The extra camera thing is probably just a way for them to get rid of all those extra cameras they have been using all these years.

No, SAME NUMBER of challenges is the key. Right now there are all kinds of arbitrary rules on what is and isn't challenge-able.

They're NOT saying "challenge anything at will", they're saying use the challenges they ALREADY have on ANYTHING, rather than having a bunch of stuff off-limits.

proposed 24 team play off.

No, it's an angle thing. BB has talked about it. In some games, because there is no camera along the sidelines, it's very hard to determine if the guy was out of bounds, because the angle affects it. Same for goal line stuff. Some games you have that great goal line angle. Other times you don't, and it makes replay review almost worthless.

Number 2 would be a giant change in how the game is played. I don't see them doing that without years of debate. Everything else is procedural to see if the game is played within the rules.

I would like to point out that if the 1st rule was in effect when the pats lost to the ravens that that point wouldn't have been good because it would have bounced off the upright rather than being good going over it. Seems like putting cameras or even lasers on the top of that would cure that problem.

They shouldn't. If they get the call right in the first place it's something that doesn't have any impact on the game.

No it wont, coaches will get the same 2 challenges. Hell, if anything there will be less time spent discussing with the officials whats reviewable and whats not~

Got no problem with any of the four.

#5 Centralize Replay reviews - so that each is made by a person that didn't make the original call. Human nature to not want to admit mistakes. Make a central league review location with access to all cameras for each game. Head league official is there with others to approve all review calls. No more rule mistakes.

I just feel like it IS a play, guys DO miss from time to time, the defense CAN do something to stop them. Sure its very, extremely rare. But, its always been like this, and is the reason why you count on 7 when you score. I feel like its messing with a core game component that has determined scores/records/margins of victory for so long.

When you move it back, it means 2 field goals are even closer to a TD in value, and I don't like that.

99.6% success rate. Don't think any other "play" in sports has such a success rate. Would be shocked if the 0.4% failures are anything other than bad snaps, bad holds, or kickers somehow shanking it that bad, and NOT anything the defense did or didn't do.

In all seriousness, I'd rather they just get rid of the PAT than keep it as is. Award 7 points and give the option to "go for 2", which means you end up with either 6 or 8 points. The X minutes per game it would save would be better than wasting time on it...

It's just NOT a competitive play. Sports are about competition, and what it is now is a waste of time.

Of course the Patriots want to pass a rule allowing more cameras.

I'm good with all four.

1. I don't have a problem with it, but with an official standing under each upright, I don't see why it's necessary. They should be able to make the call every time even when the ball is higher than the upright.

2. I'd rather see them narrow the uprights to impact both extra points and field goals, but otherwise I'm OK with it.

3. Sounds good.

4. I'm against replay on judgment calls unless the guy making the replay call is the same official who made the judgment call in the first place. I like limiting replay to objective rulings with clear evidence required to overturn. If there are any objective calls that aren't currently reviewable, I'd agree with making them reviewable.

No Team Left Behind

I bet that change comes sooner rather than later. And I would imagine they would rather have the longer point after tries rather than just doing away with the play. I like the laser idea.