NFL Rule Changes on the Horizon, Plus a Few Proposals of Our Own

What 2026 could bring, including more accountability for referees, standardized playing surfaces, and much more, in this week’s Fact or Fiction.

New England head coach Mike Vrabel talks with officials during a game this season. The league wants more accountability from its referees and believes that adding incentives could lead to better officiating. / Vincent Carchietta-Imagn Images

The new year is all about changes, and the NFL has a few notable ones in the works. 

The league wants more accountability from its referees and believes that adding incentives could lead to better officiating. Football fans would love it if the NFL makes its New Year’s resolution to have fewer officiating controversies during games. 

Also, the league aims to improve playing surfaces, but players shouldn’t get their hopes up about most NFL stadiums ditching their fake grass. 

These are two of the most significant talking points over the past few seasons, and finally, changes could be on the way. But I would also like to propose a few changes, starting with the overtime rules. 

I know, I know. It’s already hard to keep up with all the recent changes—ask the 49ers, who cost themselves a Super Bowl two years ago for not knowing the latest overtime rules. However, my proposal could lead to more exciting finishes, similar to what transpired with the Rams and Seahawks two weeks ago. 

Let’s discuss what’s on the horizon for the latest installment of our NFL Fact or Fiction. Happy New Year!  

Sign Up. SI NFL Newsletter. Get MMQB's Free Newsletter. dark

Referees shouldn’t be the only ones held accountable for poor officiating 

The league will be aiming to improve in-game officiating by pushing for accountability and a performance-based model for its referees. The current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFL Referees Association expires in May. Here’s everything the league is reportedly asking for in the new contract.

While it’s great to see that the NFL finally realizes its referees need to do better, it’s also on the league to help them improve by providing year-round training. Increasing pay without requiring hitting incentives could help, too. There’s a theory that people care more about their profession when the pay aligns with the demand. Not a bad thought.

But telling referees to do better or they won’t receive bonus pay and consideration for officiating playoff games doesn't seem like the best approach toward agreeing to a new CBA. Maybe be a little less threatening—just another thought. I’m sure the league doesn’t want another replacement ref situation, which was disastrous at the start of the 2012 season.

Yes, referees need to be held accountable for costly mistakes in games, and there have been plenty of game-changing errors this season, perhaps more than usual. Still, the league needs to be held accountable, too, because they’re not providing the proper tools for referees to perform at the highest level on every snap. 

All the league has really done to protect referees is to prevent players and coaches from criticizing their performance, but that doesn’t work in the social media age. Even the TV officiating experts, who are friends with current referees, are having a hard time defending all the controversial calls week to week.

So, again, changes are desperately needed. I still can’t get over the fact that Ravens cornerback Marlon Humphrey wasn’t flagged for a blatant defensive pass interference two weeks ago against the Patriots. This is just one of many missed calls, and that doesn’t even include the head-scratching flags that occur in nearly every game. 

But the league is pointing the finger at the officials for these concerning issues. I would be shocked if the officials agreed to all of the league’s proposed changes.  

Manzano’s view: Fact

---

Playoff seeding is fine as is with division winners getting home games

I can no longer support the current playoff structure. I’m not looking forward to seeing the NFC South champion getting a home playoff game for simply winning eight or nine games in the regular season, not when the NFC West is likely going to have three teams with 12-plus wins. 

The Ravens could win the AFC North with a 9–8 record if they beat the Steelers on Sunday. Baltimore or Pittsburgh shouldn’t get a home game over the better wild-card teams, the Texans, Chargers and Bills. 

Now, I’m not saying we should get rid of divisions and only have the seven best records in each conference make the postseason. I don’t want divisional rivalries to be a thing of the past. Division winners should still get an automatic playoff berth, but give the wild-card team home-field advantage if the team has a better record than its opponent. Or penalize division winners with fewer than 10 wins by having them start on the road for the postseason. 

The NFL can’t keep rewarding mediocrity, and the Buccaneers have been mediocre the past four years, yet good enough to win the NFC South. The only difference this year is that they are battling the Panthers, who managed to reach the mediocre line after years of being worse. 

Manzano’s view: Fiction

---

There should be a two-point conversion requirement in overtime 

The Seahawks got me thinking after they became the first team in NFL history to win an overtime game with a two-point conversion, a bold decision they made against the Rams in Week 16.

I know the overtime rules have changed in recent years, but the NFL needs one more tweak. A team should be forced to go for two points (and the win) if the opponent scores seven points on the prior drive. This would reduce game time, add excitement and lower the possibility of ties. I can’t be the only one who has hated seeing the extra tally on the Packers’ and Cowboys’ records after the two teams tied in Week 4.

Here’s what could occur with my new rule proposal: Let’s say a team scores a touchdown on the opening possession of overtime. Now that team is thinking about going for two because the opponent has to go for it, and could have a walk-off victory if they settle for the extra-point attempt. But if the first team with the ball gambles and fails on the two-point try, now the other team can win it by kicking an extra point after a touchdown. 

Does that make sense? If it does, let’s make it happen by next season. 

Manzano’s view: Fact

---

New field surface standards is a step in the right direction

I’m still not buying the NFL’s reasoning for why it can’t require all 32 teams to install natural grass, but at least they’re taking steps in the right direction by agreeing with the NFLPA on a new model for selecting playing surfaces in stadiums. 

Starting next year, NFL teams will have the opportunity to pick from a library of approved and accredited field surfaces to replace the current ones. All stadiums will be required to have an approved field by the start of the 2028 season.

Many NFL players have voiced strong opposition to synthetic fields, but this is at least the start of having more say, which should have occurred a long time ago because they’re the ones putting their bodies on the line for this grueling sport. 

Manzano’s view: Fact

---

It was a mistake to reduce time for selecting picks in first round

I’m all for the NFL trimming the time for teams to make their first-round draft selections, going from 10 minutes to eight minutes. 

For years now, the league has pretended that NFL picks weren’t leaked on social media five minutes before commissioner Roger Goodell hit the podium to make what we already knew official. 

It’s funny seeing draft analysts debate about who the next pick should be when most of the TV audience already has seen the selection from NFL insiders on social media, but that gets tiring by pick No. 10. No need to stall and fill air time with why a particular prospect fell in the draft. I’m all for making the draft quicker. 

Manzano’s view: Fiction

---

More NFL on Sports Illustrated

feed