Instant replay, as much as it was lauded not all that long ago as needed, is now becoming a detriment to fans tuning in. Especially when the officials aren't held to the same exact standard of officiating as the players are held to as it relates to executing plays to the letter of the rule.
The Clements catch was one of those that would've most likely gotten overturned in the regular season. I don't disagree with that. Nor do I believe that was the difference maker in the game. It's always easy for a viewer to go back and say "well, what if?" Well... what if Brady doesn't turn the ball over with the looming sack? Missed field goal? Missed extra point?
We can what-if all day long.
The Ertz catch and then the 4 paces he took after the catch, becoming a runner, possessing the football the entire time... I really don't understand what there is there to pick apart. People who find fault in that are the very reason why instant replay needs to be done away with and the rules need to be simplified.
Instant replay was designed to remove controversy, and all it has achieved is create more controversy and a needlessly longer game.
Maybe we should, as fans of most sports, just accept that these guys officiating our sports are human, and give them clear-cut rules to help them officiate without needing instant replay. Because instant replay hasn't proven to be anything but even more controversial after the fact.
Why? Because even these top officials in the booth and the top officials on the field aren't on the same page as to what is or isn't a catch.
Why have instant replay?
Do away with it. Simplify the rules so these guys aren't spending 20+ minutes per telecast trying to figure it out. I'd almost argue accepting the collegiate standard of only needing one foot in-bounds to deem it a catch. Would sure make it a lot easier to officiate, without the need of instant replay.
Damn. Why make it endlessly complicated, especially when every rule you implement, despite instant replay, makes it more difficult to figure out?