field goals

one point for missed field goal IF ball lands in back feild and is playable,if it sails thru no point

your point?

A missed FG that goes through the endzone untouched is a point. There is no point on kick-offs that go through the back of the endzone untouched.

As discussed on other posts with others in agreement, I too would agree if the rule on rouges were changed in that regard so as to enforce punter accuracy and give the potential punt returner a fair chance to field the ball before a single would be scored.

Amazingly even with the wind at his back that punter could not kick it out-of-bounds in the end zone even with current rules intact.

Sure it’s harder under pressure, but I myself can make that kick from that distance especially with or without the wind at my back (but not against the wind).

That rule as well as the punter’s failure were really bush league and the rule needs to be changed as it’s just plan lame. :thdn:

The rule isn't lame at all. What's lame is trying to win the game on a rouge when a field goal attempt would have accomplished the same thing. The rule is there to reward field position — one of the overriding tenets of the CFL.

Well yes of course the call was lame but within the rules too right?

I say the rule ought be rewritten to reward not only field position but kick accuracy like any kick every other type of football.

As currently liberally written, and attempted yet failed last night, it’s just plain lame whether or not successful.

If untouched inbounds by a player, the ball ought to be required also to bounce in bounds for the single to count thus implying the fair opportunity existed for said kick to be returned.

I don't see why an offence should get rewarded if they can't get a TD or miss a FG try, especially if the offence can only get to the opponent's 43 yd line-- which makes the FG a 50 yd attempt. Defences should not be punished for bending but not breaking... that should only come if the kicker makes the field goal. Everybody says its the rouge that makes the CFL different, but I call bull**** on that... its the 3 downs and Canadian content that makes the CFL different. The rouge only serves to have idiotic decisions like Miller's possible. :thdn:

Exactly.
As we saw last night, scoring a rouge is not an easy thing to do. People seem to try to dismiss it as rewarding failure, which clearly shows they don't understand the rule. There's a certain element of skill, strategy and incentive for big play potential.
It's simply brilliant and purely Canadian Football.

The way I saw it summed up somewhere else was pretty accurate - "You don't play for the rouge, you settle for it."
That was the mistake Ken Miller did yesterday, and he's not alone.

I give thanks to rpaege and the 2 above posters on the rouge rule. I have been (educated) and awakened from being "Comfortably Numb". :oops: Never thought of it in that light before.

I am, and have been for years, of the belief that the rule needs to be tweaked so that if the ball cannot possibly be returned, no point is awarded. If the defending team has a chance to return and either chooses not to, or fails, award a single. But a ball kicked through the end zone that the defence has no chance to make a play on should not result in a point.

Some year a team is going to try what Sask tried last night, only they will try it from the five-yard line and it will be with the Grey Cup on the line. That will make the league a laughingstock -- a team winning the Grey Cup on a 25-yard punt single.

He was punting near the 40 and the end zones are 20 yards deep, the wind was non existant and not a factor whatsoever. I contest that you can easily make that punt, esepcially when you consider a CFL field is 65 yards wide, so even an angle punt would have to be at least 45 yards and that’s to go out at the start of the endzone. In order to kick it clear through the endzone it would be a 60 yard punt.

It was a bad decision considering it would have been maybe a 37 yard field goal. BC tried the same thing a few years back and failed. To try for the single point is actually quite difficult.

It wouldn't have been that far. According to the live play stats, the line of scrimmage was the Calgary 28 and the ball is placed 5 yards back on FG attemps so that makes it a 33 yarder and makes Miller's decision even stranger.

It doesn't reward a team for missing a FG, it penalizes a team for not trying to advance the football on a missed FG. It's is a part of what makes the Canadian game different, just like three downs and wider/longer fields.

The ball is actually placed back seven yards (some kickers go eight yards) on FG attempts, not five. Doesn’t change the validity of your point, tho.

Precisely. The rugby rules, which form the foundation upon which gridiron football grew, are based on exactly that. You gotta get it out if you don't want the point against you. Has nothing to do with missing or accuracy. And if you can't get it out because it is too high and too long, the offence did what it had to do to avoid you getting it out. I could actually live with the proposal of the OP but I completely understand why it is not that way right now because i understand the history and the purpose.

Precisely. The rugby rules, which form the foundation upon which gridiron football grew, are based on exactly that. You gotta get it out if you don't want the point against you. Has nothing to do with missing or accuracy. And if you can't get it out because it is too high and too long, the offence did what it had to do to avoid you getting it out. I could actually live with the proposal of the OP but I completely understand why it is not that way right now because i understand the history and the purpose.

Thought it was 5 but I see that Congi's attempt earlier was 7 yards back.

I would accept that arguement, but for one thing.. when the ball is unreturnable , a point is still given to the offence. Some argue that point is earned because the D allowed an offence to move the ball into your territory. Punishing the D for bending and not breaking is ludicrous at best.

No doubt the kick takes accuracy, but being a rugby player in the past as also a fullback, no problem we make those kicks to touch all the time. And still to this day I practise them at least weekly. Mind you the rugby pitch is slightly wider at 70m too. And one can punt a gridiron football farther than a rugby ball too, just as I do weekly, as it is smaller with less surface area such that it has less drag on the surface.

If I botched that kick to score, it would be because I angled it too short and it went out-of-bounds before the goal line for the "coffin corner." Such a kick deep in the opponent's field bouncing from the field into in touch in certain circumstances would be great in rugby union or even when directly out-of-bounds in any type of gridiron football on the final down.

But from about the 33 to "touch-in-goal" to score a single in CFL, especially for a "professional" with all the facilities to train and coaching, c'mon! That's bush-league so long as you don't have the wind against you, and they blew it in regulation last night even!

The rule is bush league such that such a kick directly out-of-bounds in the end zone scores in lieu of a kick the returner chooses to down or a more difficult, accurate kick to touch the ground before bouncing out-of-bounds whether in-goal or coffin corner. The latter is far harder than the former ask any punter or rugby player who kicks a lot, yet the result in the CFL according to the current rule is the same single point. :thdn:

Mind you the announcers had stated that the Riders had the wind advantage too if I recall correctly but no matter, for otherwise into even a 10kph headwind it is very hard to kick for distance let alone accuracy.

In such winds the only way I have figured out to not have the ball die on you high on such a punt is to drive it low and hard almost as if you are about to drop kick it.

There is absolutely no rule on where on the playing field the ball must be held for a place kick for a field goal attempt just as there is no rule in place with regard to from where exactly a ball can be punted or drop-kicked (in American football though any kick must be at or behind the line of scrimmage).

However by physical convention established long ago, seven yards is the preferred, but by no means required, minimum distance to decrease the chance of the attempt to kick for goal being blocked or disrupted.

In the really really old days when drop kicks also were used, usually they took place from even farther behind the LOS.

And for sake of drop kicks if there is someone on here who perhaps is at least 85 years old maybe you can tell us about a game you attended as a kid, or maybe someone can talk to grandpa about it and share? :lol: