Owners approve of new replay reviews.

[Pappy13]

Personally I think it's a great idea. I didn't like some of the problems with the challenge system and honestly I think the guys in the booth are making better decisions then the refs on the field when it comes to reviewing replays.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7747944/nfl-owners-break-tradition-replay

[fyo]

I agree, although I'll feel free to change my mind if it slows down the game much

Expanding the topic to the other rule changes, what do you think about the overtime rules from the postseason being expanded to the regular season? (despite not actually having an effect (other than confusion) this past offseason, making it one heck of a worthless "trial")

[Phishfan]

Why does everyone think the overtime rule is confusing? We are smart people and it is a simple concept, a field goal in the first posession of ovetime does not end the game. That is all you need to know about it. It is very simple.

[fyo]

Why does everyone think the overtime rule is confusing? We are smart people and it is a simple concept, a field goal in the first posession of ovetime does not end the game. That is all you need to know about it. It is very simple.

Wasn't it Gruden who talking gibberish for a full couple of minutes about it during the playoffs when a game (finally) went to overtime? Judging by the reaction from the readers of papers, talk radio etc., there was quite a lot of confusion.

[Spider-Dan]

Why does everyone think the overtime rule is confusing? We are smart people and it is a simple concept, a field goal in the first posession of ovetime does not end the game. That is all you need to know about it. It is very simple.

It's not quite that simple.  There is no other circumstance in NFL history where a team can turn the ball over (on downs or by fumble/INT) and immediately lose the game, even though there is still time remaining on the clock.  And yet that is exactly what will happen if the second team doesn't score.

Furthermore, you have to (or should) explain in such a way that it is clear that if the first team kicks a FG and then recovers an onside kick (or the second team muffs the kickoff), the game is over.

[Landshark]

I like the idea of bringing players back from IR later on in the season.  I'd love to see that go back to the old rules in the early 90's where teams had five or six "free passes" where a player on IR could return.

[badger6]

It's not quite that simple.  There is no other circumstance in NFL history where a team can turn the ball over (on downs or by fumble/INT) and immediately lose the game, even though there is still time remaining on the clock.  And yet that is exactly what will happen if the second team doesn't score.

Furthermore, you have to (or should) explain in such a way that it is clear that if the first team kicks a FG and then recovers an onside kick (or the second team muffs the kickoff), the game is over.

Better to lose a game turning the ball over than losing it on a luck of the draw coin toss. At least you have a chance to score.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not objecting to the rules... I'm just saying, they aren't as simple as "a FG on the first possession doesn't end the game."

[Phishfan]

It is really that simple. You score a field goal on the first possession the game does not end. Anything else ends the game (minus a tieing field goal). It is a very simple rule and the what ifs which are easily explained as I just did make the conversation convoluted but not confusing.

[Spider-Dan]

It is really that simple. You score a field goal on the first possession the game does not end. Anything else ends the game (minus a tieing field goal).

So first off, you just doubled the length of your explanation.  Second, what does "anything else" entail?  Does a sack end the game?  Does a fumble end the game if the fumbling team recovers it?

In a situation where a game is ended by neither a scoring play nor the clock expiring, the explanation is not "simple" (relative to NFL rules for the last 40 years).

[Phishfan]

I'm not going to argue it anymore. The rule is simple to understand. If you want to argue that you cannot comprehend it, have at it.

[CF DolFan]

I'm not going to argue it anymore. The rule is simple to understand. If you want to argue that you cannot comprehend it, have at it.

If you have to argue it's simple then maybe it isn't?  Maybe those of us who get it are just smarter than we give ourselves credit for! 

[Pappy13]

Let's get Donovan and see if he can explain it.