Landry: Anti-rouge? Maybe you've missed the point

The rouge is fine, thanks. Long live the rouge. If you want it abolished, well, maybe you ought to reconsider your point of view. Your single-point of view.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at
1 Like

Because people don’t understand it!



And there ya go!

How about stop calling it a "rouge", which denotes something negative, like embarassment, and always call it a single?

There was a time, in OT, with the Lions scrimmaging second and only needing a point to win, Buono decided to play for the single instead of trying to advance the ball safety. Thought it was a Bonehead decision, and guess what? McCallum's kick fell short of going out of bounds and the Lions lost the game. 35 yard line + 7 yards where the kicker lines up + 20 yards to the back of the end zone <> a sure point.

How does it denote something negative?

And 99.99% of the time it is referred to as a single

1 Like

Well said.

Keep the rouge. I love NFL & NCAA football but the Canadian game is great partly due to the differences - 12 men, 3 downs etc - that dictates tactics. The rouge is part of that. Don't homogonise football. Your game is great as it is.

1 Like

Did you read my post? I said it right there.
Did you read the article? It says “rouge” more than 0.01% of the time, versus “single”.
Have you noticed that the majority of the articles that discuss taking away the one-point, it is referred to as “rouge”?
(All these are rhetorical questions.)

I suppose one reason for using it is to avoid confusion with a punt single.

That kind of raises another discussion. If they ever got rid of the missed FG point, then what about the punt single? In the CFL, they can also punt it through the uprights for a FG, I believe. “It’s not a missed FG. I’s a punt into the end zone, so give me that single point!”

Which is still a rouge!

The article, yes, but broadcasters and fans call it a single!..
And exactly where did you explain why its negative?

Wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Nowhere in the rules states that you have to kick a field goal.

It’s a scrimmaged kick. The haters will complain no matter what.

I mean you could line up in punt formation to kick the rouge for the win.

Would be a better option?

I mean the haters will still slag the rule anyways.

I have had arguments with fans who think that you get the single every time, Even if it hits the post or gets run back for a TD

The only change to the rule should be that you get a single point on a kickoff if the ball goes through the endzone. You get the single if it goes through the endzone on punts or field goals (and rightly so), so why not a kickoff? It makes no sense to exclude that one of the six possible scenarios (punt, kickoff, field goal, in or through endzone).

1 Like

You will get the single if the ball is touched before going out or if it is caught and the returner does not get it out of the endzone

1 Like

On a kickoff the ball has to touch the endzone before it goes out of bounds to get a single.

1 Like

no It has to be touched before going out or caught and not returned out of the endzone

My idea for a long time is to award the single only from any kick beyond the 30 yard line, or 35 yard line, so that would eliminate the easy single accomplished just by kicking it out. That would add another bit of strategy to the kicking game, as a coach may have to make a decision on when to try the kick.

Actually you are correct.

Had to look it up myself.

I should know this rule as I do officiate Canadian Football.

1 Like

OK I’ll let that one go! :smiley:

Thanks. If only I could only catch that one o-lineman holding :grinning: