The NFL for some unknown and probably nonsensical reason dropped the "incontrovertible proof" standard for overturning calls on the field a few years ago; never really got a satisfactory explanation as to the reason.
There is complexity in the catch rule because of the need to differentiate a catch-and-fumble from an incomplete pass.
I'm aware that "incontrovertible video evidence" (or whatever the precise verbiage was), hasn't been the standard for a couple years. It also wasn't really ever the standard the refs were actually applying, so whatever. I was merely echoing the sentiment that the NFL could avoid at least some of this absurdity with a simplified "watch it a couple times at game speed, overturn if the call on the field was clearly wrong, if not call stands" process. Never going to happen, so probably not even worthy of discussion...
For what its worth, I think that the Hunter Henry play arguably wasn't even the worst application of this rule/interpretation
this weekend. That honor (in my view at least) goes to the Raiders-Seahawks game, where the officials spent roughly six hours (OK, maybe 10 minutes) reviewing a DK Metcalf catch. Called a catch on the field, but reversed on review because while: (1) Metcalf caught the ball cleanly, (2) and clearly established himself in bounds, (3) when going frame by frame, you could see that the ball appeared to move a couple inches on Metcalf's chest/stomach as he rolled out of bounds.
Good on the NFL for being consistent, I guess. I'm not a Seahawks fan, but if that wasn't a catch, the rule is a problem. So I look forward to the rules committee taking another stab at it in the offseason, and complicating things further.