"Palpably unfair acts" and the Infield Fly Rule

Because I do not watch actual football games, I am late to the discussion of another example of Infield Fly-like rules in other sports, this time in the Eagles-Commanders game.

The Eagles had the ball about a yard from the goal line. Everyone knew they would run the "Tush Push" (three players in the backfield push the quarterback on a sneak), which has become nearly unstoppable. The Commanders tried to time the snap and get to the QB before he had the ball and the pushers had a chance to push, including by a player jumping over the top of the line. They mistimed it three times, earning an offsides penalty each time. After the third infraction, the official announced that he would, if the Commanders did not cut the crap, call a palpably unfair act, which allows an official to award a score.

This is an IFR-type situation: The Commanders engaged in conduct contrary to ordinary expectations (intentional infractions); the Eagles could not counter (they cannot stop a player from encroaching repeatedly); it secured the Commanders an overwhelming advantage (the Eagles never had a chance to snap the ball); and the Commander had the incentive to keep doing it because it incurred no risk to keep doing it  and thus hoped to time it right that one time.* The palpably unfair conduct call eliminates the incentive to keep trying the play by imposing a cost--the touchdown they are trying to stop.

[*] An offside infraction is harmless with the ball inches from the goalline--the the penalty is half the distance to the goal line (Zeno's Paradox applied to football) and no new set of downs.

I addressed the palpably unfair rule as a limiting rule in the IFR book when discussing Super Bowl XLVII between the Ravens and 49ers. The Ravens had a safety kick with seconds remaining on the clock. Ravens players were recorded on the sideline saying that if the 49ers returner broke free, they should run onto the field and tackle him to keep him from scoring. Such a play would earn a palpably unfair call and likely the officials awarding the touchdown. And the Ravens' planned strategy fits the IFR elements--contrary action according an overwhelming advantage that the opponent cannot counter, with the team having every incentive to try it.

Interestingly, some have argued for a different limiting rule--ban the tush-push. This argument sees the IFR-type problem in reverse: The offense enjoys an overwhelming-and-non-c0unterable advantage (the mass of bodies and momentum is impossible to defend) and an incentive to do this every time in that short-yardage situation. Eliminating the tush-push eliminates the unfair disadvantage on the defense. And, in turn, eliminates the defense's incentive to commit palpably unfair acts.

Update: Whether the tush-push should be banned is an interesting one. Most limiting rules arise because the structure of the game creates the overwhelming imbalance--the runners in an infield fly situation are stuck and will be put out whether they run or stay; the time the offense loses running a futile play against extra defenders cannot be recovered. We can debate whether the imbalance from the tush-push is structural. On one hand, this is one team taking advantage of its bigger-and-stronger players to overwhelm the defense; we did not ban peak Earl Campbell from running through over-matched defenders (watch some old clips). And we allow multiple defenders to tackle one runner; that does not differ from a collective "runner" moving forward as a giant blob. It also is telling that only the Eagles use this move to the same degree. On the other, one could define the structure of football as one ball carrier against the defense, not an offensive collective against the defense.