Tim Benz: Steelers’ Maurkice Pouncey shouldn’t be suspended for defending Mason Rudolph in Myles Garrett melee | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Tim Benz: Steelers’ Maurkice Pouncey shouldn’t be suspended for defending Mason Rudolph in Myles Garrett melee

Tim Benz
1947457_web1_gtr-steelers25-111519
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Steelers and the Browns clear the benches after the Browns’ Myles Garrett ripped off Mason Rudolph’s in the fourth Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019 at FirstEnergy Stadium.
1947457_web1_AP_19319182366546
AP
Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett is punched by Pittsburgh Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey and tackled by offensive guard David DeCastro Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019, in Cleveland.

Anyone outside of Pittsburgh will disagree with this stance, but who cares?

The NFL should not suspend Maurkice Pouncey for his role in that Steelers-Browns brawl Thursday night.

The Steelers center started punching and kicking Myles Garrett after Garrett swung a helmet and struck Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph during the Browns’ 21-7 win over the Steelers on Thursday.

The most popular opinion I see online from folks is that Garrett should be suspended for the rest of the season year and Pouncey should get a game or two.

I agree with the first part. I disagree with the second part.

Why should Pouncey get suspended? At all?

When something goes as far beyond normal as Garrett’s helmet swing did, a player defending another player in danger can’t be held responsible for his actions to protect that teammate.

“At this point, who cares? My man got hit in the head with a helmet,” Pouncey told ESPN after the game. “I’ll accept whatever penalty it is.”

There shouldn’t be one. Not even a fine.

Pouncey did nothing to any other player besides Garrett. The referee was unable to get between Garrett and Rudolph to do his job and control the situation. The other two players in the vicinity — David DeCastro and Matt Feiler — tried to show restraint while protecting Rudolph. But they couldn’t get Garrett away without risking suspension themselves.

Pouncey had nothing left to do than meet the action with similar action. He had to lose control because Garrett had long since lost his own control.

As Pouncey said, he was “in full defense mode.”

The closest analogy I can draw is when Penguins enforcer Eric Godard jumped on the ice to prevent his goalie — Brent Johnson — from getting attacked by Michael Haley of the Islanders in 2011.

Godard got a 10-game suspension for that. It’s a mandatory penalty for leaving the bench to enter an on-ice fight. It’s a mandatory ejection for throwing a punch in the NFL. Pouncey got that.

But the supplemental discipline thereafter for Pouncey should be negated.

At that point, all Pouncey saw was a bigger, stronger player using a helmet as a weapon, swinging it at his teammate. Any action by Pouncey after that is to stop that player.

If Pouncey had pepper spray, he would’ve been justified in using it at that time.

Anything to stop Garrett from doing what he was doing. Disable and control the assailant. Pure and simple. Defend the teammate who had no headgear and was being attacked with his own missing helmet.

Nothing else need be said.

I’m sure my suggestion will fall on deaf ears, and I bet Pouncey will get suspended at least a game.

He shouldn’t be.

But if he is, then make sure Cleveland’s Larry Ogunjobi is suspended, too, for shoving Rudolph to the turf after he was hit in the head.

And make sure that suspension is for the rematch between the teams in two weeks.

And make sure, by that time, Pouncey is back from his.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

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.