End the Rouge for Missed Field Goals

The rouge does NOT reward failure, it rewards field position...just like all other scoring plays do. If you can carry or complete a pass beyond the goal line you get 6 pts + convert as a "bonus". If you're not close enough to do that you get three for kicking it through the uprights. If you down an opponent in his EZ, you get two. If your opponent can't return a kick from scrimmage, you get one point...it's real simple.

If a rouge is a "reward for failure" do you not like the FG either? Isn't that a reward for not being able to score a TD?

Once again, someone has not thought this through. It is not a reward for failing the FG, it is a reward for kicking the ball across the goalline while not allowing the returning team to bring it out.

If it sails out the back unplayable, then the defense should not have allowed them to get that close. In that sense it is a reward for field position.

With no rouge point not only would we have boring NFL touchbacks, but also no strategy coaching decisions of point over yardage.

I disagree with this too. If you don't want to give up a point, don't let the opposition drive into chip shot range.

Imagine this OT scenario:

Team A at the 35, goes 2 and out, 42 yd FG attempt goes wide, returner is tackled in endzone. Team A gets 1 point.

Team B drives down to the 2, 9 yd FG attempt goes wide and sails through the back. No point awarded.

Who played better?

Who won the game?

Keep the rouge EXACTLY the way it is.

Heck...team A misses and gets a Rouge because the returner can't get out. Team B misses and the returner does get out. Team A deserves the win by Rouge

True fans who believe in tradition will not want the rule changed. People who always want changes do not appreciate the uniqueness of the Canadian game.

It doesn't reward failure at all.

That statement makes no sense at all here's why.

You get a rouge if you punt it into the endzone as well. It doesn't reward failure, unlike the NFL that rewards people yardage WITHOUT FIGHTING FOR IT. Here's 20 yards for a touchback for free just cuz you put your knee in the endzone, know you lose a dam point to the other team or your run it out.

The NFLs way is actually the one rewarding failure. Just sit in the endzone and you get a free 20 yards for not even trying. Its like saying to kids "hey don't bother trying, you'll still get something"

the CFL's way forces people to play the ball. In no way shape or form has it ever been a "point for a missed field goal". Its the same rule as the punt is. Is every NFL punt that's a touchback considered a failed punt?

No, keep the rouge, its the way its SUPPOSED to be in football. Fight for your yardage

After 40 years of watching CFL, I fully understand the nuances of the Rouge. And nothing yet stated convinces me that its not time for a change.

Moreover, I'm not suggesting we make the Canadian game more American. That is the last thing I would want.

But the scenairo raised above, where a Grey Cup game is tied, and a FG is attempted, and missed, and the ball flies thorugh the endzone, and a rouge is awarded, and it decides the outcome of the game, is one I can't siupport. Even if the battle for field position arguement is taken into account.

Of all the unique rules the Canadian game exhibits, this is the only one I would like changed.

Guess the return team needs to get it out then.

If it is a tied game and you let someone drive close enough to kick it out of the endzone, that is all on you. Guess the D failed. Watch the clip I posted...the Argos were well aware of this, and had a plan in place...it didn't work out for them, but they had a plan.

Anything progressing across the goal line is a score...IMO it is the US version that is flawed...and I grew up playing and watching the US version. Even when I played it, it always erked my that the posts were at the back of the endzone...what does the back of the endzone have to do with scoring?

If a fan in baseball reaches across the wall and grabs a ball that a fielder was about to catch it is ruled a double...such is part of the game. You need to be aware that if you allow a team in FG position to win it, a rouge will do the same.

I don't understand the logic of a ball not being brought out of the endzone being given to the return team for doing nothing. and if that team's D allowed it to get close enough to go through untouched...well, I guess they are being punished for their failure.

I like the rouge rule just fine as it is.

In fact, I'd like to see a point awarded (call it a rouge or give it another name since it's not kick-related) in a similar situation: when the defence intercepts the ball in the endzone and then does not return it back past the goal line. To me, the same principle applies as with the rouge off a kick: the defence has failed to stop the ball from being downed past their goal line and thus a goal should be scored against them.

However, having said that, I think one tweak to the rule might satisfy those who want to get rid of the rouge and those who like it as is:

Allow the defending team to choose between surrendering a point for their failure to protect their goal, which comes with the 'free' field position and not surrendering the point but then scrimmaging from their goal line.

I think with this provision, the rouge would be scored as it is now 99+% of the time, but if the game were on the line with seconds left, the D might choose to gamble with possession from their own goal line.

I've pondered the INT thing myself...there seems to be logic in that it should except that it is not a kicking play. Same as a fumble that rolls into the endzone...no point. I guess it is their way of saying the team that was on O never progressed it into the endzone.

I hear you. There is a difference in the two plays, but there are also similarities. However, even if a point is not surrendered, I don't see why the D gets free yardage. I mean if they had played better and got the INT before it passed the goal line, they wouldn't get that free yardage. Why reward them for failing to protect their goal line?

As an American fan of both Canadian and American football, I like the respective rules the way they are for the most part including for the rouge in Canadian football.

I have a question though on missed field goals if from beyond 35 yards in Canadian football. When a single is scored after a field goal attempt that is either not returned or flies out of play, does the team scored upon get the ball at the actual spot of the kick?

If so, that would be the right rule to me.

If not, that's the only change I would make to the Canadian rules so that the team missing the field goal is not rewarded additional field position in addition to scoring a single.

Ah ! They yearly Rouge thread :lol:

Yes, the team scored upon gets the ball at the spot of the kick. CFL rules are designed to make special teams more exciting and significant with extra ways to score. Under American football rules, special teams seem more routine and boring.

Note the the differences in the rules for kicks from scrimmage into the goal area/end zones in both American and Canadian football are rooted in very old rules of rugby and what is now Australian Rules football respectively. The rules of the game of football in Australia are even older than the rugby union (1895) and the football association (aka soccer, 1871) for that matter. How and why each game took a slightly different road with regard to kicks into the goal area is not completely clear, but the root of each path is very old. Here's the best I have been able to figure out.

Canadian football retained one of the old football rules so as to award a point for a ball kicked anywhere over the goal line much like in Australian Rules Football to this day.

American football in its roots before Walter Camp in the 1880s had a similar rule for a then round ball kicked through a goal to score, but the rules used by various schools and the code later changed to be more like that of rugby union such that a ball touched down into the new goal area by the defending team from a kick (or otherwise for the most part in rugby) was then possession of the defending team at the 20-yard line (22 meter line now and formerly 25 yard line in rugby). In rugby though, the defending team merely gets the right to a drop kick at the 22m to re-start play, but like in American football the defending/receiving team gets instant field position.

Hey thanks. At least both professional games have this rule in common on missed/unreturned field goals though. :slight_smile: The NFL changed its rule rightfully to award possession at the spot of the missed kick, not merely at the line of scrimmage, at some point in the last 20 years.

Yearly? You must not have been paying attention. :lol:

Actually, it gets the ball at the previous line of scrimmage -- the spot of the kick is 7-8 yards behind the line of scrimmage, of course.

Could not disagree more.

you see, the old ‘rewarding failure’ argument is very short sighted. Yes, the kicker failed, but the game is not played between individual kickers. It is played between 2 teams. The kicker is not rewarded for missing the kick, the TEAM IS REWARDED for putting the ball into the opponent’s endzone and preventing it from coming back out, whether that’s by good kick coverage or by accumulated field position, either way a TEAM reward.

I do not think any GC game has been decide on the rouge. The rouge is for failure to get the ball out of the end zone and usally on long kicks where short kicks are pretty well made all the time.