Mike Vrabel—blunt, sarcastic, and absolutely on point. And he is not here to listen to all the whining. Vrabel is pointing out the hypocrisy as all 32 NFL owners prepare to vote on whether to outlaw the contentious quarterback sneak variation—mastered by the Philadelphia Eagles. The New England Patriots head coach didn’t hold back when discussing the NFL’s ongoing debate over banning the tush push.

His argument? Why not forbid Lamar Jackson from running the football as well, if you’re going to restrict the tush push because it’s difficult to stop? It sounds absurd, doesn’t it? That’s precisely what Vrabel is saying.

“There’s a lot of plays that you have to defend, whether that’s quarterback sneaks, whether that’s read zone—there’s a lot of plays that are hard to defend, and I don’t think that you can get rid of them every time that you have a tough time stopping it,” Mike Vrabel said. “I mean, Lamar Jackson shouldn’t be able to run with the football anymore—how about making that rule? Like, that’s tough to defend.” In other words, defenses need to figure it out instead of crying to the league office.

And for real, he has a point. What will happen if we start prohibiting plays simply because defences dislike them? Is the read option prohibited because dual-threat quarterbacks are challenging to tackle? Play-action should be prohibited since it confuses linebackers. And the defenders must eventually perform their duties more effectively.

Honestly, the most divisive play in the league right now is the tush push. Although it’s not flashy. But it works ruthlessly. By completing short-yardage scenarios at an impossibly high rate, the Eagles have elevated it to an art form. The fact that one team has mastered the play, And not the fact that the play is unfair, is what truly irritates people.

And once again, the NFL is divided between those who value innovation and those who prefer a simple solution, as all 32 owners are scheduled to vote on the Green Bay Packers’ request to outlaw the tush push. With their incredible conversion rate, the Eagles have transformed the play into an unstoppable short-yardage weapon. The outcome? Teams that are unable to use it now want it to be prohibited.

So, rather than adapting, some teams are pushing for a ban, citing “player safety” concerns. Among them is Sean McDermott, the head coach of the Buffalo Bills, who contends that the play appears risky even if injury statistics don’t support it. “It’s two things,” replied McDermott. “It’s force, added force, No. 1, and then the posture of the players being asked to execute that type of play.” Translation: Let’s get rid of it because WE-CAN’T-JUST-CRACK-IT.

However, some coaches feel it’s not right to ban it. DeMeco Ryans, the coach of the Houston Texans, feels—“It’s tough to punish a team for being really good at something,” he admitted. Even Andy Reid, the coach of the Chiefs, who fell to the Eagles in Super Bowl LVII, adopted a calm approach. “Tough play to stop, but then you’re listening to that and the medical side, and you probably could go either way with it,” Reid said. “But I would say if it’s putting a player in a bad position, then you probably have to do something about it.”

So, where does the league draw the line? Though, if the dispute is about justice rather than safety? With his most incisive counterargument, Vrabel aimed to emphasise just that point.

Mike Vrabel’s perfect comparison: Ban Lamar Jackson too?

Mike Vrabel was making a brutally honest point when he included Lamar Jackson’s name in the conversation. The quarterback for the Ravens is a human cheat code; he breaks ankles with ease and leaves opponents gasping for air. No one is advocating for a rule change to make his skill set illegal, but defensive coordinators are exhausted trying to find out how to limit him.

Why? Because Jackson’s supremacy is the product of his extraordinary talent, not some legal loophole. He simply does his job better than most defenders who try to stop him. The Eagles’ tush thrust is a perfect example of that. They’ve mastered this totally legal manoeuvre better than anybody else, and it’s not an unfair trick or gimmick.

The hypocrisy of banning plays only because they are difficult to defend stands immediately exposed by Vrabel’s reasoning. Where does the NFL draw the line?

• Since Patrick Mahomes‘ no-look passes make defences seem silly, should they be prohibited?
• Because Justin Tucker is so accurate, should his field goals be prohibited?
• Does Tyreek Hill have an unfair edge because of his speed? Perhaps the league needs to restrict the speed at which receivers are permitted to run.
• Because it confuses defences, should the 49ers‘ motion-heavy offence be limited?

Innovation and execution are the cornerstones of the NFL. The onus is on the defence to figure out how to stop an offensive advantage that a team develops within the rules, not on the league to intervene and change the regulations. Football isn’t being ruined by the tush push; rather, it’s highlighting the underperforming teams. Perhaps those teams should spend more time in the weight room and less time criticising rather than outlawing it.

24 of the 32 team owners must vote in favour of banning the tush push. Only a few teams, like the Packers, Cowboys, and Bills, appear to be advocating for the move at this time. The Browns, Patriots, Ravens, and Eagles are all adamantly opposed to it.

The worst part is that there is no evidence that the play causes more injuries, according to the NFL’s own competition committee. What are we doing here, then? So, the tush push won’t be prohibited by the league since it’s dangerous. The reason for this is that some teams grew weary of seeing the Eagles outperform everyone else. And that’s not how football should operate, as Mike Vrabel tragically demonstrated.