Why The NFL Shouldn’t Ban The ‘Brotherly Shove’

Call it the “tush push.” Call it the “brotherly shove.” Just don’t ban it.

This week’s NFL owners meetings will feature numerous storylines, including various proposed rules changes and one in particular. The Green Bay Packers put forward a proposal to place restrictions on the quarterback sneak play made famous by the Philadelphia Eagles, whereby players lined up behind the quarterback help push him forward.

The Eagles have mastered the play’s execution, almost guaranteeing a first down or touchdown in short-yardage and goal-line situations. But the play’s awkward look — it more closely resembles a rugby scrum than a typical football formation — has prompted controversy and this most recent attempt to restrict it.

As a longtime Eagles fan who personally witnessed the team execute the play during their dominating Super Bowl win in February, I won’t claim objectivity on this issue. If the Packers or other teams have problems with the “brotherly shove” (the Eagles’ favored moniker for the play, after Philadelphia’s status as the City of Brotherly Love), they have a simple solution: develop and execute a defensive strategy to stop it.

Safety Concerns

A goal-line series in the Eagles’ win in the NFC Championship Game helped raise more concerns about the play. In that game, which won the Eagles their trip to Super Bowl LIX, Washington Commanders defender Frankie Luvu repeatedly leapt over both teams’ lines, attempting to time his jump such that he could vault over his teammates and the Eagles’ line to prevent quarterback Jalen Hurts from advancing the ball.

The repeated attempts spawned numerous memes, and referee Shawn Hochuli eventually announced to the surprise of many observers (including this one) that he could award the Eagles a touchdown if the Commanders persisted in their tactics. Viral internet jokes aside, the sequence prompted concerns that the scrum of bodies, coupled with players leaping “over the top” of the pile, would threaten player safety.

There’s just one problem with that theory, however. NFL executive (and, full disclosure, former Eagles cornerback) Troy Vincent said the “tush push” play resulted in exactly zero injuries last season. This raises the obvious question: Why should the NFL ban it, beyond 1) a general concern that “the play looks weird” and 2) the envy of other teams that the Eagles (and, to a lesser extent, the Buffalo Bills) have practiced and executed it in ways that other teams have failed to do? 

Vague Wording

The Packers’ proposal also creates practical concerns as to its enforcement and application. The proposed rule would “prohibit an offensive player from pushing a teammate who was lined up directly behind the snapper and receives the snap, immediately at the snap.”

The obvious question: Who or what defines “immediately at the snap”? How long must players wait before they start pushing — and how will the NFL enforce this definition? Will officials now need to carry stopwatches on the field so they can ensure the “immediately” provision is consistently enforced?

Teams could also try to circumvent this proposed rule in other ways. They could line up not “directly behind the snapper,” instead pushing elsewhere along the offensive line. Or they could have the player who receives the snap hand the ball off to someone else. The possibilities seem, if not endless, certainly more open than the Packers would have people believe with their attempt to “ban” the play.

In short, the conversation about banning the play seems like many typical policy problems seen in government: trying to legislate outcomes via more and more rules, bureaucracy, and regulations. In case you hadn’t realized, that strategy hasn’t worked well in Washington — and if the Packers’ proposal gets adopted, it likely won’t end well for the NFL either.

Run It Down Their Throats

Eagles coach Nick Sirianni rightly noted over the weekend that his three former assistant coaches — Jonathan Gannon, now of the Arizona Cardinals, Shane Steichen of the Indianapolis Colts, and Kellen Moore of the New Orleans Saints — had “better vote for” keeping the “tush push” because “they are in the [head coach] position [for their teams] because of that play” and the Eagles’ successful execution of it. Rules changes require 24 votes for adoption, meaning a total of nine teams could preserve the status quo by voting against the Packers’ proposal.

A further irony to the debate: After meeting in week one of the 2024 season in Brazil, and in Philadelphia during the first round of the playoffs this January, the Eagles and Packers are scheduled to meet again next year, this time at Lambeau Field in Green Bay. If the Packers’ attempt to ban the “tush push” fails — and perhaps even if it succeeds — the Eagles should take the opportunity to go into Green Bay and show the Packers how effective the play can be.