Official: NFL rules prohibited review of field-goal block play vs. Packers
By Alan Robinson
Published: Wednesday, Dec. 25, 2013, 4:57 p.m.
The Steelers likely were cost possession of the ball — and a Packers' touchdown — because the game officials were not permitted by NFL rules to review what happened after they blocked a Green Bay field-goal attempt, according to NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino.
Packers kicker Mason Crosby's 23-yard attempt with 5:32 remaining Sunday in the third quarter was blocked by nose tackle Steve McLendon. Steelers safety Ryan Clark gained possession of the loose ball, and his knee appeared to touch down — which should have ended the play — as he attempted a lateral to William Gay.
Gay couldn't control the ball, which was batted out of bounds by defensive end Ziggy Hood. Referee Carl Cheffers' crew called Hood for illegal batting of the ball and, because the Steelers were ruled to have never gained possession, Green Bay was given the ball back and an automatic first down at the Steelers' 2-yard line. Packers rookie running back Eddie Lacy scored on the next play.
Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said afterward the call was wrong, but he was told the play could not be reviewed — and Blandino agreed.
“The ruling on the field of whether Clark possessed it or not is not a reviewable aspect,” Blandino said during his weekly appearance on the NFL Network. “That's something the (NFL) Competition Committee has looked at in the past, and I'm sure they'll continue to look at it.”
Coincidentally, Tomlin was added to the competition committee only this year.
If the play had been reviewable, Blandino said, it is likely the call would have been reversed and the Steelers would have been given the ball — which would seem to be the logical outcome to a play in which the Packers had a field-goal attempt blocked. An angry Tomlin could be seen discussing the call with Cheffers after the play ended, and a few minutes later as the Steelers were scoring two touchdowns in a span of 18 seconds.
While watching video of the play, Blandino said, “He (Clark) is going to gain control, and it actually looks like he throws a backward pass. So, had this been reviewable, I think we could have overturned this. Pittsburgh would have kept the football and we would have enforced the foul from the spot of the bat (by Hood), and they would have kept the ball.
“So it's an interesting play, (but) not something that's currently reviewable.”
On Monday, Tomlin said, “I didn't understand that (the play not being reviewable), but I'm sure there are several, many rules in the book that I don't understand in great detail. It made common sense to me that I could challenge that, but they ruled otherwise. I'm sure at some point I'll get clarity in regards to that. But in the game, obviously, I thought that was going to be a challengeable play. Makes sense that it should be, but it wasn't.”
What upset and admittedly angered Tomlin and his players was that the Packers benefited not only by retaining the ball, but gaining better field position and a first down, an illogical conclusion to a play in which they had a field goal blocked.
For any comparable play in the future to be reviewed, a rules change must be enacted.
Despite the call, the Steelers (7-8) won 38-31 in Green Bay to retain their slim playoff hopes going into their regular season-ending game Sunday against the Browns (4-11) at Heinz Field.
Alan Robinson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at a firstname.lastname@example.org or via Twitter @arobinson_Trib.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Analysis: Steelers could fill needs with free agents while not spending big bucks
- Steelers to release LaMarr Woodley; Taylor apparently staying
- Kovacevic: Big Ben’s contract clock ticking
- With so many needs, Steelers can ill afford to miss in draft
- Steelers defense doesn’t make the grade in 2013 review
- Keisel might be at end of Steelers career
- Steelers’ Worilds signs transition tag
- Steelers create cap space by re-signing Polamalu, Miller
- Steelers restructure Brown’s contract to become salary cap compliant
- 6 players the Steelers will be watching at NFL Combine
- Steelers use transition tag on LB Worilds