Last week, as NFL teams were preparing to head to Palm Beach, Florida, for the league’s annual spring owners meetings, an AFC executive shared his vantage on different rules proposals expected to head to a vote. One in particular had his attention — much like the rest of the NFL — and also his venom: The potential banning of the quarterback sneak known as the "tush push," a vote that was officially tabled Tuesday morning.
“There’s nothing to support making it an issue worth a vote,” the executive said. “If it’s safety, things that might happen is not really going to [carry a vote]. We shouldn’t change rules to get away from injuries that aren’t actually happening. … This is a proposal because some people are pissed that the offense has an advantage over the defense and the [Philadelphia] Eagles just run it better — different offensive linemen, different coordinators, they just keep going. Now it’s suddenly an injury concern, even though the data shows it isn’t?”
“Imagine if that’s how the NFL worked,” he continued. “If some of these guys were running things around the [Johnny] Unitas years, we’d be voting on [banning] the forward pass.”
It was a hyperbolic jab at the Green Bay Packers and team president Mark Murphy, who many believe to be the root source of the Packers' proposal to effectively ban the tush push. But it’s also a moment that showcases the disdain for changing a rule without data to support it.
That debate continued in full view Monday, when AFC head coaches met with the media and Buffalo Bills head coach Sean McDermott — whose team runs a version of the tush push but also supports a ban — cast the proposal as being proactive. His argument was that a lack of injuries doesn’t necessarily give an accurate picture in terms of the risks involved. The NFL’s chief medical officer, Allen Sills, is also wrapped up in the back and forth, becoming a key figure advising the league office on what he believes is a legitimate concern if the play remains in the ...
