But it's not a given that the closer guy's interpretation trumps the other guy's. He's gotta be, like I said, a million billion percent sure if they're going to pick up a flag. And, in this case, the highly unusual gaffe of already announcing it is like a "multiplier" on just how certain he needs to be.

1) Why would he be so "locked on" to the guy who didn't throw a flag that he would fail, even several moments after the play ended, to notice the guy who DID throw a flag? That doesn't make sense. Also, there's no rule that says if the ref doesn't notice a flag within x number of seconds after the play, the flag is…

Yes. That's probably what he did say, That's the problem. I already explained why in my prior comment.

So the first guy makes the call. The ref, having no reason to doubt said call because the guy who made it is a duly authorized professional football official, announces it. Then the other guy comes in and says the first call was wrong. The ref should then have said "look, this is a subjective penalty call to begin…

Which they didn't, since it was clearly PI. And the procedural error added insult to injury.

Like I said, there's room for some debate. Trials can hinge on proximate cause after all. So I know defining it isn't an exact science. I just think it's a very winnable argument in favor of the Lions.

l'm all for getting it right. Except that here, they negated the correct call. They botched it both procedurally AND substantively.

1) Agree to disagree on this one too I suppose. But I'll add this: The refs were probably too busy clusterfucking the PI call into oblivion to even notice he was on the field, otherwise they might have flagged him.

It was barely a grab of the facemask. The jersey grab wasn't that significant either, really. So let's call those a wash. Incidental contact. But then the LB ran thru Pettigrew without making a play on the ball. You cannot argue that it wasn't PI.

1) True, but it still would've been reasonable to make the call. Way more defensible than how the PI thing was officiated.

The player's right to receive a warning is inversely proportionate to the egregiousness of the violation.

In this hypothetical, have I already announced the penalty to millions and marked off the yardage in front of millions?

Again, what Jay S. said. Also, it was obviously PI. Nothing standard whatsoever about deferring to the guy who was blatantly wrong.

1) Yes, it's technically discretionary, but it should have been called. If you're not going to call it when he's that far out on the field, why even have a rule? Again, not the main complaint in the overall sequence of events, but still should've been called.

1) I don't think you can say 99 times out of 100 because I don't think any of us have seen a player do that 100 times (or even 10 times). The guy was 20 yards out on the field for Pete's sake. It's against the rules and should have been called. This isn't as big of a deal as the flag pickup but still…

what Jay S. said. big difference between "should have been called" and "was called then was un-called."

"(I can't) remember a circumstance in which a good call by one of the refs is argued about by an opposing player of the other team with his helmet off on the field, which in and of itself is supposed to be a penalty. The call is announced and then reversed without explanation. I haven't seen that before. So I will…

I know this is a favorite cliche of fans, but it's a huge oversimplification given the circumstances.

I believe the play clock had also run down significantly by the time the Lions realized what the officials had done, putting them at even more of a disadvantage.

Maybe the thinking is that, in a broken field scenario, a speedy DB has a good chance at a long return that would result in better field position than the original line of scrimmage. If it's a relatively short pass the odds might be favorable to the intercepting team.