Point is

[url=http://www.thespec.com/sports/article/918056--point-is-missed-field-goals-reward-kicker-s-failure]http://www.thespec.com/sports/article/9 ... -s-failure[/url]

Stop rewarding failure, in other words.

Though it curdles some Canadian blood to consider such a move, it’s time to follow the cold-hearted American lead in which it’s all or nothing for kickers. These guys may be people just like you and me. They might choke up when they watch Hallmark commercials or listen to Jann Arden sing over SPCA ads. They might be under a lot of pressure.

Doesn’t matter. It’s time to be a little ruthless with them.

Make your kicks or walk off the field with nothing.

How could someone be so wrong? A rouge is not a reward for failure. It is a penalty to the defense in not protecting their end of the field properly. It also rewards the kicking team for kicking the ball into the receiving team's end zone. It is a live ball in the CFL not like the [yawn] NFL with their touch backs and downing of the ball. Now that is real excitement (insert sarcasm here) isn't it? :roll: Why did he not mention the rouge awarded for punting the ball into the end zone? Would he want to take that away as well?

It's not about avoiding becoming Americanized, rather, it is about keeping excitement in the game. Radley (and others) fail to understand that the CFL has superior rules and use any imagined (made up?) negatives to disparage the better game.

:cowboy:

Your so right, I was just going to post something like you did.

The point is to encourage the none kicking team to run it out to avoid giving the team the point. It is a very exciting part of Canadian Football, how many run backs have we seen after a missed field goal, you don't see that in other leagues !!

I sent Scott a email, he clearly does not know the rule and has put himself in the category of Bashing the CFL :roll:

I encourage you to send him an email so he gets the point !

sradley@thespec.com

In addition, Scott clearly forgot to mention at the end of his article that the NHL gives teams a point for losing in overtime :lol:

Thanks for the support TC23. I just emailed him a link to this topic. Hopefully it will open his obviously closed eyes. At least one can hope...

Hay no problem, I just think Scott didn't do his research before writing the article for what ever reason. I forgot to mention that not only does it encourage the none kicking team to run it out to avoid giving the kicking team the point, it gives the option to the none kicking team to give up the point, It creates so many different scenarios as we have seen over the years!

Making it truly Canadian :thup:

This is OUR League !

Wow, that was really badly written. He went through the motions of acknowledging what the opposing viewpoints to his position might be, but completely ignored what is actually the strongest opposing argument (as stated above in this thread), for which he could not have come up with a glib dismissal.

Quite amateurish, I'm afraid. Something you'd expect from a high school student (though not a strong student).

Yes, a badly written article.
As for single points, I wonder why they came up with that one, why all these ways of "racking" up points.
Why a single point for putting the ball in the end zone? - it doesn't make sense. Why 7 points for a converted TD?
We like to brag about the single point, because it's one of those "Canadian rules" , but I don't like the single point at all.
I like to see a game go into overtime and it decided on a team scoring a TD rather than a team trying to kick for a single in the final seconds, it's just not an exciting play. Too often the game is decided by the "wind" !!!

Nothing worse than a CFL hater, offering up tips to improve it when , in reality, they couldn't care less if the league folded today.

[b]"Yeah, but think of those exciting plays when a team hoofs the ball into the end zone in the waning seconds of a game and then the other team kicks it out and then the first team kicks it back in again and then ….

OK, so how many of those do you see every season?"[/b]

Point is, how many times does this situation come up during the course of a season? Maybe once or twice.

What about the missed field goal attempts that Chris Williams' and others made into touchdowns. All of that excitement and fun would fall by the wayside if coaches did not have to concern themselves with the "failed point", and directed their players to just kneel in the endzone, like they do in the No Fun League. The anticipation alone of a possible runback puts the fans on the end of their seats. Can't remember when the same kind of buzz occurred over a touchback.

This CANADIAN quirk has likely made these same coaches opt for more offense rather than go for the long distance field goal, providing fans more entertaining plays to watch.

Thank the powers at the Spectator that Drew Edwards is THE man covering this team and not this guy.

I just read the "article". He obviously knows nothing about the CFL or its rugby based origins, where the rouge came from I believe. He's another hater like I debate with at work about the CFL versus NFL. If he actually watched a game or two he might just find he'd like it better. I tell every NFL over CFL fan to watch both games side by side with the sound off, then bet which game they'll end up watching. :slight_smile:

Keep in mind Radley's role at the Spec, which is to write controversial opinions. Controversial opinions, whether they are accurate or completely made up, work for news outlets as they drive readership of the paper and its websites.

