ON kick returns_out of goal

How often is a rouge scored because the kicking team actually stops the returning team from getting the ball out of the endzone?

If I'm not mistaken, that's the original intent of the rouge: as a penalty (not in the sense of officiating) against the returning team for not being able to get the ball out of the endzone (Didn't it used to be subtracted from the returning team's score, instead of added to the kicking team's?). But it seems that most of the time, the point is awarded because the returning team doesn't even try. In effect, the rouge is not a penalty for failing to get the ball out of the endzone, but the cost of better field position. I think it also reinforces the mistaken notion that the rouge is a reward for failure.

I don't think it makes sense to give out two points rather than one, i.e. to increase the cost of field position. So you have to reduce the benefit of taking a knee. Thus, make them take the ball somewhere closer to the goal line, as CaptainKirk suggested. I would say that the actual distance should be short enough that a return attempt is at least as advantageous, on average, as taking a knee. Does 20 or 25 do that?

well, the only way.. it could work.

is if they were to make it in such a way..

if the player attempts to get it out of the endzone, they'll get it at the 20. if they fail to get it out of the endzone and give up 1, then they get it at the 10 yd line.

so perhaps try to encourage them to get it out for better field position instead of giving a knee for better field position.

I like two of the suggestions proposed here:

  • After a rouge, start from closer in, maybe the 20;- Only award the rouge if the ball makes contact with the ground or a player in bounds.
    The first suggestion would encourage more runbacks, and the second would reduce the perception by some that the single point is a reward for missing on a field goal.

I don't like the CIS rule. It doesn't seem to encourage good runbacks, in my opinion. All it seems to encourage is running it barely out of the endzone.

While I seem to be in the minority on this...I'd like to see the present overtime rules scrapped entirely
Teams play once/week
They could certainly play an extra quarter to decide a game that represents such a sizable chunk of the season.

Foot ball has 3 essential elements offence, defence and special teams.
How is it that important games, perhaps crucial games are therefore decided while almost completely eliminating one third of what makes football...football.
Not that I'm an Argos fan...but how is it fair to suddenly deny them Chad Owens...and the contribution his return ability brings that club just when they need it most?

It seems a simpering cowering to the demands of TV schedules and a world that insists on "turnover" at all costs.
And it significantly compromises the integrity of a great game.

X2 :thup:

I've been on the record for at least 3 or 4 years suggesting this. I'm happy to see at least a few people actually agree this offseason.. Makes me feel slightly more sane

Good points all around for sure :thup:

re-"Only award the rouge if the ball makes contact with the ground or a player in bounds."

I cannot recall seeing this happen?
I cant agree in changing that aspect of the rouge.
detracting yardage for conceding a rouge seems to be the best proposal so far, but Captains remedy is a bit harsh, unless its the Argos pinned on the one yd line

Would like to see non posting memebers voting and having their say

I don't mind the idea of only spotting the ball on the 20 if a rouge is conceded. That would create more returns. However, the thought of being rewarded for running the ball to the 3 yard line...diving across the goal line, then getting the ball spotted up field is embarrassing...amature if you will...we should leave that to CIS (amature). Also, the thought of having the rouge only award if the ball touches inside the endzone is interesting to (much like now if a punt goes out w/o touching...no single).

Also note that it has not been that long since the receiving team was given the option, on field goals, to take the ball at the 35 or take a kickoff. This tells us a few things...
The league is not too concerned about more returns.
Teams find guaranteed field position appealing.
There are those who don't want to risk the injury.

While returns are fun to watch, you have big guys coming at each other full speed...this really happens at no other point during a game. there is a higher injury rate per play on special teams than any other action largely because of this.

The only time a rouge isn't awarded on a kick into the end zone is on a kick-off, and that's only if it isn't touched first.

From the CFL 2010 Rulebook:

[b]Rule 3 - Kicking Section 2 - Definitions Article 4 - Single Point Or Rouge[/b] If the ball is kicked into the Goal Area by an opponent, a rouge is scored: (1) when the ball becomes dead in possession of a team in its own Goal Area or, (2) when the ball touches or crosses the Dead Line or a Sideline in Goal, and touches the ground, a player or some object beyond these lines. ... [b]NOTE:[/b] If during a kickoff, the kicked ball proceeds through the Goal Area and across the Dead Line or Sideline in Goal without being touched, there shall be no score and the ball shall be awarded to the receiving team at any point between the hash marks on its own 25-yard line.
Nothing in there about having to touch in bounds first.

yes.

the ball if it stays in the endzone.. the returner obviously has to grab it.

assuming he can't get it out, it's a point

if he touches it like trying to stop it and it goes out of bounds in the endzone, it's a point

if he doesn't touch it and it flies through the endzone, either touching inside or not and goes out.

it is NOT a point.

What is the rationale behind having the rouge only count on kicks touched by the returner on kickoffs? Where did this kicking exception come from?

