I used to dislike the rouge, on field goals in particular. Listening to media, they generally described it as a point for missed field goal or point for non return.
However, when I eventually heard the description that it is in fact a scoring play on its own, it does make sense.
On a punt, you can try to score a point or try to get field position. That is a tactical choice. Punters may get upset when the ball goes in because they were aiming for the 1, but if a game is tied and a team tries to punt for a single, and the ball goes out at the one, wouldn't the punter be upset as well.
On a field goal attempt, yes teams 99% of the time want the 3 points, they will attempt for that. But they also have the choice to go for 1. I remember a game in BC with Passaglia, it was about 30 yard field goal. and he intentionally kicked the ball through the endzone on the side for the point. You have a narrow scoring play for 3, or a wide open endzone for 1.
Defences have to defend a 1, 3, and 6 point play.
Now saying all this, would I have an issue if they removed the rouge, Yes. But if they changed it and it stated ball must either land in play before out of bounds or defending player touches it or plays it to get a point, I could live with that. Its still a scoring play, but now it simply removes blasting the ball through the endzone.