wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
2 months ago

Don’t be gaslighted by football memories that only go back 20 years.

Yes, the Tush Push is most likely on its way out, in its current form. Yes, the Green Bay Packers  are the team that submitted the rules proposal to do away with it. And yes, twice during the 2024 season the Packers played the Philadelphia Eagles  — the team that most famously and successfully uses the play — and the Packers lost both games.


But no, the rules proposal is not doing away with some long-standing NFL rule or erasing a fundamental facet of the sport of football.


Somehow, a narrative has arisen among some NFL fans and analysts that this play — pushing a quarterback from behind on a QB sneak — is symbolic and indicative of “old-school football” and that banning pushing ball-carriers from behind is tantamount to eliminating a core facet of the game that dates back to its early days. However, this argument could not be farther from the truth.


In fact, this rule change closes a loophole that was created just 20 years ago, returning football to how it was played prior to 2005. The rule penalizing “assisting a runner” has existed since the early days of the sport of football. Research on exactly when the rule was instituted is challenging, but it may date back as far as 1906. The Intercollegiate Athletic Association (which would later become the NCAA) instituted a massive set of rules changes for football that year, partially at the behest of then-president Theodore Roosevelt, in response to a slew of deaths during violent college football games.


Among the rules implemented that year  were legalizing the forward pass, requiring a neutral zone betweenv the offensive and defensive lines, and requiring 10 yards for a first down. All of those rules were implemented to make the game safer and more spread out, avoiding the massive scrums and impacts that led to those fatalities. Although this writer could not find clear confirmation that the assisting the runner penalty was included that year, it is logical that it would be included as a safety-related change.


At the very least, we know that pushing a runner from behind was illegal during Vince Lombardi’s tenure as head coach of the Packers, and that it had been illegal for some time before that. Perhaps the best example of this is shown in a famous photo of Bart Starr’s quarterback sneak during the Ice Bowl in December 1967.


Chuck Mercein, the running back behind Starr on the play, thought he was getting the football on the play when Starr elected to sneak it. Here is a quote from Mercein, who talked to Packers team historian Cliff Christl for an article published in 2017 :

I’m almost in the hole when I realize I’m not going to get the ball, (Starr’s) keeping it. So the next thing I thought, ‘Pull up. Don’t push him into the end zone or assist him, which was a penalty.’ I couldn’t stop. When you’re on ice, you’re not going to stop on a dime. So that was when I threw my hands up in the air to kind of indicate to the officials, if they thought I was trying to push him in, that I didn’t have anything to do with it.



As Mercein’s comments suggest, the penalty for pushing a ball-carrier was so ingrained in football by the 1960s that a running back’s first thought — well, his second, after his surprise at not getting the handoff — was to find a way to make it clear to the referees that he wasn’t pushing his quarterback.


The rule continued on unchanged until 2005, when the NFL rolled back the “no pushing” rule, citing the difficulty of officiating the play. Still, there was little concern about rolling that change back to its original until recently.


Yes, the Eagles have found this loophole and capitalized on it. And is the impetus for the proposal to reinstate the ban on pushing a ball-carrier the Eagles’ relative advantage with this play? Possibly. Probably, even. If fans or pundits want to call the Packers or the rest of the NFL cowardly for doing away with pushing the ball-carrier, then that is their right.


But there are two final points worth acknowledging about the push to change the rule back. First, the NFL has often moved quickly to close loopholes in its rules that individual teams have used to create a competitive advantage. Personally, I think of this facet of the rule change as being similar to when the NFL changed rules around fumbles so that the offense could not advance a fumble on 4th down or in the last two minutes of the game. That rule change came about because of the “Holy Roller ” play in 1978, when Ken Stabler fumbled the football forward while being sacked. The league has often changed its rules quickly when loopholes are discovered, and if anything, it’s a bit surprising that they have not done so sooner with pushing a ball-carrier.


Finally, football fans should simply refuse to listen to those who are trying to push a revisionist history by claiming that this is doing away with something that is a foundational facet of the sport. It’s a dishonest argument when, in fact, pushing a runner was illegal for nearly a century and appears to be one of the rules created that largely define the sport as we know it today.

