Change to the Rouge being considered?

“In Montreal, the fans talked about the rouge rule. They said they didn’t think you should get a rouge if a field goal is missed and the ball sails through the end zone and literally doesn’t touch the ground,” he said.

“If you are giving up a point because you field it or you could have fielded it and then you decide to give up the point. That is you giving a point away rather than rewarding failure.”

I've been advocating this kind of change for years. If it doesn't touch the ground or player, it effectively missed the scoring area.

Hope this rule change happens.

1 Like

As long as the play results in a penalty and re-kick from ten yards further back, I'd be good with the change.

You don't want to punish a team for successfully moving the ball close enough to easily kick the ball through the endzone but reward a team for failing to do so.

I believe a rouge is awarded when the offensive team advances the ball, by kicking, beyond the defensive team’s goal line, and the defensive team fails to return it to the field of play. Which they can do by running it, or kicking it. The rouge can be scored by punt, place kick, drop kick, or kick off that was playable and recoverable by the receiving team.

The rouge is not awarded for a “missed field goal”. It is awarded because, on a miss, the ball generally advances over the goal line. If, indeed, the rouge was awarded for “missed field goals”, it would apply on those too short?

1 Like

I love the rouge but I definitely think it should be only for non-field goal plays.


Then what should happen when a FG attempt is wide and the kicking team successfully downs the ball behind the goal line?

What is the definition of successfully downing the ball?

I think the play would be dead whether blocked , missed or scored if you want to get rid of the rouge on FG .

But that brings us back to the FG posts moved back to the end line instead of the scoring line .

Then the rule change makes sense .

If the ball does not clear the endzone through the air, no point. But, if it lands in the field of play, the recieving team must get it out of the endzone or give up the single.

1 Like

Just stopping the receiving team from returning the ball out of the endzone--tackle the returner or force him to run out of bounds.

That's my fear though. A dead play is boring. I think the defending team should face consquences for failing to defend its goal line.

How about this:

If a kick (whatever variety) sails through the end zone without landing in bounds, it's a ten-yard penalty and re-kick. The defending team can choose to decline the penalty and scrimmage from the goal line instead.

If a kick (whatever variety) lands in the end zone, the defending team must prevent it from bouncing out of bounds or from being downed on their side of the goal line. If they fail at that, the kicking team scores a rouge.

With the first scenario, the 10 year or decline I think will work. If they decline, I would move the scrimmage to where the kick took place or at the previous line of scrimmage.

I think having the scrimmage on the goal line is too much of a reward for the kicking team failing to execute the play. Less dead ball is good either way.

Yes that would work but I doubt they would want a retry of the field goal and they would just scrimmage from the goal line and then be forced to give up a safety for 2 .

Yeah, the goal line scrimmage would be tough, but I'd hate to see a defending team rewarded for failing to defend.

I mean, if a FG is short and downed at the 1-yard line, that's where the scrimmage takes place. And the defense has successfully defended their goal line. Why give a team that fails to do that "free" yards.

I think the choice of declining or accepting the penalty should cause a conundrum. If the defeding team could decline the penalty and then scrimmage from the previous LOS, why would they ever accept the penalty?

Now if FG is short and downed at the 1 yard line, that would be fantastic down field coverage :smile:

Which is why I don't see it as really reward or penalizing offences or defenses. FG attempts, punts and decisions weather to concede a single are special teams plays.

If an offensive drive stops at the 25 for example, the defence successfully defended the goal line and the offence failed to score. Each unit gives way to their special teams to complete a score. So if one is sent wide, the 'defending' side of ST can choose to either advance the ball or get some guaranteed yards. At the cost of a point so it's not 'free'.

I agree with everything you posted here.

Yeah, it's not free yards if the rouge is scored. What I'm trying to say is that I don't want the league to get rid of the rouge on such plays, which would, as I see it, make those yards free.

I like the rouge. Not only is it uniquely "Canadian", it brings back memories of those exciting plays, especially from the Western Conference playoff days, when one team would punt the ball into the other's end zone, and the defending team would kick it out. Sometimes two or three back and forth kicks until one team or the other saw an opportunity to run it. Good fun and highly entertaining.

Now the rouge is typically only seen when it is awarded on missed field goal plays, rarely on punts, unless "mistakenly" punted too deep, and it has come to be confused with a point for a "missed field goal". I guess we have taken the 'foot' out of 'football' in some ways?

Let's not change the rule, let's get the commentators to stop saying the rouge is for a "missed field goal". Yes, I'm talking to you, Glen Suitor, especially when you are bromancing Keith Urban on air! :grinning:

1 Like

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.

1 Like

One last thought. If awarding a rouge when the ball goes over the end line seems unfair to the defending team, how about the convert? Talk about not being able to defend! Realistically, the only chance that the defenders have is if the offence blows an almost automatic point.

Maybe the CFL should look at the XFL, and do a graduated scoring on converts. The farther back you are, the greater the points scored. The CFL has already recognized the ease of scoring a single point off a kicked convert during overtime, maybe they should consider revising it during the game.

Perhaps on plays where the ball is "blasted through the end zone" the defending team should be given a choice. Either concede a point and scrimmage at the 25 (or35) or no points and scrimmage at the 5 (or10).

Just a thought....

1 Like

I'd prefer the proposed change but your suggestion is sensible.