I'd be concerned if Drew wrote such a piece, but this one is just Radley doing his job at the Spec. Judging by the reaction here he succeeded in his goal of increasing readership on an otherwise slow news day.

For the record - he is wrong for all the reasons listed in this thread. With one more - our endzones are 20 yards deep.
The defence frequently has the opportunity, if they chose to use it, to get the ball back out of the endzone and not surrender the rouge. This always adds strategy and adds the occasional very exciting play. Whereas in the NFL's 10 yard endzone most missed kicks would go out of the back of the endzone, which would make the single automatic, and consistent outcomes do not add excitement to the game.

A better topic for Radley, if he wants to question the kicking rules, would be to question why we keep the convert.

one possible misconception of rouge razzers is the presumption (or perception) that the endzone is a dead area when in fact it is still a live ball area in which the play must continue.

I understand what you're saying, Bob. I can see that role in what he wrote.

However, with the failed logic Radley used and the general weakness of his argument, he comes off as a rube and the same number of readers who may have viewed this item will dismiss him in the future as unknowledgeable. So, his success in this assignment will be short lived.

Steve Milton, who does criticize this team from time to time, does so with such skill and knowledge that his opinion and articles are held in such esteem by those who follow Hamilton football. Even if I don't agree with his thoughts from time to time, Steve does make me stop and think. That to me, is the sign of a great writer.

You know, I hesitantly started this thread thinking I might be somehow 'slammed' for my thoughts. I'm really grateful that did not happen.

I agree with Bob. If converts are a 'gimmee' (not to often missed) why not eliminate them? Give the scoring team the option of risking a point by choosing to go for the 2 point convert. I know it does happen from time to time, but really a missed convert is a very rare occurrence.

BTW I know what Radley's job is. Unfortunately being a 'controversial' character is not often a very rewarding vocation.

:cowboy:

I'm all in favour of the rouge in all its forms. I'd like to see its role strengthened.

Rather than eliminate it after a TD, I'd move the line of scrimmage back so it wouldn't be such a "gimme".

To encourage returns and reduce the frequency of returners conceding a point on a kick into the end zone, on a missed FG from the 35 or further out I'd make it a two-pointer. Same thing on a punt of 50 yards or more into the end zone and not returned.

[b]

are you suggesting that if the scoring team chooses to go for a two point convert, and misses, are deducted a point?

My idea would be to maintain the extra point (5 yd scrimmage) as is, and two-point conversion as is, yet also provide an additional option for a two point conversion from a 35+ yd. scrimmage, or something to that effect.

such varied options late in the game would further cement the CFL adage "no lead is safe"

Yes that is what I was thinking. Since a single point convert is very rarely missed, why have it in the first place? All it does is add to the length of games without much in the way of reward (excitement). I also like your suggestion for making a 35 yard try an option as well. Again, the scoring team would be guaranteed only six points for the TD, but if successful from 35 yards the convert would be for 2 points. Just as is the case with current 2 point converts (which result in either a fumble or int), the defending team would have the ability of running back a wide attempt for 2 points for themselves.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Radley on this one. No one in sports should be rewarded for failing to accomplish what they were trying to do. A missed field goal is just that, a missed scoring opportunity and no points should be awarded. In close games with the game on the line a kicker doesn't have to worry about putting it through the uprights, just kick the ball far enough to end up in a single. Game won! Make the teams earn their points, and missing field goals is not earning anything.

I disagree with you, and with Radley.

A point on a missed FG is not a reward for failure. What it is, is a point for kicking the ball into the other team's end zone and preventing them from returning it out. If it goes through the uprights, two more points are awarded for the accuracy of the placement of the kick. In Canadian football the goal line is not a finish line, it's the beginning of the other team's end zone, a zone the defence is expected to defend against penetration. Failure to defend results in one or more points, depending on the manner of penetration.

Well said steve,I would be totally embarrassed from an academic point of view to argue otherwise. Scott though, as academic as he is, also wears a media hat that puts food on his table. Enough said.
This is such a funny topic that emerges from time to time though, have to admit. I'm basically close to a dummy and I can figure this one out. Yikes! :o

You've contradicted yourself. You say,"No one in sports should be rewarded for failing to accomplish what they were trying to do. A missed field goal is just that, a missed scoring opportunity and no points should be awarded."

And then you proceed to give an example of team setting out and accomplishing what they intended to do and being rewarded a point for it. "In close games with the game on the line a kicker doesn't have to worry about putting it through the uprights, just kick the ball far enough to end up in a single"