Share This Page

Discipline coming for Steelers' coach Porter?

| Sunday, Jan. 10, 2016, 6:21 p.m.

An unsportsmanlike conduct flag on Adam Jones provided the final 15 yards of the Steelers' winning drive Saturday — and the Bengals contend that it was drawn via antagonism by Joey Porter.

The Steelers outside linebackers coach was on the field purportedly to check on receiver Antonio Brown, who'd been briefly knocked out cold by a hit from Vontaze Burfict. Ultimately, Jones was flagged for actions toward Porter.

“Their guy (Jones) pushed him (Porter), and that's going to get a penalty every time,” Steelers safety Mike Mitchell said.

Porter, though, could be fined by the NFL for being on the field.

NFL rules prohibit assistant coaches from going onto the field, even to check on a player for injury. However, officials often use discretion to not enforce the rule, particularly when players appear to be seriously injured.

Jones went on profanity-laced tirades to the media in the locker room after the game, to an NFL.com reporter over the phone and in a social media posting. Jones blamed Porter for going onto the field and being an antagonist, and the officials for not penalizing Porter and the Steelers.

Steelers players maintain the flag on Jones was justified.

“It was a penalty, that's what I think,” linebacker James Harrison said.

Chris Adamski is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at cadamski@tribweb.com or via Twitter @C_AdamskiTrib.

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.