The Philadelphia Eagles can continue to run the “Tush Push” … for now.
The vote to eliminate the “Tush Push” at the NFL owners meetings has been tabled to May, as the league is split on whether to ban the play made popular by the Eagles. Teams had an informal 16-16 vote on the “Tush Push,” CBS Sports NFL insider Jonathan Jones reports, needing 24 of 32 votes to ban the play (75% of the teams).
“I think for everybody, including myself especially, health and safety is the most important thing when evaluating any play,” Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie said Tuesday at the league meetings. “We’ve been very open to whatever data exists on the ‘Tush Push’ and there’s just been no data that shows it isn’t a very, very safe play. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be pushing the ‘Tush Push.'”
The Eagles have run the controversial play at a very successful rate. Philadelphia was 39 of 48 converting the “Tush Push” into a first down or touchdown this season (including playoffs). Of the nine times they failed, the Eagles followed with a first down or touchdown on the next play using a “Tush Push” eight times (including two via defensive offside on a “Tush Push” formation).
The only time the “Tush Push” was truly stopped was after an aborted snap in Week 1 where they kicked a field goal on the next play. That was Cam Jurgens’ first start at center in the NFL after Jason Kelce retired.
‘Tush Push’ vote tabled by NFL owners: Which teams support, oppose polarizing QB sneak play
Cody Benjamin
The Eagles weren’t the only team that’s had success converting quarterback sneaks in 2024. The Buffalo Bills were 29 of 37 on quarterback sneaks (78.4%), including the playoffs. Buffalo ran the sneak 37 times, second behind Philadelphia.
The Cleveland Browns were 11 of 12 on quarterback sneaks (91.7%) while the Dallas Cowboys were 9 of 10 (90%). The Green Bay Packers were 8 of 8 (100%).
“I don’t ever remember a play being banned because a single team or a few teams were running it effectively,” Lurie said. “It’s part of what I think what I love and we love most about football is it’s a chess match. Let the chess match play out. If for any reason it does get banned, we’ll try to be the very best at short-yardage situations and we’ve got a lot of ideas there.
“It’s a credit to our personnel in a way. There aren’t many teams who have 600-pound squat quarterbacks and that offensive line — so anyway, if there was any injury concern, I’d be concerned.”
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the safety issues that have been brought up with the “Tush Push,” but the league has found no injuries as a result of the play. The league tabled the vote to find more information in the coming months.
“I think there are safety issues being considered with the ‘Tush Push,'” Goodell said, via Jones. “We have very little data, but we see the potential risk. It makes a lot of sense to go back to the old rule prohibiting pulling or pushing ball carriers.”
Lurie wants to see actual numbers, which the league hasn’t provided yet.
NFL owners approve big rule changes for 2025: Kickoff and overtime to be modified, ‘Tush Push’ ban tabled
John Breech
“I don’t think there are any [numbers],” Lurie said. “If you wanna say that it could be, it’s hard to make rules on could-bes and should-bes. The quarterback sneak is one of the reasons we like using the ‘Tush Push’ is because we feel it’s safer play than a quarterback sneak. If you talk to quarterbacks about it, there’s more spearing going on, they’re less protected by players around them, and one of the reasons we got motivated to develop an expertise in this play is it was more protective to the quarterback.
“It’s ironic that people would bring up health and safety. We’re at the top of the game in terms of wanting health and safety on every play. We voted for hip-drop tackle and defenseless receiver. We will always, always support what is safer for the players. It’s a no-brainer. If this is proven to be less safe for the players, we will be against the tush push.
“But until that’s the case, to me, there’d be no reason to ban this play.”
The league doesn’t have enough evidence to warrant a ban. Perhaps they can gather enough over the next two months to warrant an actual vote. A play not being “aesthetically pleasing” isn’t going to sell Lurie.
“For me it’s not a very relative critique that it doesn’t look right or something like that,” Lurie said. “What looks right? We like to win and score.”
Add Comment