, Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Ja’Marr Chase was suspended without pay for one game after video showed him spitting on Pittsburgh Steelers cornerback Jalen Ramsey during a fourth-quarter altercation; Ramsey was ejected after grabbing Chase’s facemask and throwing a punch. The NFL said the receiver was disciplined under a rule covering acts that violate the “generally understood principles of sportsmanship.” Chase denies spitting, but local television footage prompted the league action. The suspension will cost Chase at least $448,333 and he may appeal; he will miss the Bengals’ home game against New England.
Key takeaways
- One-game suspension: Ja’Marr Chase has been suspended without pay for one game for spitting on Jalen Ramsey during the fourth quarter of Sunday’s game.
- Financial impact: According to the NFL Players Association data, Chase will forfeit at least $448,333 in base salary because of the suspension.
- Game outcome and context: The Bengals lost the game 34-12 and have dropped three straight to fall to 3-7 on the season.
- Immediate on-field reaction: Ramsey was ejected after he grabbed Chase’s facemask and struck him; officials said they did not see spitting during the game.
- Video evidence: A Cincinnati television station captured footage that the league cited when deciding to discipline Chase after the game.
- Right to appeal: Chase has the contractual right to appeal the suspension under NFL procedures.
- League precedent: This is the second spitting-related discipline this season after Jalen Carter forfeited a Week 1 check of $57,222 for a similar incident.
Background
The NFL has long treated spitting as a distinct and serious breach of sportsmanship, a stance that became more visible this season after a high-profile case in Week 1. Teams and the league office increasingly point to on-camera and off-field evidence when officials miss incidents in real time. Ja’Marr Chase is a focal offensive player for Cincinnati; his absence affects both play-calling and the team’s public image. The Bengals, 3-7 and on a three-game losing streak, are navigating roster and disciplinary challenges while seeking any competitive edge to salvage the season.
Enforcement of unsportsmanlike conduct relies on a mix of in-game officials, replay and postgame review by the league. When video evidence emerges after a contest, the NFL’s operations staff can impose fines, suspensions or other discipline under conduct and sportsmanship policies. The NFL Players Association tracks lost pay and contract impacts, and players may appeal through a defined process that can delay or overturn league discipline in some cases. Prior incidents — notably Jalen Carter’s Week 1 case — provide a recent precedent for how the league quantifies forfeited game checks and applies time-served considerations.
Main event
The confrontation took place in the fourth quarter of Sunday’s game between the Bengals and the Steelers, during which a sequence of exchanges culminated in Chase allegedly spitting at Jalen Ramsey. Ramsey immediately reacted by seizing Chase’s facemask and punching him; officials ejected Ramsey for the retaliatory strike. League and team reports indicate game officials did not observe any spitting during live play, so no in-game penalty was assessed against Chase.
After the game, the NFL reviewed video footage provided by broadcasters and local television that showed what league officials later described as spitting. The league announced its disciplinary decision, citing a sportsmanship provision that covers conduct contrary to accepted standards. Chase publicly denied the allegation in the locker-room area, but did not take questions from reporters on Monday; the Cincinnati TV station’s clip was central to the league’s postgame determination.
Cincinnati coach Zac Taylor acknowledged he had discussed the incident with Chase before the league ruled. Taylor characterized the episode as damaging and said the player would need to accept responsibility. The suspension removes Chase from the Bengals’ upcoming home game against New England and opens the door to an appeal, which could affect the timing and ultimate scope of any additional discipline.
Analysis & implications
On-field: Chase’s absence weakens the Bengals’ passing offense immediately. As one of the team’s primary playmakers, losing him for a single game forces depth receivers into larger roles and may limit the playbook; for a 3-7 team trying to arrest a skid, every available offensive weapon matters. A missed game also interrupts a player’s rhythm and can have downstream effects on chemistry with the starting quarterback.
Financial and contractual: The seized game check — about $448,333 — is a measurable short-term penalty; beyond that, repeated disciplinary incidents can influence contract talks, incentives and public perception. The NFLPA’s published figures on forfeited pay create a transparent benchmark, but appeals or negotiated settlements have altered outcomes in past cases, as with Jalen Carter where an ejection early in the game was treated as time served and further suspension was avoided.
League precedent and discipline tone: The NFL’s decision signals willingness to act on postgame video for conduct it deems unsportsmanlike, even when officials miss the act live. That can disincentivize certain behaviors but also raises questions about consistency and the appeals process. Teams and players are likely to scrutinize the league’s criteria and thresholds for imposing suspensions when replay or broadcast footage reveals incidents not seen by referees.
Reputational effects: For Chase personally and the Bengals as an organization, the episode adds a disciplinary chapter to a season already under strain. Public perception of player conduct factors into fan engagement, sponsor relations and internal culture. How the team manages discipline, rehabilitation or public messaging will influence whether this is framed as an isolated lapse or part of a broader pattern requiring organizational response.
Comparison & data
| Player | Penalty | Forfeited amount |
|---|---|---|
| Ja’Marr Chase (2025) | One-game suspension (spitting) | $448,333 |
| Jalen Carter (2025) | Initial one-game suspension (spitting) — treated as time served | $57,222 |
These figures show the financial scale of league discipline for comparable spitting incidents this season. Chase’s forfeited amount is substantially larger because the suspension is unserved and tied to his base-game check; Carter’s earlier matter resulted in a smaller forfeiture and no further missed games after the league applied the ejection as time served. The discrepancy underlines how timing and in-game circumstances can change the practical consequences of similar conduct.
Reactions & quotes
“He’s going to have to own up for that.”
Zac Taylor, Cincinnati Bengals (coach)
Taylor’s remark was offered in the context of discussing organizational standards and the personal accountability he expects from leading players. The coach framed the episode as part of a player’s broader development rather than as an irredeemable act.
“Any act which is contrary to the generally understood principles of sportsmanship”
NFL (official statement)
The league used that formulation to justify postgame discipline and to signal the standard applied when video evidence contradicts what officials saw on the field. The language mirrors existing policy text used in prior disciplinary notices.
“I did not spit,”
Ja’Marr Chase (denial, postgame)
Chase publicly denied the claim after the game but chose not to engage further with reporters in the locker room as the league reviewed video evidence. The denial is noted in league communications and media reporting but did not prevent the subsequent suspension.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Chase intentionally spat at Ramsey — intent has not been established beyond the video evidence cited by the league.
- Outcome of any appeal — an appeal could reduce or overturn the suspension, but no appeal result has been recorded at the time of publication.
- Any internal team discipline beyond the league suspension — Cincinnati has not publicly announced supplementary measures.
Bottom line
The league’s one-game suspension of Ja’Marr Chase for spitting is consequential on three fronts: it removes a top offensive weapon for a struggling Bengals team, imposes a significant immediate financial penalty, and reinforces the NFL’s posture on conduct captured by postgame review. The decision also highlights enforcement challenges when officials miss incidents in live play but replay or broadcast footage later surfaces.
Watch for the appeal process to play out and for how the Bengals manage on-field replacements and internal accountability. Beyond this case, the league’s application of sportsmanship rules to video evidence will likely shape player behavior and discipline expectations for the remainder of the season.
Sources
- The Guardian (news report)
- NFL (official league communications)
- NFL Players Association (union database on player pay/forfeitures)