This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
When a regular witness testifies in court, they usually have to stick to describing facts, not giving opinions. But this rule allows some exceptions. A witness who isn't an expert can still share an opinion if certain conditions are met.
First, the opinion has to come from what the witness actually saw, heard, or experienced firsthand. They can't guess or speculate about things they don't have personal knowledge of. Second, the opinion needs to actually help the jury or judge understand the witness's testimony or figure out an important fact in the case. It can't just be a random comment that doesn't add anything useful.
Finally, the opinion can't be based on specialized knowledge that requires expert training, like medical diagnoses or engineering calculations. That kind of testimony is reserved for expert witnesses under a different rule. So a regular witness might be allowed to say something like "he seemed drunk" or "the car was going really fast" because those are common observations based on what they saw. But they couldn't offer an opinion that requires technical expertise, like explaining exactly how fast the car was going based on skid marks.