It's not the shove from behind. It's the line, mostly Kelce & Hurts.

 

 

Should have run it on that one 3rd and 1. 

7 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

Should have run it on that one 3rd and 1. 

If I had to take a guess, Siri expected Swift to either pick it up or expected him to not lose yards and he’d have pushed on 4th down. Lucky it didn’t cost them. 

Good insight here, especially on the politics of the competition committee basically being coerced by the league to push for rule changes they want to see. He also explains that the Packers proposal was too vague because it said "immediate" pushing of a player. How do you define immediate? How many seconds after the snap?

Banning all player pushing opens up a can of worms. RBs and WRs get pushed over the line for 1st downs and touchdowns a lot too. And what about defense, can they push a player to keep them from crossing the goal line? It's stupid.

All this because ONE team in the NFL is dominant at a play. The Eagles will still convert a high percentage of QB sneaks because the line is so good.

They said it will be difficult for the refs to be consistent about and it has to be defined clearly. Florio also said that when it was a rule prior to 2006 that the refs are the ones who suggested to remove the rule, because it was so hard to determine given how players can bump into each other and form piles, players clump together, blocking, a lineman accidentally pushes into a running back, a lead blocker for the RB or QB accidentally touches the ball carrier. And will coaches be able to throw a challenge flag? The refs found statistically it wasn't even being called much. They hadn't imagined anyone would design a play to use a push, the Eagles took advantage.

Will the refs be biased against the Eagles but let other teams get away with pushing? They've already shown bias trying to call flags for false starts and such. How many downfield pushes will not get called. It's so dumb.

Having said all that...the Eagles should practice running a traditional QB sneak, and more plays handing to the RB or other short yardage plays. They have done some fakes off the formation but not that many. In a way I hope it gets banned so that the Eagles can still dominate. There have been many times where the "pushers" barely do anything. You can see in highlights and replays that Hurts is already there and the line is so good, they barely need the push. So ban it, and let the Eagles dominant O line and strong QB still convert anyway. Then what? They can't ban the QB sneak. Siri is already pissed about it, and petty to begin with. You know he's going to want to troll other teams. So they'll run fakes off it and hopefully convert or score TDs from passing, tossing to Barkley, different looks. They'll run QB sneaks and gloat when they convert. All this nonsense just because 1 team out of 32 has a high success rate.

Reportedly, the revised proposal will include pushing a player anywhere on the field at any time. However, as Florio speculated (and he is surely spot on), the officials will not consistently call pushing that happens down the field. He believes that at first, there might be a flag or two (you know, for optics) but over time it will simply be overlooked (the focus will be largely on pushing at the LOS on that one play).

On 9/30/2023 at 5:45 AM, kiwinavega said:

It´s laughable, really. Would you ban a quick out because a team was really good at picking up two yards with it? If there´s a play that I wouldn´t mind seeing banned, it´s teams kneeling on the ball to kill the clock

I'd rather see spiking the ball to stop the clock banned or at least be intentional grounding, which is what it actually is. Receiver in the area 😒

2 hours ago, time2rock said:

Reportedly, the revised proposal will include pushing a player anywhere on the field at any time. However, as Florio speculated (and he is surely spot on), the officials will not consistently call pushing that happens down the field. He believes that at first, there might be a flag or two (you know, for optics) but over time it will simply be overlooked (the focus will be largely on pushing at the LOS on that one play).

And if and when that happens, it would prove the proposal wasn't really about pushing any other way and no one cares about that, they only want to stop it on QB sneaks. RBs also have been pushed over the years. Will they call that at the LOS?

If the Eagles wanted to be petty, they'd compile highlights of other teams pushing ball carriers that don't get called and submit to the league. Also just like the Chiefs bias was talked about so much and shown on social media highlights, the fan and media reaction can showcase that as well. It helped the league ease up on Chiefs bias which helped in the playoffs.