I'd rather have all kicks treated the same with regards to the rouge and kicking out of bounds albeit the kickoff is an exception to the rest of the game in many aspects already. It's pretty much one play of rugby before the modern down-and-distance, forward passing scrimmage takes over for the vast majority of the rest of the game.

I'm guessing to some extent here, but it probably comes from the days when the kickoffs were from the 45. It could be that kickers were booming them as far as they could in the hope that they'd go through the endzone for a single; a 90 yard kick with the wind or a good bounce isn't really that outlandish on a kickoff, is it?

it’s a good rule…

how fair is it to the team if they have no shot at trying to get it out?

here, 1 pt against you even though you had no chance.

Agreed. At least with a punt or field goal, there's a chance to block it.

I still like the idea having to hit in bounds first, similar to the between-the-20s rule on punting. It's also similar to the rugby kicking rules. In rugby, if you kick it straight out (from outside your own 22), there's no ball advancement. But if it lands in bounds first, then the ball is moved to the point it went out upfield. To get the benefit of the kick out of bounds, it has to land in bounds first.

Actually, I'd also like to see the between-the-20s rule on punts changed to match the rugby rule: it must hit in bounds if you're kicking from outside your own 20. It would make the coffin corner even more difficult, and it would make for more punt returns. The "outside your own 20" part allows for desperation kicks straight out of bounds when deep in your own end, possibly eliminating the automatic knee for a safety that seems to have taken over in the CFL.

The point on having a rule in place that the rouge is eligible only if it touches a player / the ground would be this:
A) If you had a chance at making a play on the ball, and you elected not to, then you surrender a point as punishment. This promotes action.
B) If it sails through the endzone and does not touch, you should not get rewarded with a point for a failure.
(I realize these are not rules, but they would have potential merit, in my eyes anyways).

I believe that the way it works now is that if a “punt” goes out of the endzone, unless touched, their is no rouge awarded. Now, I am not recalling 100% at the moment, and don’t feel like looking it up, but I am fairly certain that this rule is different for the back and side of the endzone, where it can go out the sides and a rouge is awarded, but not if it goes out the back. The point of this is so that you can not simply punt it through for a win, you would at least have to have the accuracy of getting it out of bounds on the side of the endzone. This is of course for punts, and not missed field goals, where rouges are awarded if it goes out of the endzone anywhere, or a single is conceded.

this is why you often see kick returners not catch the punt when it is deep in the endzone…if it rolls forward and out, no point.

depopulationINC,

You have some misconceptions about the rouge. You might want to read the rulebook or previous posts on this thread…

From the CFL 2010 Rulebook:

[b]Rule 3 - Kicking Section 2 - Definitions Article 4 - Single Point Or Rouge[/b] If the ball is kicked into the Goal Area by an opponent, a rouge is scored: (1) when the ball becomes dead in possession of a team in its own Goal Area or, (2) when the ball touches or crosses the Dead Line or a Sideline in Goal, and touches the ground, a player or some object beyond these lines. ... [b]NOTE:[/b] If during a [b]kickoff[/b], the kicked ball proceeds through the Goal Area and across the [b]Dead Line or Sideline in Goal[/b] without being touched, there shall be no score and the ball shall be awarded to the receiving team at any point between the hash marks on its own 25-yard line.

I’d like to see:

  1. Rouge only count if the ball lands in the goal area or touches a return team player in the goal area without being returned into the field of play.

  2. Scrimmage from the 20 after a rouge.

  3. Illegal kick out of bounds to apply only if the ball is kicked out through the air between the goal lines. That is, no 20 yard line rule and no illegal bounces out of bounds on kickoffs. If it lands in bounds on a kickoff PICK IT UP AND RUN or take the bad field position if it bounces out.

Yes
2)
Yes
3)
No – change the rules on punts and other scrimmage kicks to match those of rugby union, but apply the rules as Cats explained below rather between the 25s and not the 20s (nb in rugby rule applies for the 22m lines as were formerly the 25yd lines before they went metric).

No - on kickoffs no changes to current rules.

Getting a little off topic, re punts and kickoffs.although there is a balance in the Canadian kicking game that should be carefully analyzed before making changes to long standing rules.

The rules comity may have set the precedent by moving the ball to the 25 on conceded safety's. this improved the situation with to many knees in the end zone, but teams are doing it again anyways,
Moving the ball to the 20 on a conceded rouges and safety's would seem to be the way to go,IMHO.

Regarding conceded safeties:

I don't have the numbers to back this premonition up but I felt as if while teams were still conceding safeties, they were doing so far less and only if severely buried near their goal line. With the previous rule, I felt as if teams were conceding safeties when scrimmaging 3rd down anywhere within their own 20.

Is it just me or have teams in recent seasons gone to a more honourable immediate knee-down when conceding safeties as opposed to the previously common act of prancing around the endzone before stepping out?