ShareThis Page
Steelers not happy with tripping call on Gilbert |

Steelers not happy with tripping call on Gilbert

| Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:27 a.m.

CINCINNATI — The first word that came to Marcus Gilbert’s mind was “insane.”

Sure, the Steelers’ work-in-progress offense made its share of mistakes to bog down more than a handful of drives during Monday’s 20-10 loss to the Bengals at Paul Brown Stadium, but, how they look at it, the Steelers don’t need the referees to help that process along.

A controversial tripping call on Gilbert early in the third quarter of a 10-10 game erased an Antonio Brown 33-yard gain down to the Bengals’ 30-yard line.

“That was a big play,” quarterback Ben Roethlisberger said. “We had all the momentum in the world right there, and the next thing you know, you are backed up.”

The momentum swung in favor of the Bengals.

An ensuing sack of Roethlisberger, a punt and an eight-play, 78-yard Cincinnati drive that resulted in a 27-yard Giovani Bernard touchdown pass from Andy Dalton gave the Bengals a 17-10 lead.

The Steelers’ offense couldn’t respond after that as they gained only nine more yards on eight plays until midway through the fourth quarter.

Gilbert sat at his locker with his hands in his face still in disbelief.

“I can’t believe they made that call,” Gilbert said. “If I was intentionally throwing my leg out there it would’ve been so obvious. They blew that call bad. We had the momentum going.”

Gilbert wasn’t the only one in the Steelers’ locker room pointing toward that one play as being a difference-maker.

“I looked at the JumboTron, and I didn’t think that was tripping,” receiver Emmanuel Sanders said. “That was one of those plays where AB went 40 yards and we were in field-goal range. That was one of four key plays in the game that determined the outcome of the game. It didn’t go in our favor.”

Those other key plays were self-inflicted.

David Paulson’s fumble inside the 20-yard line early in the game marked the second consecutive game that the Steelers fumbled inside the red zone in the first quarter of an eventual loss.

Two critical defensive miscues were the others.

Clark took the blame for jumping a route on tight end Tyler Eifert moments after Paulson’s fumble that resulted in a 64-yard play and an eventual Bernard touchdown run.

“Last year playing Andy and watching the film I felt like when he looked somewhere that is where he was going,” Clark said. “I was waiting for a hitch-and-go. That was an extremely good play call, but I have to be better than that.”

The other was Bernard’s 27-yard touchdown after Gilbert’s tripping call. Bernard got lost on space on a Cover 3 underneath coverage call by defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau.

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin would not label those two big Cincinnati plays as miscommunication by his defense that had Kion Wilson and Vince Williams replacing Larry Foote at inside linebacker.

“It was good plays by them,” Tomlin said. “Sometimes you have to acknowledge that.”

Clark acknowledged that they can’t keep having self-inflicted wounds if they want to win.

“I don’t think those things pile up when you are losing,” Clark said. “You are losing because these things happen.”

Mark Kaboly is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @MarkKaboly_Trib.

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.