I bitched about the replacements when my team won as well lol.
The refs came into the stadium to a standing ovation, threw a flag every time a scuffle broke out, made the right calls on the flags that they did throw, and let the teams play with the game well under their control.
18 total penalties, 11 of them were on Baltimore, including one (which was properly called) on the Brown's 4th down hail mary attempt with :02 and gave them an extra shot at evening up the score.
I understand the point you're trying to make Wonk, but it was truly a lot better. No matter who is officiating, mistakes will be made, but it was like night a day difference watching this game. It's not so much the missed calls, rather just the overall pace/control of the game.
Edit: fig beat me to it, and did a better job haha.
That is a terrible analogy and you should feel terrible for making it.
Fair opinion, but you'll have to explain why you feel this, otherwise I'll stand by my analogy, and I don't feel terrible at all. I've written about 50 paragraphs explaining how ridiculous it is that most of the population see the regular refs as "perfect" and the replacements as "the worst thing to ever happen to the sport." I merely made an analogy that refs in general are terrible, which everyone so quickly dismissed.
Ref's are not terrible in general. The job of reffing in general is impossible to accomplish. Unless you can build a computer to call the game, mistakes will happen in any sport, replacement or not. Players make mistakes all the time, why shouldn't that be the same for the Refs. No human is perfect, replacement or not. And everything always looks so clear in slow motion.