Ok, youâre on the 1 yard line, game tied or youâre down by 1 point, your running game is horrible so you do a dink punt from about the 7 or so yard line where the punter is at and he dinks a little punt to the end zone and your guys go and swoosh in and tackle the returner in the end zone for a rouge. One way to win or tie a game.
[devil's advocate] Passes have to be caught inside the goal area to score a touchdown. So why not the same for kicks to score a rouge? [/devil's advocate]
This would bring up some interesting strategy decisions, as in Aerial's scenario. Game's tied, no time left. Go for the field goal, knowing you have to be accurate with your place kick? Or go for the rouge, knowing you have to be accurate with your punt? Or, and this is probably the trickiest, and the riskiest, go for the field goal with just enough oomph to get it over the crossbar, hoping that it lands in the goal area and you can prevent the defence from making it back out if you miss?
Not so far fetched, and more exciting than an unreturnable kick through the endzone.
Well, I guess from that close, your FG kicker better be able to get the job done 99.99% of the time. But let's say the holder loses the snap and kicker is in a scramble to then dink it into the endzone rather than through. That means the defending team would have to run or kick it back out. And if they kick it out, then the other team can try kicking it back in, making for a fun ending.
Safety reasons in what way do you refer, less running so less head to head contact? If so, that makes sense but they would never change to 3 downs just like we wonât go to 4. If they widened their field it would allow more room around the ends to run, which could reduce H2H contact instead of up the middle all the time.
Changing the rule and requiring a kicked ball, be it place kicked or punt to strike the ground or opposition player before going out of bounds in the endzone could have damaging repercussions on both the kicker and the kicking game, as well as costs to operate to teams. There sometimes can be in increased risk for personal injury to an athlete when that athlete performs at a less than his usual effort. (eg. hockey, loosely bracing for body contact upon you at the boards, is asking to get hurt. In baseball many players have been injured when sliding into a base and quitting on the slide.) A kicker, both place kickers and punter, develop a tempo in their kicking style. And ordinarily their leg muscle gets toned to work at a usual fast pace. Deviating from that pace (easing up) can cause injury to the kicker in many ways. The pace change can stress a leg muscle and self injure on the kick, the pace change may get him injured more often on blocked kicks, and even the following injury has occurred. He may challenge for recovery of the kick himself and pull a muscle running after it full speed. The accuracy of kicks can be affected by easing up. Place kickers will tell you they donât put any less effort into their kicking motion on short attempts. In short it screws them up to do it. Thatâs why on converts the ball always flies deep. Slowing up to ease up can get them trampled on the kick. Sure, for 58 yd kicks their adrenalin tells them to put a little extra this time, but for average length FG attempt, (like 37, 44 yds) the same effort is put into kicking them as kicking the convert.
The team costs rise anytime a kicker gets injured and another player has to be found and brought in. I would think with the added inury risk to the kicker, by regularly trying to keep the ball in play in the end zone, would not please the teams keeper of the money vault.
I say donât put the added stress on the lesser paid kicking talent pool and keep point opportunities in the game. Allow the kick out of bounds distances to score the rouge point.
First a rule change is made to punish missed field goal attempts from far out. (placement of the ball is at the kicking teams last scrimmage point.
And now it's proposed to take a scoring opportunity away from the kicking team if they don't play nice and give the other team a chance to play with their ball.
And there is also some present suggestion to have a rushing offense that "breaks the plane" and scores a touchdown, prove their real worth by insisting they should be required to move the ball further into the endzone for the touchdown to be recorded.
Here's a thought. Ball gets kicked in to the end zone and returner drops it. He then scrambles and kicks it out the back of the end zone to deny it to be played to by the kicking team. The kicking team scores one measily point and the team that kicked it out from the end zone gets to scrimmage from 25 yd line. Maybe an interesting change would be to penalize the team an additional point because they kicked the ball out the back of the endzone and denied the other team a chance to bash the kick receivers brains and cause a fumble for a big score.
Ok, some of this may not be funny. But it's the truth. Why the need to take scoring out of our game?
I did a lot of kicking in my day. In fact, we played a game called yards which involved punting, running and catching. Often we punted in different ways, some times on the run. Long kicks, short kicks, floaters and line drives. No injuries.
I agree. The Rouge should only apply if the opposition team has a chance to return it. If it goes thru the end zone, without hitting the ground, no points.
Pro level play is much more demanding on the fit body. The slightest tweak from the ordinary can cause injury enough to put you a step behind and not pro fit. Running around playing for fun is a walk in the park with injury, but that same injury can be enough cause for concern that the player may need rest and recovery.
