NFL vs. CFL: Kicks into the end zone

I'm watching the Baltimore/NYG game right now, and the Ravens just kicked the ball after getting a FG, and the Giants player caught it in the end zone and took a knee.

The Giants started at the 20 and the Ravens received nothing.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the CFL, if the Ravens had kicked the ball into the end zone and the Giants took a knee, wouldn't the Ravens receive a point? And then the Giants would start at the 30 or whatever.

It's not really something that I noticed before, but I honestly like the CFL way better.

Yeah i like the CFL way too. i just don't like it when they get a point off a missed field goal. Why should they be rewarded for missing.

i dont like the rouge rule, too much of a cheap way to get points, but i like that the cfl doesnt have a fair catch rule and allows more physical play.

Gcup89, you are missing the point of the rouge. Their are 6 ways to score points in the CFL.
1.) touchdown
2.) single-point convert
3.) two-point convert
4.) safety (two points)
5.) field goal
6.) rouge (ANY kick into the endzone that is not returned out of the endzone, exceptions; sucessful field goal or kick-off kicked through endzone without being touched).

There is no point awarded for a missed field goal…it falls under point 6.

I have seen teams use the field goal formation to attempt to kick the ball farther and get the single point because the ball does not have to go into the endzone in the air just end up there.


I dont like the rouge either, but in the game last night, there was a good example of why it should be tweaked in some cases:

Fleming punted after a two and out in an attempt to try to pin the Riders deep in their own zone, but the ball bounced out in the front corner of end zone, giving him a punt single. It was not the result he wanted, but he one point for it anyway. Basically he got a point for making a mistake. The ball was basically unreturnable, making the one point for it even more nonsensical.

No, his mistake cost them 35 yards of field

Just another reason not to reward him with one point!

I always say, If you can get a point for losing a hockey game.....I have no problem with the rouge

The rouge would be perfect if only it was rewarded exclusively for returnable kicks and not those that sail through the endzone.

Interesting analogy-- you use an analogy from a sport that you dont care for... but its ok for the CFL to have an idiotic rule, but the NHL should change theirs?

The CFL is big on the kicking game, the rouge fits the league. Best to keep it.

Didnt say they should change it......Im just pointing out that other sports have silly rules.

I agree. Makes it much better than the NFL Fair Catch, and taking a knee in the end zone.

I like the rouge, and I secretly wish that teams would go for it more often . . . I know it is tactically stupid when it comes to field position, but I wanna see it more!

As well, for when they miss a field goal, I think it is a good thing. It rewards you for either having a good drive, or having made yourself good field position; but it doesn't reward you enough to make a huge difference in a game. I hate it in the NFL when they walk away from an 80-yard drive empty handed; even one point would at least make it seem like the drive was for something!

The reverse question also applies. Why should the defending team get 20 yards for nothing? They didn't do anything to deserve it. They allowed the other team to get close enough to attempt a field goal then were awarded 20 yards when the other team missed. That's a ridiculous rule.

At least in the CFL there is a penalty to the defence for allowing the other team to get close enough to score.

They are NOT rewarded for missing. The are rewarded for not allowing the receiving team out of the end zone. If the ball strikes the Goal post they miss and get zero points.

That makes sense, Sportsmen, but what about what we saw the other night? Fleming tried to pin Saskatchewan, and instead the ball rolled through the end zone, and the Eskimos were given a point.

I suppose you could use the same argument, saying they prevented the team from bring the ball out of the end zone, but the opposing team gets the ball on the 35, which is probably better field position.

SSK could have tried stop if from rolling out of the endzone but chose not to.....They opted for 35 yards instead of 1 point.

It was still a mistake, and Fleming got 1 point for it, and they lost 35 yds of field position. I equate it to the equivalent of a return to the 35 yd line. If that had happened, Fleming does get the point, so why should he get it if his team loses 35 yds of field position?