Breaking Down the Missed Pass Interference Call on the Steelers’ Final Play
A late-game sequence in the Cleveland Browns–Pittsburgh Steelers matchup sparked immediate controversy, centering on a potential missed defensive pass interference call on the game’s final play. With the outcome hanging in the balance, the no-call drew strong reactions from fans, analysts, and even the quarterback involved.
The Play in Question
Facing fourth down with 21 seconds remaining, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Aaron Rodgers targeted wide receiver Marquez Valdes-Scantling on a pass into the end zone. Coverage was provided by Denzel Ward of the Cleveland Browns.
As the ball arrived, replay angles showed contact between Ward and Valdes-Scantling. The receiver appeared to be impeded as he attempted to adjust to the pass, but no flag was thrown. The incomplete pass ended the Steelers’ final possession and effectively sealed the result.
What the Replay Showed
Slow-motion replays fueled the debate. On the broadcast angles most commonly cited, Ward made contact with Valdes-Scantling before the receiver could fully extend toward the football. The contact appeared to involve the receiver’s arms and upper body as the ball arrived in the end zone. No effort was ever made by the dender to turn toward the ball. Its hard enough to make that catch, but to do it while having to wear the defender like a shirt is just ridiculous.
While not every instance of contact constitutes pass interference, the visual evidence was enough to prompt widespread discussion about whether the defender’s actions crossed the threshold from legal coverage into restriction.
The Rulebook Standard
Under NFL rules, defensive pass interference occurs when a defender significantly hinders an eligible receiver’s opportunity to catch the ball before it arrives. Common indicators include:
- Early contact that limits the receiver’s ability to extend
- Playing through the receiver rather than attempting to locate the ball
- Arm or body restriction that prevents a legitimate play on the pass
Officials are instructed to apply a “material restriction” standard, which inherently leaves room for judgment. On this play, the question is whether the contact materially affected Valdes-Scantling’s ability to make a catchable play.
Reaction Without Resolution
After the game, Rodgers voiced his frustration, stating that the contact was “definitely interference.” Fans echoed that sentiment across social media, while others argued the contact was consistent with how physical coverage is often allowed in late-game situations.
Importantly, there was no postgame clarification from the officiating crew that changed or revisited the ruling. As with most judgment calls, the decision on the field stood without further review.
Why This Call Resonates
This play stands out not because of where it occurred on the field, but because of when it occurred. End-of-game situations naturally magnify officiating decisions, and similar levels of contact have been penalized in other contexts throughout the season.
That inconsistency — rather than the single no-call itself — is what continues to frustrate teams and fans alike.
Final Assessment
- The contact: Visible and early enough to raise questions
- The standard: Falls into a gray area of material restriction
- The ruling: No defensive pass interference called
- The takeaway: Another example of how subjective DPI enforcement can be, especially in critical moments
Missed or disputed calls are part of the NFL landscape, but plays like this reinforce the ongoing debate about consistency and transparency in pass interference enforcement — particularly when the margin between regulation and continuation comes down to a single throw.