ShareThis Page
Tim Benz: An unpopular view of Mike Tomlin’s ‘challenging’ problem for Steelers |

Tim Benz: An unpopular view of Mike Tomlin’s ‘challenging’ problem for Steelers

Tim Benz
Steelers coach Mike Tomlin directs his players on the sideline in the second half against the Bengals on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2018, in Cincinnati.

During Sunday’s 28-21 win in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin had a “challenging” problem.

Let’s be honest. If the Steelers had lost that game to the Bengals, we’d all be concentrating on one topic: Why didn’t Mike Tomlin challenge that call of James Conner being down at the 1-yard line?

You know the one . It happened on the first Steelers drive of the third quarter. Conner ran 25 yards before getting upended by Cincy’s Jessie Bates at the 1-yard line.

Replays showed that Conner might have gotten into the end zone. But Tomlin didn’t challenge the play.

The Steelers then went three-and-out from the 1-yard line. The club had to settle for a field goal and a 17-14 lead instead of a potential 21-14 advantage.

If the Steelers had lost 21-20, as they may have if Ben Roethlisberger and Antonio Brown didn’t hook up for that winning touchdown, it would’ve been open season on Tomlin.

Based on some postgame phone calls I heard on TV and the radio, as well as what I saw on Twitter, Steelers fans were ready to light up the coach for keeping the red flag in his pocket.

Part of the reason for the rage was that Tomlin already had lost a challenge — and a timeout — in the first half because he challenged a spot on a Ryan Switzer reception that came up inches short of the first-down marker on third down.

He also had challenged a spot — and lost — against the Ravens two weeks ago.

So why not challenge this one, in a much bigger situation with what appeared to be a more valid argument than those other two situations?

“I didn’t see it,” Tomlin said after the game. “You don’t get opportunities at replay in visiting stadiums.”

Well, that’s a lame response. After all, Tomlin challenged the Switzer play earlier in the game. And it was such a big moment some people will say: “Why not at least give it a shot and see if the replay officials give you a break?”

Many will disagree, but I support Tomlin’s decision to keep the challenge flag in his pocket. Here are a few reasons why:

• First of all — and no one in Pittsburgh will agree with me on this — I thought the officials got it right on the field. At the very least, I didn’t see conclusive evidence to overturn it. It looks to me as if Conner didn’t break the plane of the goal line with the football before his shoulder touched the ground.

• It’s a greater roll of the dice to challenge when it is your last chance to do so. It is also a bigger risk to challenge in the second half when losing a timeout could cost you the game. The Steelers approached playcalling on their game-winning drive in the manner that they did, in part, because they had three timeouts on the board. Ben Roethlisberger said as much after the game.

“To look up and see three dots (in your timeout column),” the Steelers quarterback said. “There is no real panic.”

Maybe they would’ve only had two if Tomlin had challenged the call. Just because most of Pittsburgh thought that the decision should’ve been reversed, that doesn’t mean one guy in New York had the same opinion.

Because of the touchdown connection between Big Ben and Antonio Brown, the Steelers only needed one timeout.

However, if Brown had been tackled in play after that throw, the Steelers would have had to burn timeout No. 2. Then they likely would have used the third to get the field goal unit on the field after whatever play they tried next.

• I bet Tomlin is gun-shy about throwing challenge flags. The Switzer call was the eighth consecutive time Tomlin threw a challenge flag and lost. He hasn’t won a challenge since the playoff game versus the Miami Dolphins after the 2016 regular season.

• Given that the ball popped out after Conner rolled over the goal line, when did the play actually end? I know he picked up the ball on his own. But once he picked it up again and discarded it to celebrate with his teammates, would he have been whistled for a fumble?

That sounds stupid. But, then again, what did you think the first time you heard the phrase “surviving the ground?”

Sorry. Wish I didn’t have to bring back that memory.

• I’m sure Tomlin thought — and I can’t blame him for this — that, “It may not be wise to risk a 50-50 challenge when we only need to get a yard to score. I mean, we can get a yard, right? Right?”

Tomlin’s challenge strategy seems haphazard and random. It doesn’t appear that he is getting good advice on when to throw the flag. In many cases, I agree, he has deserved to be second-guessed.

In this instance, I understand why Tomlin waved the white flag on the idea of throwing the red one.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter @TimBenzPGH. 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 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.