My advanced apologies for getting into semantics but:
There is no play from “regulation” in Canadian football. What you’re referring to is scrimmage. Scrimmage is a means by which the ball is put into play. The kickoff is another form of putting the ball into play that is used specifically after a score or to start a half or in American football, an option for putting the ball into play after a fair catch.
From a scrimmage or kickoff, the same scored points are on the line either way as opposed to a convert. If a kickoff were recovered onside and subsequently re-kicked through the endzone, it wouldn’t have to be touched by a return team player to count as a rouge. The ball is live just as it is from scrimmage and all the same scoring is possible just as it is from scrimmage.
First down on the 8 yd line and quarterback passes into the endzone. What is the best play a defender near the receiver can make? Intercept the pass, of course. It removes the pressure by the other team and it gives your team possession. Awarding the other team a point or 2 because the defender could not then exit the end zone, whether it be because of being tackled or whether it be because the catch carried him out of bounds in the endzone would be nothing less than punishment for making the best play.
Some day, I’m afraid somebody will try to make a presently untabled suggestion to move the kickoff point, after a TD or field goal, back to the scoring teams own 10 yard line. After all, it seems unreasonable to not offer the receiving team a better opportunity to get good scoring position off the kickoff. When the ball is more often in scoring position a heighten entertainment value occurs.
When the ball is more often in scoring position a heighten entertainment value occurs.
Why the CFL overtime system is at it is along with the shootout in hockey albeit they have to get the game over but better than a strict sudden death like in the NFL, that is just plain stupid. Mind you the NFL has so much money it doesn't matter what they do.
But what is the logic in rewarding the defense that intercepts in their endzone over a defense that intercepts outside their endzone? Or do you think all interceptions should be awarded 20+ yards of forward progress?
I’d like to see it so the rules don’t reward a defense for failing to protect their endzone. The best play in that scenario should be for the player to get the INT and return it out of his endzone (and the really best play would be to return it all the way downfield for his own TD).
We’re definitely on the same plane D-Pop.
Advancing the football past the goal-line is a score - unless the receiving team does something about it.
A concession is more often used to advance the ball well past scrounging a short return past the goal-line but inside the 5 yd line - the sacrifice is up to 34 yds in field position differential for a simple concession.
A new idea I’ve toyed with.
All endzone balls must be returned. To get to the 35 yd line - you must run it out to at least the 10 yd line - then decide to concede a single and move the ball to the 35 - or decline giving the single and take the ball from wherever the returner advanced it to (10 yd line or better)
Both of those plays would still have happened had the rule required the kick be playable for a rouge to be scored. (As stated previously, I support keeping the rouge, but could live with this change.)
I see it as illogical to expect or need the rules governing an interception exactly applied to any play inside the endzone as outside it. Being awarded possession, and awarding scrimmage on the 25 yd line is a fair restart from an interception turnover in the endzone. No punishment for the team failing to score. No points penalty to the intercepting team for scoring the turnover.
“I’d like to see it so the rules don’t reward a defense for failing to protect their endzone.” — Actually the reality is that the defense has protected their endzone quite well on a play in the end zone which results in an interception.
I’m imagining the resulting quagmire if multiple penalties occur during the return. Now where was the ball when… the team A penalty occurred …a team B penalty occurred on the same play? Does this rough play penalty get marched off from the 35 yd line or from the 14 yard line where the play terminated? etc. I could picture a coaches challenge on this play taking 15 minutes to sort at CFL central.
Please quote me fully to relay the context of my posting accurately. I also wrote in a third paragraph – “Don’t believe for a minute I am suggesting preference to this rule change. I’m living in the past.”
Yes, certainly a quagmire could ensue. But even at the best of times we’re not exactly dealing with trial judges and brain surgeon intellects. Most reviews are conducted by those slapped with a book of rules - but the inability or built-in paralysis to interpret them properly!
I see consistency of rules as logical, not illogical.
Having said, that, there are, admittedly, inconsistencies that I do like, like the time clock rules in the final 3 minutes of each half being inconsistent with the rules in the other 12 minutes or the inconsistency of the kicking out of bounds rule being a penalty for most of the field but not toward the ends.
In this case, I don’t like the inconsistency. I take a stricter view of the endzone. To me, it should be inviolate. That’s why I support points for the rouge and safety. I think if a team downs the ball in their own endzone, they’ve failed to protect that endzone and a score should result.
The way the rules are now, intercepting the ball an inch into the endzone gets the intercepting team 25 yards but intercepting the ball an inch into the field of play gets the intercepting team a dangerous situation in which they’re quite likely to concede a safety. That definitely doesn’t strike me as logical.
But it is not a failure. It was a successful attempt of crossing the line. Does one call awarding 3 points rewarding failure on a FG? I mean, they failed to cross that line for a touchdown. They intended to cross the line for a TD…they failed…they settled for a FG by putting it through specific points on the line. They fail at that but they still break the scoring line and they score. IMO it illogical to not award a point.
How many pro players can drop kick a field goal attempt from 30 yards. And while not striking it between the goal posts, it enters into the end zone for his teammates to tackle the ball returner for a point? A failure? No way, jose. The extra 2 points had he scored the field goal would be a reasonable bonus.
i DON’T KNOW.It’s still exiting to see a team/player try to run the football out of the end zone, trying to not give up a single point. NFL has way to many dead players.
