PTBO Dave

It would be like saying a goal in hockey shouldn't count if it is deflected into the net since the shooter was aiming for somewhere else. The impetus is on the defense to stop the ball or puck from entering their goal.
Ah yes, but your original goal of shooting the puck in the net is still realized in that scenario. How it got into the net is not important. A more relevant hockey scenario would be a team shoots the puck at the net but it gets deflected into the crowd but it still gets awarded a goal because they advanced into their opponents end of the ice.
I'd say that hockey scenario is not accurate because a missed field goal that still goes into the endzone is the equivalent of a puck going into the net in an unintended fashion, not a puck missing the net. 

If a missed field goal does not go into the endzone (ie the goal), then there is no reward because the defense has successfully defended their goal. 

If a missed field goal goes into the endzone (ie goal) but is then returned out, then there is no reward because the defending team has successfully defended their goal.

If a missed field goal goes into or through the endzone (ie goal), then there is a reward to the offense for successfully breaking through the defense of that goal.

Of course, in the end, the hockey analogies are imperfect since there is only one type of score in hockey while there are several in football: touchdown, convert (1- and 2-point varieties), field goal, safety, rouge. But if you think of the endzone as the equivalent of the goal in hockey, then the rouge makes perfect sense.

siders_ruck_still

A rouge rewards a failed field goal attempt no more than a field goal rewards a failed touchdown attempt. 'Nuff said.

The rouge is part of the collection of rules that makes the CFL kicking game awesome. Like rewarding an 85 yard punt or kick off. Like enabling missed field goals to be returned for touchdowns. Like no fair catches and touch backs. And the piece de resistance of course, punting the ball out of the end zone to avoid conceding a single.

Don't change the kicking rules. They are the best thing about the CFL game.

Red Head




Have to jump in. 
While you guys (or at least two of you) argue semantics ( fun as that is to watch) about how you can or can't score the rouge now the original post I feel was more about is it realistic in today's game and do we need to adjust because of that.

 I agree we do and also proposed to rule change board when they let us a couple of years ago the situation where if the the ball goes through the end zone in the air whether from a punt or missed field goal - no point . The rouge should be a strategic decision by the receiving / defensive team.

Make the kickers drop the ball into the end zone to force the rouge just like they angle the ball to go out at the five or whatever. They will learn to do that as well. Once it touches the ground the receiving team has to make the choice of giving up the point or not

Lets remember that when the rule was implemented we had 25 yard deep end zones different  balls and different athletes. Now we are down to 20 (17 in Toronto ) yard end zones and I would suggest much stronger kickers generally. Not sure if the current balls are easier to kick than the old J5's. 

As for where the ball comes out to if through the end zone that's a whole other discussion but since it is the 35 on a missed field goal that would make sense to me but am open to re-thinking. 
 

Because inside we all Bleed Red!

raymarkca

Wow with this thread.

Let me see if I can help resolve the main issue.  

First off nobody is saying to remove the rouge only to adjust it for a few cases.   We all love what the rouge does as far as making teams pick between the field position vs not giving up a point.  But there are some cases where one can say that the rouge should not be applied.    

Most common example  a kicker misses a field goal  from the 15 yard line boots it right through the end zone into the stands such that the opposing team simply has no chance to return the ball or make a decision on running out the ball.    While technically the kicker is NOT getting the point for the missed field goal,  but rather for kicking the ball through the endzone, skeptics will say that this is rewarding a missed field goal.   

