While renewed outrage about NFL officiating filled the airwaves and social media, the league acknowledged Tuesday that a key penalty called against the Detroit Lions in their nationally televised loss Monday night at Green Bay was wrong.

Troy Vincent, the NFL’s executive vice president of football operations, said that one of two illegal-hands-to-the-face penalties called against Lions defensive lineman Trey Flowers was incorrect.

“There was one that was clear that we support,” Vincent said at an NFL owners’ meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. “And there was another that when you look at it, when you review the play, it’s not something that you want to see called, in particular on the pass rush. . . . The foul wasn’t there.”

Vincent said he would discuss the matter with Lions officials during the regularly scheduled owners’ meeting, which began Tuesday and runs through Wednesday.

This NFL season has been, in significant part, about officiating, as coaches and other observers have been critical of the application of the new system making pass interference reviewable by instant replay. That system was ratified by owners of the 32 NFL teams in March after a blatant pass interference penalty by the Los Angeles Rams went uncalled in last season’s NFC championship game in January in New Orleans, allowing the Rams rather than the Saints to advance to the Super Bowl.

The latest venting came as the owners gathered for their meeting. The Packers beat the Lions, 23-22, Monday night at Lambeau Field on a field goal as time expired, with Green Bay’s winning drive extended by the penalty called on Flowers. It could not be reversed on replay under NFL officiating rules, although viewers of the ESPN broadcast could see replays showing that Flowers did not put his hands into the face of the Green Bay offensive lineman who was blocking him.

The league supported an earlier hands-to-the-face penalty called Monday night against Flowers. There also was a possible pass interference penalty against the Packers that went uncalled and was not challenged by the Lions.

“I think the Lions are going to feel like they played better than the Packers tonight and the officials took this one away,” ESPN analyst Booger McFarland, a former NFL defensive lineman, said as he railed against the missed calls.

Lions players complained about the officiating in comments to reporters in the postgame locker room, although quarterback Matthew Stafford and coach Matt Patricia took the calls relatively in stride during their postgame news conferences.

“We’re not playing the officials. We’re playing the Packers,” Stafford said. “The calls are gonna go your way or go against you.”

Patricia said of the Lions’ penalties: “We just can’t have them.”

Although the season has been filled with officiating miscues and uncertainty, no immediate action is expected to be taken at the owners’ meeting. Expanding the scope of instant replay to reverse judgment calls, such as those that went against Flowers, does not appear to be the immediate answer. Coaches regularly have complained about inconsistency in the interference-related replay rulings being made this season by Al Riveron, the NFL’s senior vice president of officiating.

NFL leaders do not seem to be listening, however. According to several people familiar with the thinking of league leaders, the NFL believes that the new system, while imperfect, is working “OK” and the onus is on coaches to adjust after they pushed hard in March for the rule change. The new system was ratified by owners on a one-year basis, meaning it will be up for reconsideration following this season.

Atlanta Falcons President Rich McKay, the chairman of the NFL’s rulemaking competition committee, took a wait-and-see approach Tuesday.

“I don’t think that we would give a summation on whether a rule that’s been in place for six weeks is working or not working,” McKay said in Ft. Lauderdale. “Let’s let the season play out, just like the use-of-helmet [rule] last year. . . . It’s a brand-new rule, one that our coaches are getting accustomed to, one that our players and fans are getting accustomed to and one that the officials are getting accustomed to.”

McKay declined to say if the interference-related replay rulings are being made as intended.

“When the rule was put in place,” he said, “the emphasis . . . was, ‘We want to get the egregious ones and we want to get them overturned.’ . . . I’m not gonna get into how it’s currently being done from New York because I think that’s something that we’re all better off doing – at least for us as a committee – we’re always better off doing at the end of the year. . . . This is the first time … we’re gonna have a subjective review by an individual as opposed to objective. And we knew that would lead to disagreement.”

New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick, among others, has in the past proposed making all calls and non-calls during a game subject to review by replay under the coaches’ challenge system. But that proposal never has generated sufficient support from owners and the competition committee.

There have been renewed calls for the implementation of a “sky judge,” an official stationed in front of a monitor in the press box at each game who would assist the on-field crew by intervening on erroneous calls. But NFL leaders pointed out at the time that it would be difficult to find 17 qualified officials to fill such jobs and that such a setup could create varying standards for replay reversals from game to game.

“I’m concerned,” former NFL referee John Parry told The Post last month. “I’m not sure what it is, but I know this: Fans don’t want excuses. They don’t want rationalization. They don’t want to hear how fast the game is and how tough the job is. Al and the officiating department need to dig down, and they all need to come together and get it right.”