Lead
Ja’Marr Chase’s one-game suspension for spitting on Steelers safety Jalen Ramsey during the Bengals-Steelers game was upheld by an appeals hearing officer, the league announced Tuesday night. The discipline, imposed on Monday, removes Chase from Cincinnati’s Week 12 matchup at the New England Patriots. The appeal was decided by hearing officer Jordy Nelson, who is jointly appointed and paid by the NFL and the NFL Players Association to hear on-field misconduct appeals. The ruling reinforces that spitting on an opponent will carry a suspension in the 2025 season.
Key Takeaways
- Ja’Marr Chase will miss the Bengals’ Week 12 game at the New England Patriots after his one-game suspension was upheld on Tuesday night.
- The discipline stems from an incident on Sunday in which Chase spat on Steelers safety Jalen Ramsey during the game.
- Jordy Nelson served as the hearing officer; he is one of three officials jointly appointed and compensated by the NFL and NFLPA to adjudicate discipline appeals.
- This is the NFL’s first suspension for spitting; prior to 2025 such incidents were typically met with fines rather than game suspensions.
- Chase forfeits $448,333 in salary and a per-game roster bonus of $58,823 for the missed contest — together marking the largest financial penalty tied to a spitting incident in NFL history.
Background
Spitting has long been treated as unsportsmanlike conduct in the NFL, but enforcement historically relied on monetary fines rather than short-term suspensions. That approach changed heading into the 2025 season amid a broader push by the league to tighten on-field conduct rules and to provide clearer deterrents for egregious behavior. The NFL and NFLPA jointly appoint a small pool of hearing officers to handle appeals of discipline; those officers are neutral arbitrators compensated by both sides to ensure a consistent appeals process.
Teams, players and agents were notified in recent policy updates that repeat or especially blatant acts of unsportsmanlike behavior could draw harsher penalties, including game suspensions. Previous high-profile spitting-related incidents, such as Eagles defensive tackle Jalen Carter’s ejection in Week 1 for spitting on Dak Prescott, were handled via fines (Carter was fined one game check and did not receive a suspension after not appealing). The Chase ruling is the first instance where the league implemented a suspension for this conduct rather than a fine.
Main Event
The incident occurred during Sunday’s game between the Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers when Bengals wide receiver Ja’Marr Chase was seen spitting in the direction of Steelers safety Jalen Ramsey. The league reviewed the on-field footage and issued discipline the following day. On Monday the NFL suspended Chase for one game, and the team moved promptly to file an appeal under the established process.
On Tuesday night the appeals hearing officer, Jordy Nelson, issued a decision denying the appeal and upholding the one-game suspension. The league publicly announced the outcome later that evening, confirming Chase will be unavailable for Cincinnati’s Week 12 trip to Gillette Stadium to face the New England Patriots. The order of events — incident on Sunday, suspension imposed Monday, appeal denied Tuesday — compressed the procedural timeline while leaving teams little time to recalibrate their rosters.
Financially, the suspension carries a concrete payroll consequence: Chase will forfeit $448,333 in salary plus a per-game roster bonus of $58,823. The combined loss is being widely noted across the league as the costliest single act of spitting in NFL history, and it will be applied directly to the Bengals’ 2025 player-pay calculations for that week.
Analysis & Implications
The upholding of Chase’s suspension signals a clear shift toward stricter behavioral enforcement and aims to strengthen deterrence for degrading behavior on the field. By converting what had been a fines-first policy into a suspension precedent, the league raises the stakes for players and teams, both in terms of competitive availability and financial exposure. Teams will likely emphasize conduct briefings in practices and meetings to prevent future incidents that could cost a player availability and salary.
Labor and disciplinary experts will watch how consistently the policy is applied across subsequent incidents. Because hearing officers are jointly appointed by the NFL and NFLPA, their rulings carry institutional weight, but they also set precedents that can shape bargaining dynamics between the union and the league. The decision may reduce ambiguity about punishments for similar acts, but it also creates pressure for uniform application to avoid claims of inconsistent discipline.
On-field competitive effects are immediate: Cincinnati loses a primary receiving target for a divisional-period game, while opponents and roster managers must adjust depth charts at short notice. Financially, the combination of forfeited salary and roster bonus ties disciplinary outcomes directly to team salary-cap planning and player wealth — a mechanism that may deter some infractions but could also intensify player grievances when penalties are perceived as uneven.
Comparison & Data
| Year | Player | Incident | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Ja’Marr Chase | Spitting on Jalen Ramsey | 1-game suspension; $448,333 salary lost + $58,823 roster bonus |
| 2025 (Week 1) | Jalen Carter | Spitting on Dak Prescott (ejected) | Fined one game check; no suspension after no appeal |
The table highlights a departure in discipline for similar conduct: where fines were once the primary sanction, the Chase case produced a suspension plus explicit salary forfeiture. That shift increases the immediate cost of misconduct and underscores the league’s intent to treat certain behaviors as suspension-worthy rather than solely fineable offenses.
Reactions & Quotes
“Spitting on an opponent will result in a one-game suspension,”
NBC Sports (media report)
“The suspension is upheld,”
NBC Sports (media report)
Public reaction among players and commentators has been mixed; some argue the suspension is a necessary escalation to curb degrading conduct, while others warn that inconsistent application could fuel disputes. Team staff across the league are expected to reiterate conduct expectations in light of the ruling.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the league will apply a one-game suspension to all future spitting incidents or reserve suspension only for particularly flagrant cases remains unconfirmed.
- Any internal team discipline, such as fines or conduct programs imposed by the Bengals beyond the league sanction, has not been publicly disclosed.
Bottom Line
The upholding of Ja’Marr Chase’s suspension marks a clear policy inflection point: spitting is now likely to carry a short suspension plus significant payroll consequences. For teams, the decision increases the importance of conduct education and roster contingency planning; for players, it raises the financial and competitive cost of on-field misconduct.
Going forward, consistent application of this standard will be critical to its legitimacy. League offices, the NFLPA and teams will be watching subsequent incidents closely to determine whether this ruling establishes a stable precedent or the start of case-by-case escalation.