The point of this thread is that in rare cases such as these that some solution should be applied to wipe off the point, or give the team a decision to concede the point for field position.   If the ball lands AT ALL in the endzone (even kicked through the corner passing over any part of the endzone) in any capacity then that team had an opportunity to get it out and the point counts period.
Life is blog, or maybe it is like a box of chocolates.  Exercise your mind as well as your body.
Warning subject matter may require thinking outside the box.
Visit
http://www.raymark.ca

CatsFaninOttawa

In football there are 6

1) Carry or throw the ball into the endzone   6 points
2) Repeat the process after scoring a TD   2 points
3) Kick the ball 32 yards between the uprights after a TD  1 point
4) Kick the ball between the uprights from anywhere on the field 3 points
5) Force the other team back into their endzone and tackle him  2 points
6) Kick the ball into or through the endzone and prevent the other team from getting it out....1 point

Don't forget the last way to score:

7) Miss a field goal badly, don't let the other team a chance to play the ball, get a point anyways.
He didn't forget it. It's right there in black and white.

I've made it easier for you to find.

ExPat

Possibly the most painful thread I have read all year.  

(For the record - sorry EastVan, you've been proven wrong.  Repeatedly.)

CatsFaninOttawa

Anyway....

I like the rule as it is, but could definitely support the change to allowing the receiving team to choose between conceding a rouge and fielding the ball at the 35, or not conceding a rouge and fielding the ball at the 10 (15? 20? 25?) when the ball exits the goal area after crossing the goal line. I could see the rule being implemented as either of the following:
  • the ball leaving the end zone on the fly;
  • the ball leaving the end zone without being touched.
There is precedence for the latter, as that's the rule on kickoffs.

brihind88

I am ok with the R, IF the ST defender, has possession or lets it roll out and concedes.

When it sails out and the player has no chance at a catch or has an option, it should not be a single.

BTW, ever wonder why a defender on D, intercepts a TD pass, goes down in the end zone and there is no single point for that ?

I do not see the difference.  If the other team is in possession why not ?

stats junkie

What the OP is suggesting was first proposed in 1930
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3r1kAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sm4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3239,1067364&hl=en

The rule was adopted in Western Canada in 1934 to be into play in time for the 1935 season
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z5hTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MzgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2313,1468544&hl=en

The rule was eliminated in 1946 as common rules were required in the east and west.

As for the term 'Rouge' - call me a traditionalist
Historically, rouge only referred to a situation where the returner fielded the ball and was tackled (or rouged) before he got out of the end zone. A kick to the through the endzone was known as a 'deadline kick' and a conceded single was known as a 'touch in goal'.

Canadian Football Historian            
@stats_junkie

PTBO Dave

I am ok with the R, IF the ST defender, has possession or lets it roll out and concedes.

When it sails out and the player has no chance at a catch or has an option, it should not be a single.

BTW, ever wonder why a defender on D, intercepts a TD pass, goes down in the end zone and there is no single point for that ?

I do not see the difference.  If the other team is in possession why not ?

I have wondered this, and it seems a misguided rule. 

Why should a team who intercepts on the 1-yard line, thus protecting their goal, have to scrimmage from the 1-yard line, while a team who intercepts and downs the ball in the their endzone, thus not protecting their goal, get to scrimmage from the 35 or whatever it is? That doesn't make sense to me.

Regarding a ball that is kicked through the endzone without a chance for the defending team to return, I still think it should be a rouge, but I also like the idea of giving the defending team the choice to give up a point and get the 35 yards or not give up a point but then scrimmage from the 1-yard line.

PTBO Dave

What the OP is suggesting was first proposed in 1930
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3r1kAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sm4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3239,1067364&hl=en

The rule was adopted in Western Canada in 1934 to be into play in time for the 1935 season
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z5hTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MzgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2313,1468544&hl=en

The rule was eliminated in 1946 as common rules were required in the east and west.

As for the term 'Rouge' - call me a traditionalist
Historically, rouge only referred to a situation where the returner fielded the ball and was tackled (or rouged) before he got out of the end zone. A kick to the through the endzone was known as a 'deadline kick' and a conceded single was known as a 'touch in goal'.
Interesting reads, thanks for these.

