football is something we want to encourage because to me that is not how you play football. It might be how you win, but it's not football. It's rugby.
#98 by guest from Europe // Mar 25, 2023 - 9:12am
There are so many comments about the rules, which rules to change...
It is a shame that is the most intensely thought of aspect of the sport. After the Super Bowl and after the Chiefs vs. Bengals, which were two very interesting games, people were mostly complaining about the rules. It is a big problem.
#103 by Noahrk // Mar 25, 2023 - 11:20am
I don't think there's any other sport where the rules change every single year. Including some key rules, like what is a catch. It's like one of those unstable atoms from the back of the periodic table. If I didn't know better I'd say it was a floundering sport.
#117 by Pat // Mar 26, 2023 - 6:50pm
I don't think there's any other sport where the rules change every single year.
Have you seen the rules changes for baseball in 2023? They're fairly massive. Pitch clocks, limit on pickoff attempts, limits on shifts, and physically larger bases. That's a bigger change than football's seen in a very long time. The "what is a catch" change is mostly cosmetic, for instance - it would change what, a handful of plays in a year?
The more major changes in football recently have all been player/QB safety rules changes, and there's no avoiding that.
#127 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 11:36am
First in ages? Uh. No. Not in the slightest. More like 2020 was when the rules change flurry started - did you forget that the NL adopted a designated hitter rule last year? But prior to that you had the introduction of instant replay and challenges, ball design changes, and of course before that you had the steroid era ending, which functionally was a rule. Plus you've got the technology-induced changes that show up from ball tracking.
The two games are basically changing at the same rate, in my opinion. Most of the NFL's changes schematically are injury concern-related, which was essentially forced on them by the concussion lawsuits.
#147 by SandyRiver // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:44pm
IMO, the most radical MLB rule change was setting limits on where fielders could be positioned. That was of a different kind than the pick-off limit or standardizing the pitch clock. It may be the first change of that kind since the mound was moved back to 60'6" in the 1890s. (Changes of mound height have occurred several times, and while important, have far less impact than distance from the plate.)
#148 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 5:04pm
Making the DH leaguewide and the introduction of interleague play were both pretty darn huge changes. Interleague play is one of those things that people forget - it started in freaking 1997. Because stuff like parks aren't standardized in baseball and pitcher/batter matchups matter, just the introduction of that many additional opponents made a huge change strategically.
The DH change and banning the shift occurring in two consecutive years honestly is a change that I don't think there's a comparison to in football. Just two utterly huge changes happening that quick.
#109 by guest from Europe // Mar 25, 2023 - 3:10pm
There are rules in NFL what is and isn't allowed. It is important that referees apply them consistently, such as offensive and defensive holding or intentional grounding. We can never agree about all the details of the rulebook. I don't like this rule, you don't like that one, he/she doesn't like another one. All this complaining and changing of the rules and adding exceptions, bans etc. leads nowhere.
In every game nowadays there are too many reviews, rule experts,... and at the end of the day people still don't agree and complain.
#118 by Pat // Mar 26, 2023 - 6:52pm
There are rules in NFL what is and isn't allowed. It is important that referees apply them consistently,
The last part is what's important, and where the real problems are (which even in the NFL acknowledges). There's way too much variability on certain penalties between crews.
#107 by Elephant1980 // Mar 25, 2023 - 1:45pm
Given that the NFL is, ultimately, just entertainment for fans, "because I don't like it" is a valid reason to support a ban on the push sneak (presumably it would increase the entertainment value for someone who holds that opinion), albeit not one persuasive to other people (who have their own opinions on what is entertaining). The other arguments in the article I think are, for reasons expressed in previous comments, either lacking in evidence or based on faulty logic and I won't rehash that here.
One recurring comment that perplexes me, though, is that the push sneak is "not football." I question: what is football? Is the current state of the game where defenders need to sack quarterbacks as if they were a mother putting a premature newborn in a bassinet "football"? Is the current uber-liberalized passing game where receivers can freely cross over the middle and defenders play with their arms tied behind their backs football, or was the physical, repetitive, and boring 1970s-era 3 yards and a cloud of dust football?
I don't know - but I would like to know if there is an actual definition of "football" these folks have in mind, or if "not football" is simply "something I don't like."