1 hour ago, Dweedlebug said:

I'd rather see spiking the ball to stop the clock banned or at least be intentional grounding, which is what it actually is. Receiver in the area 😒

Right. There is intentional grounding, but the QB can also launch the ball into the stands to avoid a sack and that's fine. Spiking the ball is a "boring" play, doesn't look good and isn't a "football play" which are some of the arguments people have used about the push. So it's all BS.

39 minutes ago, NOTW said:

And if and when that happens, it would prove the proposal wasn't really about pushing any other way and no one cares about that, they only want to stop it on QB sneaks. RBs also have been pushed over the years. Will they call that at the LOS?

If the Eagles wanted to be petty, they'd compile highlights of other teams pushing ball carriers that don't get called and submit to the league. Also just like the Chiefs bias was talked about so much and shown on social media highlights, the fan and media reaction can showcase that as well. It helped the league ease up on Chiefs bias which helped in the playoffs.

I think everyone and their mothers already know this is what is really going on here.

On 5/7/2025 at 10:38 AM, time2rock said:

I think everyone and their mothers already know this is what is really going on here.

We all know who's behind this.

You guessed it... Frank Stallone.

1 hour ago, Arthur Jackson said:

We all know who's behind this.

You guessed it... Frank Stallone.

If Mel GIbson and Sylvester Stallone had a baby together (biology aside).

On 9/30/2023 at 5:45 AM, kiwinavega said:

It´s laughable, really. Would you ban a quick out because a team was really good at picking up two yards with it? If there´s a play that I wouldn´t mind seeing banned, it´s teams kneeling on the ball to kill the clock

A better question is why is a spike not intentional grounding? There's no receiver in the area and the ball doesn't reach the line of scrimmage...that play has never made sense to me.

10 hours ago, b_west3 said:

A better question is why is a spike not intentional grounding? There's no receiver in the area and the ball doesn't reach the line of scrimmage...that play has never made sense to me.

It's not just clocking the ball that should be discussed but actually intentionally throwing the ball into the ground near a player's feet is also literally intentional grounding.

Honestly, I don't mind when they "throw it away" out of bounds past the LOS or past the back of the endzone, but when they throw the ball into the ground around players, refs should be able to rule if it was intentional whether a receiver "is in the area" or not. And if they really want to put an end to the practice, they should credit the defender with the sack (officially) and add an additional 5 yard penalty from the spot of the sack. Some contractual incentives are actually on the line for players.

They act like the Eagles just run the play on first down and get another first down. Don't want to see the brotherly shove, then don't give up the other 9 yards. The thing that annoyed me about it last year was how many times they got tackled at the 1 instead of just scoring a touchdown.

It's a clear attempt to block one team with an NFL rule and that's just petty.

I’d hate to be the Packers fan. Imagine supporting an organisation that espouse such a losers mentality that they go crying to change the rules because they can’t stop a play.

17 hours ago, kiwieagle said:

I’d hate to be the Packers fan. Imagine supporting an organisation that espouse such a losers mentality that they go crying to change the rules because they can’t stop a play.

Imagine them getting a penalty and TD called back on a running back push.

Interesting.

9 minutes ago, NOTW said:

If the NFL do change the rule as expected they are just making lives a lot harder for the officials. There are plays in that video where it’s hard to tell whether there’s a push or not. Could be blocking could be a push. And there are so many other plays in the NFL where a player gets pushed for extra yards and now that’ll need to be a 10 yard penalty.

14 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

If the NFL do change the rule as expected they are just making lives a lot harder for the officials. There are plays in that video where it’s hard to tell whether there’s a push or not. Could be blocking could be a push. And there are so many other plays in the NFL where a player gets pushed for extra yards and now that’ll need to be a 10 yard penalty.

The REFS are the ones who suggested cancelling the previous push rule for that very reason. They said it was too hard to officiate, and the stats showed it was rarely called anyway. This proposal is solely about stopping the Eagles.

And Brandt is right about this, watch: