I know this'll get downvoted, but in the abstract I have no problem with someone who never officiated doing replay reviews. Now, of course I have a major problem with a lying turd like Blandino, but that's a separate thing.
Why? Because replay reviews, at least as they are currently done, don't involve the skills that you can only get through real officiating, which primarily are knowing where to be on the field, knowing where to focus your attention, knowing when to let things go, and good judgement -- honed through years of experience -- about what most likely happened on that bang-bang play you have to make a decision on.
None of that is applicable on replay. It doesn't matter whether or not you know where to be on the field. The replay angles are what they are. It doesn't matter where on the field to focus your attention. What things the replay shows are what they are. You just need to know the rules. Did the ball hit the ground first? Did the receiver step out? Were there 12 men on the field? Did the knee hit the ground before the ball came out? And so on. Those are all pretty objective things. And to the degree they aren't objective, on-the-field experience isn't going to help you very much.
Now, if the league ever does allow matters of judgement to be reviewed, then I will reverse field and insist that the replay officials must have had some minimum number of years of NFL on-field officiating experience.
