Teammates grouse about Big Ben abuse
The issue of preferential treatment for quarterbacks resurfaced Sunday in the Steelers' 23-7 win over the Bengals at Heinz Field.
At least it did for the Steelers.
Ben Roethlisberger, playing with a broken nose, took several shots to the head yesterday.
After one in the second quarter, Roethlisberger could be seen gesturing and talking to referee Walt Coleman.
"I got the same response that I got last week, that he was just trying to tackle you," Roethlisberger said. "So I just let it go."
Free safety Ryan Clark did anything but that after the Steelers improved to 10-3.
"I already told y'all, they protect everybody's quarterback in the NFL but ours. I don't know how many times I've got to say it," said Clark, who is also the Steelers' union representative. "And they protect the ones we play a lot. I guess they're just scared to step out and say, 'Dang, maybe they are being targeted.' We say it, and we believe it."
The NFL fined Ravens defensive lineman Haloti Ngata $15,000 last week for the hit to the face that broke Roethlisberger's nose but did not draw a penalty.
Roethlisberger wore a shield to protect the nose he had surgically repaired last Monday but ditched it at halftime because of the rain and issues it caused with visibility.
He took a beating again yesterday, getting sacked four times and hit on numerous other occasions.
Roethlisberger, however, said he only sustained a minor ankle injury, one that did not require him to leave the game or put his status for next week's 4:15 p.m. contest against the visiting New York Jets in question.
"The hits that Ben takes every week, it's kind of ridiculous that they always miss those calls," Steelers linebacker James Farrior said, "but any time we breathe on a quarterback, they always seem to find that (call)."
Steelers vs. Bengals December 12, 2010
The Steelers defeat the Bengals, 23-7, Sunday December 12, 2010 at Heinz Field.
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 â 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.