Kevin Gorman: Steelers’ Mike Tomlin learns nothing from brawl |
Kevin Gorman, Columnist

Kevin Gorman: Steelers’ Mike Tomlin learns nothing from brawl

Kevin Gorman
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Steelers and the Browns clear the benches after the Browns’ Myles Garrett ripped off Mason Rudolph’s helmet in the fourth quarter Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019, at FirstEnergy Stadium.

When Mike Tomlin said the Pittsburgh Steelers had “nothing to learn” from the fighting fiasco in the final eight seconds of their game at the Cleveland Browns, he did so dismissively.

The Steelers coach started his weekly news conference by accepting responsibility for the Pittsburgh Steelers’ actions in the “unfortunate incident” that drew three suspensions and $250,000 fines for both teams with more fines on the way.

Tomlin ended it by shifting the blame to the Browns when asked if there was anything coaches could do to prevent another unfortunate incident from happening in the future.

“I don’t know that we did anything to make it happen anyway, in the first place,” Tomlin said Tuesday at UPMC Rooney Sports Complex. “That’s why I said we didn’t have anything to learn from it.”

Well, I beg to differ. If nothing else, we learned you absolutely, positively cannot pull the helmet off an opposing player and hit him over the head with it.

Not even in the NFL.

The league suspended Browns defensive end Myles Garrett indefinitely for doing that to Mason Rudolph, who plays quarterback for the Steelers, the team Tomlin coaches.

The league also suspended Browns defensive tackle Larry Ogunjobi one game for pushing a helmetless Rudolph near the goal line, knocking him to the ground with a blindside shove. So we learned you can’t do that, either.

And the league suspended Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey three games for retaliating against Garrett for hitting Rudolph with his own helmet by throwing punches at Garrett and then kicking him. That’s another no-no.

Add that to the list of things we learned.

Tomlin was reticent to say much, other than to call the final eight seconds of the Steelers’ 21-7 loss to the Browns “ugly” and attempt to steer questions toward Sunday’s game at the winless Cincinnati Bengals.

“It was ugly for the game of football,” Tomlin said. “All of us involved in the game, particularly at this level, want to safeguard and protect the game, its integrity. In that instance, it was compromised, obviously, with an unfortunate incident. None of us want those things to transpire. It did. We were a part of it. We accept responsibility for our actions within it.”

So Tomlin’s team was involved in an ugly and unfortunate incident that compromised the integrity of NFL football, and one of the men whose job is to safeguard and protect the game learned nothing because … the Steelers didn’t start the fight?

That’s total nonsense.

These were Tomlin’s first comments on the fight with the Browns, as he refused to discuss the incident after the game. That was intentional, he said, as it “had little to no bearing on the outcome of the game.”

What’s insulting is Tomlin’s insistence he didn’t want to “seek comfort in that sidebar distraction and not talk about what really needs to be talked about from our perspective — that we played a losing football game.”

Hate to break this to everyone, but the first 59 minutes and 52 seconds of that game became irrelevant the moment it crossed the line from tackling a quarterback to assault and battery.

The Steelers were actively involved in not just an ugly and unfortunate incident but one of the most disgraceful moments in NFL history. Both sides are attempting to play the victim here, when everyone involved is guilty to some degree.

Yet the Steelers have offered only half-hearted statements, as team chairman Art Rooney II said he was “disappointed” and called it a “shame that the game ended that way.” That’s hardly accepting responsibility for their actions within it.

Tomlin could have condemned the actions of everyone involved. He could have offered support for his players, especially to offensive linemen David DeCastro and Matt Feiler, for attempting to act as peacemakers.

Instead, he copped out — so as to avoid affecting the outcome of Pouncey’s appeal of his suspension — by offering little to nothing. That he was more interested in talking about challenging pass-interference penalties tells you everything.

“I’m not getting into those things, nothing relative to fines, suspensions, appeals,” Tomlin said. “It doesn’t help us or me or anyone who is going through that process to talk about them in these settings.”

Clearly, Tomlin doesn’t like being disciplined by the NFL, which hit him with a $100,000 fine for the Jacoby Jones sideline incident in 2013, and $25,000 earlier this month for failing to list Ben Roethlisberger on an injury report. It’s understandable.

But the Steelers were involved in this incident — whether they started it or not — and Tomlin should have taken accountability instead of ultimately contradicting himself.

Instead, when it came time to take a stand and speak out to safeguard and protect the integrity of the game, the Steelers coach showed he has learned nothing.

Hey, Steelers Nation, get the latest news about the Pittsburgh Steelers here.

Kevin Gorman is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Kevin by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.