I just don’t understand that logic, I could be okay with a rogue for punts, but not when you’re kicking a field goal and you miss it. The opposing team should have the opportunity to either return it or take a knee without giving up one point.
Then what is the “point” in returning it? And what about kickoffs going into the endzone. Kicking team gets a point if it land in the endzone and not returned out of it. The rule is there, leave it. This is one of the reasons why the CFL is more entertaining than the NFL.
By failing to protect their goal on a kick, the defense surrenders a point.
A better question, imo, is why can the defense intercept a throw in their goal and fail to return it out without giving up points? I think that play should be scored like a rouge.
To phrase it another way … it encourages teams to actually return the kick … a real play with the chance of excitement … but obviously it can’t match the thrill of watching a guy stick his arm up and catch a ball, or kicking teams standing around watching a ball slowly bounce end or end before “downing” it, or a guy just automatically taking a knee with no consequences.
VERY occasionally at the end of games there can be a series of the ball being punted out of the endzone, then back in, then back out … in my “yout” I recall an exchange of at least for punts (i.e., not counting the field goal attempt) … there is also the risk that a “punt out” could be returned for a TD.
Actually, I would like that an interception give you the opportunity to make a return but you can opt between the result of the return and the last LOS.
Many time a long pass intercepted is as good as a punt for the intercepted team.
Note that the team missing a field goal is not rewarded with a point. The defending team is PENALIZED for not returning the ball out of the endzone. Toronto failed to have a proper return unit set up in the event that BC missed the field goal.
It should have been like this play in 2010. Back when the Argonauts had a proper special teams coordinator…
I think that was the logic of the single point, to force the run.
Would like to make the missed convert a dead ball. They will never run it back in pro ball so lets get rid of it
The rouge is not a reward for failure, it’s a reward for field position which is what the entire game is based on.
Achieve field position in your opponent’s EZ, with the ball, get six points with an extra point. Trap your opponent in their EZ, get two pts.
Achieve the field position that allows you to kick it through the uprights, you get 3.
Pretty consistent pattern here.
As both punts and FGs are classified as “kicks from scrimmage” they logically both qualify for the rouge if the receiving team can’t return it…don’t forget they can always kick it back and avoid the single point!
Lets go back to 2005, and see if anything changes on why the rouge.
The point is associated with kicking. This is why. The game’s original scoring method was by way of scored goals (field goals) only. The rouge in the Canadian game at least is nearly as old as the original “goal” and probably predates points assigned for the “try” (touchdown). Hence all points were probably scored by kicking when the rouge was conceived.
So its rogues only for kicks.
Missed converts have been and will continue to be returned for 2 points
“in pro ball”? Are you talking about the “might as well eliminate all kicks” league down south?
I have no problem with the rationale for the rouge EXCEPT that if the principle is that the defending team must defend its territory by either running or kicking the ball out of the end zone, they MUST have the opportunity to do either of those.
The ball must land in the end zone and allow the defenders to either run or kick the ball out.
If the ball is kicked out of bounds in the end zone, no point should be awarded to the kicking team imo.
Uh, missed field goal run-backs are commonplace in the CFL, and occasional happenings in the NFL. Indeed, there have been extremely exciting missed field goal returns in the Grey Cup. Here’s one of the most famous:
The missed field goal (or punt, or drop kick, or kick off) run-back is one of the most exciting plays in football. It would be very foolish to eliminate it at a time when attracting fans has never been more important.
And if by “pro ball” you mean the NFL, here’s a link to a run-back of a missed field goal in that league (starting at 2:08 ):
Understood. That’s why I wrote it should be scored “like” a rouge, not that it should be a rouge.
My point is that the intercepting defense fails to protect its goal. It’s not quite a safety, since there is a change of possession on the play (like a punt entails a change of possession). Thus, I think a single point rather than two would be more appropriate.
What it boils down to is that a defense that successfully defends its goal by intercepting a pass on its own 1-yard line then scrimmages from that 1-yard line while a defense that fails to defend its goal by intercepting and downing the ball in its goal gets to scrimmage from the 25. That seems inconsistent, no?
CFL in QC’s suggestion of all interceptions having the option to scrimmage from the previous line of scrimmage is interesting and would resolve this inconsistency.
All interceptions, or interceptions in the goal area?
I thought he meant all INTs, but I could be wrong.
It would make more sense to me if applied to all INTs anyway.
no way. That would result in a notable reduction of attempted long passes which would take away some of the excitement of the game.
Logically, on punts, kickoffs and m missed field goals the team taking possession has prepared to return the kick or make the decision to not and yield a single point … with an in-endzone INT the defence has only focused on #1 preventing a TD and #2 int/fumble recovery if the opportunity arises … they are not prepared before the snap for a return
So you’re in favour of penalizing a team for getting too close to the other team’s goal area?
Full disclosure: I’ve said in the past that I could live with a rouge awarded only if the ball is playable, but would prefer to leave the rule as it is.