As long as i get to be the frog
I've never once been in a D&D game where the DM stopped a player and said - 'you can't do that, it is going to unbalance the encounter'. I have on occasion seen the DM make a bad ruling and prevented something from working that probably should have had a chance of success, but that's not bad GMing or indicative of some underlying game philosophy... i think we've all gotten that call wrong at times.Considering I dislike the fundamental argument in its entirety--it is both reductive and unhelpful, insulting and muddling--the fact that they (and you) seem to think that 5e fails to go either way would in fact be excellent reason to ditch the framework entirely.
However, to make this more than just a threadcrap, I will try to take the fundamental premise seriously, at least for a bit. I grant that 5e combat isn't either of these things (albeit for reasons other than what the video creators probably intended.) It's also not spectacle, because spectacle IS the point of 4e combats; that's why literally everyone, fans and haters alike, refers to them as "set-piece" battles. It's not tactics nor strategy, because 5e has flattened the tactical side of things to almost nothing, and flattened the spectrum of items and interactions that could produce strategic advantage. It's further not combat-as-puzzle, nor combat-as-performance because so many fights are either grinds against piles of squishy nobody mooks, or single fat-sack-of-HP bosses against which there's little of interest to do other than Moar Damage.
Perhaps Combat as Obstacle? It's a thing to get past. It's a weirdly hyper-focused "thing to get past," since 5e's rules for anything that isn't combat are either the spell list, or barely enough to fill a single chapter. But...I'm honestly not sure what else to call it.
And, as I said, that's why I think this is excellent evidence that the "Combat-as-X" model is fundamentally flawed to an extent that it should simply be abandoned. It doesn't actually give information about the game. It basically only says things about the speaker. It's a jersey color, a political party slogan, and nothing more. It may be aspiring to something more and better, it may be trying to say something productive and meaningful about game design, user experience, etc. But it genuinely fails to actually DO that. All it does, in the vast majority of cases, is tell other people which team's cheerios you believe deserve to be pissed in.
I think in some sense we all play combat as sport. The PC's are supposed to win. The only question is what expectations around getting to the 'supposed' to win positioning are held. Does the GM generally place combats in front of the PC's that are balanced or do the PC's need to navigate the world to enable those 'supposed to win' combats - but even in this case the DM is still setting the world up such that the PC's can reliably get to 'supposed to win' combats.
I guess I'm saying I agree, but just elaborating on it a bit differently.