couple of thoughts on MNF "debate":
- read the NFL's explanation. it actually makes sense in the sterile environment of a book. (the PI was not review-able, only the TD/INT/catch scenario)
- that was clearly an INT and the rules did not process the scenario correctly (similar to the recent Megatron winning TD catch that wasn't a "catch").
- the regular refs would have replay reviewed the scenario in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. because of the rule book. this is a fact. stating otherwise is stating that the regular refs don't know the rule book or would lie to manipulate the outcome of a game.
- any statements that the regulars would have noted the offensive PI on Tate in real time is conjecture. it was a scrum down there, a fast moving one, and the PI was NOT obvious to the naked eye on TV in real time. the nearest ref was behind a Packer, relative to Tate. there's no reason to assume he would have seen that small motion, in real time, of a white jersey moving on a background of other white jersey's. not a reasonable expectation for ANYONE to get this correct 100% of the time in this situation.
- the ref blocked off from the PI (see pick in post above) was actually the one who correctly called it an INT!
- the ref who called TD was 25 yards downfield when the catch was made. this is the only ref who would have had LoS on the PI. he was probably further downfield that that when the ball was in the air and running at full speed when the PI was committed. not an excuse, just context for how unreasonable it is for us to assume he'd see that call 100% of the time.
- i'll say it again. the regulars make plenty of mistakes, too. sometimes even game-changing mistakes. we've been complaining about poor reffing forever. not sure how we've all forgotten that... (Ed Hochuli I'm looking at you, buddy....)
- the PI on Kam Chancellor on 3rd and 2 was BOGUS. the errors cut both ways. (as BOGUS as the PI on Culliver that kept alive a MIN TD drive)
- finally, the problem is in the NFL rule book. not with the replacement refs. well, not entirely, anyways.