Single point rule change

[argos1873]

We all know that the single point, aka Rouge, is something that makes Canadian football unique, and often times exciting. However, most of us probably know, that in some way a missed field goal that sails through the end zone (actually a fairly rare occurrence however) CAN somehow reward failure, or decide a game. For more than a decade I've been a proponent that an untouched kicked football, that exits the endzone should NOT count as a score. I believe that the only way a score should be counted is if a member of Team B attempts to play the ball in anyway and therefore touches it, and either fails to return the ball to the field of play, or mishandles the ball and it exits the endzone out of bounds without entering the field of play. Therefore only a theoretical returnable ball can be considered to be worthy of the detriment of a score by Team A.

I propose that a punt that sails through the endzone untouched gets returned to a predetermined yard line, say the 20, 25 or 35 (Given the lack of a score, I suggest the 20 or 25). And a place kick or drop kick attempt gets returned to the spot of the place or drop kick attempt in the possession of Team B (Now Team A).

In this way we can keep the excitement of returned punts and missed FGs that enter the endzone, and eliminate the chance of a game being won on a missed FG or a long punt, and dare I say eliminate the reward of failure that so many trolls and naysayers go on about.

If you agree with this, simply state that you agree. If you disagree, please provide your reasons, simply because I'm interested to hear the otherside of things, and maybe you will convince me that I'm wrong. However if the yays outweigh the nays by a large enough margin, I will setup an online petition, and petition the league to have the rule changed. Not saying it will do anything, but I will attempt to have it changed.

[ArgoGabe22]

I wouldn't change it just because I scored a game winning rouge back in the day. Actually had won two games in my youth football career by scoring a rouge..

[argos1873]

I wouldn't change it just because I scored a game winning rouge back in the day. Actually had won two games in my youth football career by scoring a rouge..

I never scored a rouge in my high school football days because I was strictly a DHB/KR, but I remember our team won on one, with a punt through the endzone. But sentiment doesn't change my position.

[ArgoRavi]

The way I look at it, you score a point for kicking the ball through the endzone or kicking a ball that goes unreturned but if you put it through the uprights on a placement, then you earn two bonus points. I do not consider the rouge to be "rewarding failure" at all. Furthermore, if you move the ball down the field far enough to score a game-winning point, then all the power to you.

[Ron]

What ravi said

[argolio]

I'm not a fan of potentially winning a game by kicking it purposely out of the end zone. That was fine in the days of non-specialized kickers, 25 yard end zones, and lower scoring games, but the game has evolved, and rules should evolve too, and in fact have evolved in so many areas of the game.

On the other hand, FG kickers are so good these days that when teams are in scoring position at the end of a close game, they almost always attempt to get the 3 points instead of purposely trying to kick or punt it out of the end zone.

If they ever change it, I would go to the kickoff rule for all kicks (punts and missed field goals) -- no point awarded if the ball goes through the end zone, point only awarded if the ball is fielded by the returner in the end zone and is either tackled in the end zone or concedes.

Having said that, I'm not expecting a change any time soon. The league seems to have little interest in tinkering with the single point rule.

[paulwoods13]

I completely agree with the OP, and have been arguing the same thing (to no avail, for even the merest hint of this seems to offend a lot of people) on other forums for a few years. Who wants to see a Grey Cup decided by a punt from the 20-yard line? It could happen as the rule stands.

[DanTheFan]

I found the rouge weird when I started getting really into the CFL in 2010. It gives the game a unique identity. It only kind of bothers me seeing the ball booted wide only to leave the endzone without even needing to bounce.

I remember seeing a few unique rouge incidents that made for very exciting football. The first was in a 2010 game against Winnipeg (the first full CFL game I'd watched in years) where they punted to us, and we punted it right back to bounce out of their endzone (that's at least how I remember it). The second I believe was in the same years vs Montreal. I forget the score (it was in the last seconds of the game), but Montreal kicked a field goal wide. An Argo blocked the ball from going out of the endzone to punted. We lost, but it was exciting to see the game end by potentially advancing the ball and playing some "rouge defense" off a field goal opportunity.

