The officials got BOTH CALLS WRONG. The infuriating part is this is what they train for over and over for.
As for Troy and Booger, there have been times they get a call or two wrong.
Some observers, who saw the plays, agree that one or both calls were wrong. However, not everyone agrees with those conclusions.
Everyone (there are no exceptions) gets calls wrong. How often is relative. That was not what I commented about. I spoke of the conclusion's logical fallacy.
Regardless whether any call is "right" or "wrong", the degree of personal sports experience is not a summary explanation for why anyone is correct or incorrect in their assessment of a penalty. Again, that conclusion surmises no one cannot accurately assess a penalty simply because they do not have any certain practical experience within said sport. That particular reasoning trips and falls down a bottomless pit.
Some people never play baseball but know an umpire scans an imaginary box sits above home plate perpendicular between the batter's shoulders and knees. They see a thrown ball go straight through the middle of the box and say, "That's a strike." Next pitch, they see the ball thrown, it flies through where the batter just dodged from, and say, "That's a ball." The conclusion would negate both observations as being correct BECAUSE they never played baseball.
The fallacy can be applied to every sport. Basketball. Fan says, "That's goaltending!" Player reached through the net for the block. The fan is wrong because he ran track in college instead.
Hockey. Player gets stuffed into a wall, falls, laid out on the ice. Fan says, "That's boarding!" The player is literally unconscious. The fan is wrong because he played tennis in high school.
It is one thing to say someone else's understanding of a penalty is flawed. It is a totally different thing to say, "[fill in the blank] does not automatically understand the penalty because he or she never stepped on a football field as [fill in the blank]". That is an extremely flawed premise.