It's going to be hard to find 24 teams that sufficiently oppose the "tush push" to nudge it from the rulebook. But there are some who believe the play doesn't belong in the game.
Rams coach Sean McVay, a member of the Competition Committee, explained his position during a Monday visit to PFT Live. The comments came a day after a reportedly "animated" conversation between McVay, Bills coach Sean McDermott, Eagles G.M. Howie Roseman, and Eagles assistant G.M. Jon Ferrari.
"Here's what I would say," McVay said. "I don't — and I told these guys this — I don't believe in taking something out because they do it better than anybody else. And I told both Jon and Howie that when we were talking yesterday.
"What I don't like is the optics of that play. Looks like a rugby scrum. And there are some health and safety things, which those things exist in short yardage and goal line situations as well. I'm kind of conflicted because you don't wanna be a hater because they do it better than anybody else, so I don't agree with that. But I also wish we didn't let the play in in the first place in regards to just the optics of what it looks like. Doesn't look like football to me. And Jon, you know, those guys they understood it, but obviously, you know where they stand on that."
One problem comes from the current proposal, as formulated by the Packers. The rule would prohibit teammates from "immediately" pushing the ballcarrier. That term might create more questions than it answers.
"Those are a lot of the conversations in terms of the semantics, the specifics, and then I think a lot of the dialogue goes back to even some of the conversations we've had on the Competition Committee is, 'All right, how do we allow it to be officiated in a clear manner and that's where some of the things get granular?'" McVay said. "What I understand from Green Bay's proposal is it's specifically that play in regards to the immediate push behind the center and what that represents. What is that time? Within a second is what they kind of had communicated to us, but it does open up some other things and the consistency across — you have an appreciation for the challenges and the semantics with that. I'll be interested to see how that vote goes tomorrow."
It almost seems as if it would make sense to come up with a new proposal. Something that more consistently and reliably addresses the issue, such as eliminating the ability to push the ballcarrier at all or, at a minimum, no pushing of the ballcarrier within the tackle box. McVay was asked whether he thinks the owners could decide to rewrite the current proposal in those or other ways.
"I think that might be something we would visit a year from now or maybe even when the owners meet again in May," McVay said, "but for tomorrow, I don't necessarily think that's the direction, but I would be really interested to see how they vote."
He acknowledged it will be difficult to get to 24. Sometimes, however, it's important to have the discussion in order to see whether any support builds behind any specific idea for addressing the problem.
And, as McVay said, it perhaps would have been better for the play to have never been allowed in the first place. In that regard, the league has only itself to blame for removing from the rulebook in 2006 the prohibition on pushing the ballcarrier.
It's amazing it took a team 16 ...