I'll take the rouge as it stands.

[DanTheFan]

The way I look at it, you score a point for kicking the ball through the endzone or kicking a ball that goes unreturned but if you put it through the uprights on a placement, then you earn two bonus points. I do not consider the rouge to be "rewarding failure" at all. Furthermore, if you move the ball down the field far enough to score a game-winning point, then all the power to you.

I've never really thought of it that way. It's sort of like a small reward (hit or miss) for good ball advancement.

[Argocister]

I like the rouge... As Ravi said, look at it positively .... It's a point for getting close, but no TD or field goal. If you didn't have the rouge, there theoretically be a game where one team plays most of the game in the opposing end and is just bad on red zone, misses field goals but could have 70% of the possession time .... At least they would be compensated for getting there.
Keep the rouge .... Gives the game character.... And you have to play/plan the game with it as an option whether on D or O .

[shayman]

if you put it through the uprights on a placement, then you earn two bonus points.

So the rouge is the first point. Now clearly we need names for these two bonus points! I suggest "vert" and "bleu."

[AngeloV]

If they ever change it, I would go to the kickoff rule for all kicks (punts and missed field goals) -- no point awarded if the ball goes through the end zone, point only awarded if the ball is fielded by the returner in the end zone and is either tackled in the end zone or concedes.

I agree, but would add 1 little amendment to that. If the ball touches in the end zone, it should be eligible for a point. If it sails through the end zone without a chance for the returner to play it, no point. This way people can stop all this rewarding failure nonsense. You are actually rewarding your cover team, and maybe a team point should be awarded rather than a point to the kicker that just missed the FG.

[Wobbler]

The current rule is *simple*, which is desirable. For that reason - and because its quirkiness attracts some attention (i.e. the "no such thing as bad press" philosophy) - I vote for the status quo.

[argos1873]

I like the rouge... As Ravi said, look at it positively .... It's a point for getting close, but no TD or field goal. If you didn't have the rouge, there theoretically be a game where one team plays most of the game in the opposing end and is just bad on red zone, misses field goals but could have 70% of the possession time .... At least they would be compensated for getting there.
Keep the rouge .... Gives the game character.... And you have to play/plan the game with it as an option whether on D or O .

Just to be aware we are not talking about the elimination of the rouge, just a slight alteration of it. However you and Ravi raise good points. However I agree with argolio that some of the rules behind the rouge are no longer valid and need to be changed.

As it stands so far, I won't be making any online petition, as it seems to be about 50/50 or even more in favour of keeping it as it stands. Not that I truly believe a petition would actually change minds, like Paul said he's tried and tried, and got no where, I just truly believe the way I want it would make better sense, but I'm not totally against the way it is now.

[argos1873]

The current rule is *simple*, which is desirable. For that reason - and because its quirkiness attracts some attention (i.e. the "no such thing as bad press" philosophy) - I vote for the status quo.

True, but I don't think the rules I propose are just as simple. Also, since it still would be different from the NFL, it still would be "talked about".

[ArgoRavi]

The current rule is *simple*, which is desirable. For that reason - and because its quirkiness attracts some attention (i.e. the "no such thing as bad press" philosophy) - I vote for the status quo.

During the Dodgers/Nationals game today, the play-by-play commentator said after Washington scored one run, "As they say in the CFL, a rouge for the Nationals." They just played that at the beginning of TSN SportsCentre tonight.

[argos1873]

During the Dodgers/Nationals game today, the play-by-play commentator said after Washington scored one run, "As they say in the CFL, a rouge for the Nationals." They just played that at the beginning of TSN SportsCentre tonight.

An ode to Montreal perhaps?

[argolio]

Though we don't often call it a rouge these days.

[ArgoRavi]

Though we don't often call it a rouge these days.

We haven't really called it that in decades, have we? When the league expanded to the U.S., it was really the American broadcasters who liked using that term and kind of brought it back to relevance.

[argos1873]

We haven't really called it that in decades, have we? When the league expanded to the U.S., it was really the American broadcasters who liked using that term and kind of brought it back to relevance.

I thought it was the Simpsons (before US expansion) that brought it back