The second link also has a story about Babe Ruth hitting a couple of homers in Japan!

yougottabekidding

I've seen literally hundreds of games at all levels of Cdn Football decided by the Rouge, so take it out and you've simply moved one step closer to the boring, plodding, antiseptic four down game played south of the border.  No thanks.
Literally no one in this thread is calling to "take out" the rouge. Some of us are saying it should be applied when the defensive team is forced/able to make a football play (i.e. recover it, decide whether or not to try to get it out) and not applied when the defensive team is not able to make a football play.
Exactly.
The conversation, when I posted, centred on the rouge as a "reward for failure".  My post detailed why I think it's a reward for field position.  Very clear.  My comment at the end was simply an additional comment for those, whose very obvious subtext, is to get rid of of change the single point.  My post was 100% within context of the thread.

Xvys

What the OP is suggesting was first proposed in 1930
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3r1kAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sm4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3239,1067364&hl=en

The rule was adopted in Western Canada in 1934 to be into play in time for the 1935 season
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z5hTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MzgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2313,1468544&hl=en

The rule was eliminated in 1946 as common rules were required in the east and west.

As for the term 'Rouge' - call me a traditionalist
Historically, rouge only referred to a situation where the returner fielded the ball and was tackled (or rouged) before he got out of the end zone. A kick to the through the endzone was known as a 'deadline kick' and a conceded single was known as a 'touch in goal'.
Thanks for the info, sj. Not sure I agree with it but here's the article:

Quote
Forward Pass Rule Altered

25-Yard Rule Revoked as Western Union Adopts
American Style of Play

Vancouver, Nov. 12/1934 - Taking a page out of the American football rule book, the Western Canada Rugby Football union Saturday adopted radical changes in the forward pass rule.

Under the new rule teams may toss forward passes in any part of the field, eliminating the former penalty for incomplete passes in the defending 25-yard zone.

Penalty on Third Down

The attacking team is penalized only through the loss of the ball if the pass is incompleted on the third down, the ball going to the defending side and being put in play on their 25-yard line.

Deadline kicking was modified when the meeting adopted a resolution which disallowed points for kicking over the deadline. In future western Canada games, punters must drop their kicks within the territory between the defending team's goal line and the deadline.

The meeting also decided to award the team scored against -- either a field goal or a touchdown the option of receiving or kicking off.

Interference Rule

The interference rule was extended to include the backfielders who will be allowed to run interference up to the five-yard mark past the line of scrimmage.

When a defending team interferes with the receiver of a pass thrown over the goal line a penalty of first down for the attacking team is awarded for the first offence. For the second offence the attacking team will be awarded half the distance to the defending team's goal line and first down.

dcmoses

For those that have their heels dug in on not removing any situation when the point is awarded how about making the change to field position.

When the ball sails through the end zone and does not touch the ground in bounds give the point but scrimmage from the 20 instead of the 30. Or give the non kicking team the option; give a point and get the ball at the 30 or take the ball at the 20 with no point awarded.

I know the current rule is the 35 but maybe moving it back 5 yards is worth trying. Some here say the kicking team has earned the yardage to get down field to kick a FG so why give too much of that back. This keeps the rouge in in all situations but address's reward for failure when the missed kick is unplayable.

PTBO Dave

For those that have their heels dug in on not removing any situation when the point is awarded how about making the change to field position.

When the ball sails through the end zone and does not touch the ground in bounds give the point but scrimmage from the 20 instead of the 30. Or give the non kicking team the option; give a point and get the ball at the 30 or take the ball at the 20 with no point awarded.

I know the current rule is the 35 but maybe moving it back 5 yards is worth trying. Some here say the kicking team has earned the yardage to get down field to kick a FG so why give too much of that back. This keeps the rouge in in all situations but address's reward for failure when the missed kick is unplayable.
In this case, I think the 20 would be too generous. I'd rather see the 1 or maybe the 5. Make it a really tough decision.
 


Users Online

69 Guests, 2 Users (9 Spiders)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
bobo82, Mightygoose, Google (9)

Most Online Today: 124. Most Online Ever: 484 (Aug 28 2017, 09:35 PM)