The arguments have been put forward. The goal posts have moved. The question is whether the current effort to get rid of Tash’s push is good for the game.
This is not the case. And the whole effort is a bad look for sport.
Yes, some want to get rid of it. And they found fragile and changing arguments.
The discussion goes something like that.
“The game is not sure.”
“Ok, where is the data on injuries?”
“There is none.”
“So how do you know it’s not sure?”
“It may not be sure.”
“How do you know that?”
“It seems that it is not sure. We must be proactive.”
“But you are never proactive. Why are you suddenly proactive now? ”
“Well, it doesn’t look like football.”
“Does this respect the current football rules?”
“Yes, but it doesn’t look like a football game.”
“Who?”
It all looks like a way to withdraw something from the best NFL team. While some opponents of the play might really believe the reasons given, the circumstances justify the very real perception that it is less to do the right thing and more on the bitter grapes.
At least, the debate gives the 31 other teams a way to explain their inability to compete with the defending champions of the Super Bowl.
Remember when the patriots have been constantly accused of cheating? Yes, they were guilty of cheating. But the accusations have become ridiculous. However, when the owners asked to know why their teams could not compete with the patriots, saying that “they cheat” seemed better than admitting that they are smarter, they work harder, they are more innovative and they are simply better than their competitors. (The chiefs have dealt with this recently, their success being compromised by the erroneous idea that officials are trying to help the chiefs to win.)
The current debate of Tash Push, whatever its result, allows teams that cannot beat the Eagles to blame it on a game which is not a football game and which chews essentially, but for the fact that at least 24 teams did not decide to cheat it.
It is a dangerous precedent. If a team offers a success technique, the objective should be to understand how to stop it and / or understand how to do it. The strategy should not be to hide behind security or aesthetics or any other half -cooked justification in order to find enough support to kill the room or, at least, to create the perception that it is unfair or bad to use it.
The Eagles could be tempted to say: “Very good. Prohibit Tash push. We will always execute the quarter-Arrière in a way that no one can stop it. ” Hoping that they don’t do it, for two reasons.
First of all, the next proposal could target the furtive quarter. Second, surrender would legitimize the effort to counter a room that works to get rid of it. Or, at least, by raising the idea that there is something that does not go with using it.
The second reason is the main reason why Eagles are held firmly. Those who cannot compete with a successful game should not be able to collectively cook reasons pretextual to remove from the game what they cannot manage.
For the moment, it is the push of Tash. At one point, it will be something else. Although it is not good for the game to dominate a team until other teams can come with an answer, it is horrible that the game leaves the answer to find interrupted reasons to delete a game that other teams do not like.