Continue Reading @ Evan "Tex" Western 

Evan "Tex" Western wrote:



A pretty decent article on pushing the or runner.
When the Eagles first started doing the tush push I didn't realize the rules had changed . I thought it was illegal. I thought about Chuck Mercei's comments. I am glad the were included in this story.
UserPostedImage
bboystyle
2 months ago
I hate the fact that we were the team to lead the charge in trying to ban it. Makes us seem like sore losers.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
2 months ago

I hate the fact that we were the team to lead the charge in trying to ban it. Makes us seem like sore losers.

Originally Posted by: bboystyle 


It's not as if they are alone in feeling it needs to be dealt with. 21 other teams agreed with the Packers.
UserPostedImage
beast
2 months ago
The Packers people supposedly don't really care one way or the other ...

It's the NFL that twisted arms to get the Packers and Lions to push rules for them. I assume maybe because they owned the NFL one for giving them the drafts? Or maybe the NFL felt like they were the best ones to make a complaint for some reason.

I think the Eagles organization realizes this or more would of be made about it, and if it wasn't the Packers, then the NFL would of gotten someone else to do it

They really need to open it up, so the NFL can propose rules on their own and not use a team as a fake front, or let them say this was anonymously submitted, or submitted to us by a team, and it doesn't matter which one.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (4h) : GRAB THE PITCHFORKS~
Zero2Cool (4h) : CUT HIM
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Socieltal collapse imminent
Mucky Tundra (5h) : The West has fallen
Mucky Tundra (5h) : After starting off camp with 25 straight made field goals, Brandon McManus has missed one
Zero2Cool (10h) : But it should be stable
Zero2Cool (10h) : It's probably gonna be slower.
Zero2Cool (10h) : We're gonna just full go on to the new host.
Zero2Cool (22h) : What crap. Site issues galore
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : if PH dies, there is packerpeople com available
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : database is on new host, eventually website will follow
Mucky Tundra (30-Jul) : Zero, regarding Ewers, you are correct.
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Sadly, this might be our life for awhile. I could put it on another host, but seems it was slower, although more stable
beast (30-Jul) : How long will it be down?
beast (30-Jul) : RIP site 😭
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site will die, I have to restart it.
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Quinn stinks. Lot of underthrows. (my guess)
beast (30-Jul) : How did Quinn Ewers effect where Golden was drafted?
dfosterf (30-Jul) : All I've experienced was late at night or early morning. I just figured you were doing something in the background
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site sure seems to be down more than up
dfosterf (29-Jul) : 50 cent hookers? I'm moving to Green Bay. I thought it was just real estate that was more affordable there. 😂
Zero2Cool (29-Jul) : Sure seems site going down more than 50¢ hooker
Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : Golden with two TDs in red zone drills today
Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : @JacobMorley Shoutout to Quinn Ewers for allowing Matthew Golden to be available when Green Bay picked.
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : The menu you expanded to log in, it's the first icon under "PackersHome" .. maybe i should add text to it
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Feelin' pfowish can't find the sun. No big deal, will drag a laptop out when the time comes
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : if you're on mobile, open the menu and its the "sun" icon
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Can't find the toggle, lol
dfosterf (27-Jul) : I can find that the Microsoft lady rep for Titletown Tech is the philanthropy boss for the entire Microsoft corporation, but. .
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : There's a toggle for light/dark theme. Super easy.
dfosterf (27-Jul) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
dfosterf (27-Jul) : *Friday*
dfosterf (27-Jul) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
dfosterf (27-Jul) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
dfosterf (27-Jul) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
dfosterf (27-Jul) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
packerfanoutwest (27-Jul) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
beast (27-Jul) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
beast (27-Jul) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
beast (27-Jul) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
beast (27-Jul) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
dfosterf (27-Jul) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
dfosterf (27-Jul) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
dfosterf (27-Jul) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
beast (27-Jul) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jul / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.