Wit all the discussion about the rouge, whether to keep it as is, change it, or get rid of it completely, I was curious what the support level is for each option.
I went with one vote per person. I suspect most people have a preference and maybe a "could live with" option. (As I've mentioned before, I prefer to leave it as is, but could live with fly outs not scoring, making the goal area a target zone for rouges as well as touchdowns.)
I voted to keep the rouge as is except on fg attempts and that's just it "seems" like a positive change but in truth, I say just keep it as is. But if it means helping to convert more fans to the CFL to dump the rouge or modify somewhat, go for it. Whatever.
Bottom line is, IMHO, without a rouge of some sort in the CFL, well it's just not the CFL, Canadian football anymore. Just get rid of it with missed field goals and maybe, maybe if punts sail through the end zone with the now shorter 20 yard end zones unlike in history with 25 yard end zones. That's fine, just keep the possibility of a rouge, that is an absolute MUST. Diminish it's importance like baseball did with in the American league with the DH, no problem, but you just can't get rid of the rouge altogether in the Canadian game, no way.
I see no stretch of your logic R&W at all and who knows, maybe at some point 4 downs will make more sense. Anyone who isn't open to the idea of four downs in Canadian football if it makes sense out of experts analysis, is just plain daft IMHO.
You always have to be open to new changes in your league, who ever thought the NHL would get rid of the red line for two line passes? I didn't and guess what, nobody even talks about this any longer that it's "just not right" for hockey as many once did.
And fighting in hockey is so much less now than during the "Broad Street" bullies Philly days. Again, no one is caring, arenas are packed in many places and the upstart Knights fanbase and the team is doing fine without the "Broadstreet" days.
...how you would put this to expert analysis is beyond me, but three down football is essential to OUR game, end of story, to suggest anything else is odd...and while the rouge is not essential, it is part of our game, why change that to appease some?...not for me thanks...
Of course there is a huge argument that 3 down football is essential to our game, I won't deny that, but there is an equal argument that 4 downs is the way to go for many reasons and we both know this has been discussed over the years by administrators and coaches in Canadian football. Might switching to 4 downs even draw more youngsters in Canada to the game? I don't know but worth some thought.
I guarrantee you if the CFL and university football in Canada switched to 4 downs this upcoming campaign, there would no detrimental consequences to the fan base. Just my IMHO. If the NHL went to an Olympic ice surface dimensions, again, the same, some adjustment and no one would blink it even happened in a couple of years.
4 downs in the CFL, my guess is this helps tremendously in recruiting qbs rom the US ranks, one less thing for them to worry about at the qb position to show their stuff coming up here from what they've been playing all their life.
Keep the rouge as it is. Think of the overtime games where a missed field goal could still end up as a game winning point or the madness that ensues when the defending team tries to advance it out of the end zone to keep that from happening. It is great, the way it is.
If the CFL ever made the stupid decision to go to four down football, which they obviously won’t, myself and thousands of others would change to the number one four down league,the NFL. The CFL would be dead within five years.
Miss a TD, you can still get a FG. Miss a FG, you can still get a Rouge. Miss the Rouge, you're out of luck. The three offensive scoring options are just part of football. For reference, check out scoring in Aussie rules and Gaelic football.
You could also think of it like scoring in archery: you miss the bull's eye, you still get points varying in amount on how close you got.
Note: Kicking teams don’t get a single point for missing a field goal, they get a point if the receiving team fails to return the missed kick out of their end zone. We shouldn’t penalize the kicking team by taking away the single point if the kick sails through the end zone because the offence was too successful in moving the ball closer to the opponent’s goal line?
It ridiculous to suggest CFL teams should have 4 downs to make 10 yds, which equals 2.5 yds per down. The average RB gain is over 5 yds per attempt, so the OC would be crazy to call anything but the end-around on every play…so even if one rushing attempt got snuffed they still have 3 more tries? We already have rugby, that’s why we introduced the forward pass in football.