Latest news with #AnthonyBarr
The Herald Scotland
22-05-2025
- Sport
- The Herald Scotland
Tush Push vote: NFL doesn't get enough support to ban Eagles play
The final tally ended two teams short, with 22 teams voting in favor of a ban and 10 teams electing to allow the play to live on - with the New York Jets, Baltimore Ravens, Detroit Lions and New England Patriots among the teams that sided with the Eagles, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter. It was a rule change that appeared to be a guarantee heading into Wednesday's session, which was attended by Jason Kelce, who played an informational role in the process. The Eagles celebrated the decision on social media, with a simple "Push On" posted on X. Any attempt to ban or limit the play has been controversial in NFL circles. The Green Bay Packers initially proposed the idea at the NFL league meetings in April, when it was revealed they didn't have enough support at the time and would table the discussion until May. The Packers submitted a revised proposal to ban the play earlier this week. In the updated proposal's language, no offensive player may "push or pull a runner in any direction at any time or lift him to his feet." The Packers also eliminated "immediately at the snap" in the updated language. The "Tush Push" was a play made famous by the Philadelphia Eagles, who perfected the process following head coach Nick Sirianni's arrival in 2021. However, the play's origins date back to 2018, when Anthony Barr of the Minnesota Vikings was captured in a mic'd up moment talking through the strategy. The real Tush Push origin story: Anthony Barr was 2 years ahead of the curve ???? #NFLFilmsPresents — NFL Films (@NFLFilms) February 26, 2025 Jalen Hurts, Jason Kelce and the Eagles used the concept to make most short-yardage situations nearly automatic. Depending on your perspective, the play resembles a rugby scrum and is not a football play or a quarterback sneak that rarely fails. TUSH PUSH BAN: What Jalen Hurts, Eagles players have said about looming NFL vote Many teams have tried to mirror the Eagles and their ability to convert at a high level, but that hasn't been the case for most. Despite that reality, the Packers pushed for a ban. The team's president, Mark Murphy, spoke back in April about his optimism surrounding the potential ban despite the tabling of talks. "I think it ended up in a good place," Murphy said in an interview with the Packers' YouTube channel. "We ended up tabling it but we had really good discussions. Talked a little bit about our safety concerns regarding the play, just kind of the style of the play. But good interaction with the league. So it'll be tabled. And then what we're going to do is, it'll be voted on in the May meeting." Most opposition, including Murphy, to the "Tush Push" has pointed to a previous rule that said you can't push or pull players. According to NFL Competition Committee chairman Rich McKay, it was too hard for officials to officiate, which is why the rule was done away with in 2005. Considering how close the league got to banning the "Tush Push" this offseason, it seems likely that there will be more challenges in the future. For now, the Eagles' infamous play lives to fight another day.
Irish Times
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Minister's failure to consider Taliban threat leads to judge overturning refusal to permit Afghan man to bring his family here
The Minister for Justice failed to take into account the threat the Taliban posed to an Afghan man's widowed mother and family when refusing his application for family reunification in Ireland, the High Court has ruled. The man said his family is hostile to the Taliban and a significant part of his case was they are in 'extreme danger' from the political and militant group following its 2021 takeover of power, Mr Justice Anthony Barr noted in a decision quashing the Minister's refusal. The man said his grandfather had served with the armed forces of the previous regime and that the Taliban had in 2015 abducted his father, who is presumed dead. He said his mother faced 'extreme difficulties' looking after his siblings given the Taliban's prejudicial attitude towards women. The fact the man has subsidiary protection here was another significant factor not properly considered, the judge held. READ MORE On those grounds, the judge overturned the refusal and directed the man's application for family reunification visas for his mother and five siblings, aged from nine to 20 years, be reconsidered in line with the court's findings. The man came here 10 years ago aged 17 and is working as a chef and restaurant manager. He was refused refugee status but obtained subsidiary protection effective from 2019. He was previously refused family reunification in 2020 and again in 2021. His judicial review challenge concerned a refusal decision of September 2023. That refusal cited 'reasonable concerns' his family members would be reliant on social welfare payments if permitted to come here. Factors relating to the rights of the State were weightier than those relating to the family's rights, it said. [ 'Too many people' not entitled to International Protection applying in Ireland, Minister for Justice says Opens in new window ] The refusal was 'not disproportionate' given the State's right to control the entry, presence, and exit of foreign nationals, subject to international agreements, and to ensure the economic wellbeing of the country, it also said. In his recently published judgment, Mr Justice Barr said it was agreed the man did not meet the financial threshold to sponsor his family coming here because his €500 weekly income is below the €960 weekly level required. [ Deportation orders triple as Ireland enforces a 'firmer approach to migration' Opens in new window ] The man instead argued his case came within 'exceptional' circumstances, normally humanitarian, under which decision-makers have discretion to grant family reunification. While having subsidiary protection status was not in itself an exceptional circumstance obliging the granting of a visa, it was a 'material factor' to be weighed in the balance in considering whether there were exceptional circumstances in this case, the judge said. The Minister, he held, failed to take the holding of that status into consideration and, on that basis, the court was setting aside the refusal. He also struck down the refusal on foot of a second main argument that the Minister failed to have any, or any adequate regard, to the severe humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover and particularly failed to have regard to the 'hazardous circumstances' of the man's family given their connection to the previous regime.
