Rule Change Exploration Discussion: The Single Point

I've been thinking about the Single Point and all that it means to the CFL- it is definately a unique aspect of our game and one that we shouldn't lose. However I believe that it can be MODIFIED to make it a little more exciting for the kicking game.

Currently, the kicking team is awarded the single point if the the ball goes through the endzone on a punt, kickoff or missed field goal attempt. The single point is also awarded if a player on the receiving team touches the ball while going out of bounds on the side of the endzone. As well, the single point is awarded if a receiver concedes the single point after the missed field goal, punt into the endzone or kickoff into the endzone. I believe the rationale is for the receiving team to "give some and get some", where the team gives up a single to get the ball on the 35 or the last point of scrimmage in the case of a field goal if it is farther than the 35.

I would like to see the single point awarded ONLY if the kicking team concedes the point in the endzone and if the place kicker kicks it THROUGH the endzone touched or untouched by a receiving player ONLY on a kickoff (this awards a great kick by the kicker). This would put more onus on punters and placekickers to PLACE the ball into the endzone for the possible game winning point rather than get the free point for just kicking it through. This would award placement of the ball, rather than give the free point for a miss (on a field goal) or punting it through the endzone from the 20 yard line to win a game.

Wouldn't it be more exciting for a placekicker or punter to have to place the ball in the endzone on the last play of the game and force a return or kick out by the receiving team?

I e-mailed George Black on and this was his reply:

"We have discussed changes to the single point several times at Rules Committee in the last few years, but they have chosen to leave it alone. Your rationale is interesting but based on recent experience would not get support from the clubs."

I am looking for some grassroots discussion to happen here and on other cfl forums. If there is enough interest, I will explore somehow taking it to the rules committee in the off season for discussion there. I think it's worth a try.

I think the best thing is to simply apply the rouge only to kicks into the endzone that are returnable.

That is:

  1. Any kicked ball that crosses the goal line and touches the endzone before going out of bounds in the beyond the goal line, or...

  2. Any kicked ball touched or handled by a return team player in the endzone that is not brought out of the endzone.

This would remove the rouge from kicked balls that travel untouched, through the endzone and out of play. In the context of a missed field goal, such an untouched, uncatchable kick is purely a reward for failure.

Some would argue that scoring a rouge on an unreturnable kick is a reward for gaining the field position necessary to strike such a kick. I would agree this to be the case in the context of a punted ball where there is no intent to aim for the goalposts but in the context of a field goal, I see it as reward for failure. Even with punting, there doesn't seem to be enough of a challenge to warrant a point for a ball punted from scrimmage going in at the 5.

So my personal preference would be to eliminate rouges on ALL kicks that are unreturnable as defined above.

I say, If it aint broke dont fix it!

My sentiments exactly, ro. :slight_smile:

I love the single point just the way it is. If a team is prepared to lose field position in exchange for a mere point, let 'em!

and I say, it is broke,so fix it.

It is broke, so fix it. If the ball is returnable, and the returner concedes, its one point. If the ball sails through the end zone, and is not returnable, then no point should be given. If a kicker misses from less than 20 yds , why should he or his team be rewarded if they cant score a TD, or if the kicker cant split the uprights?

Well its been broken for over 100 years.
I like it the way it is but to each his own

Just to note: If a kick-off goes through the endzone without being touched no point is given and the ball is placed at the 25 yard line.

Anyways, personally I believe the single point rewards the offence for moving the ball into the opposition's territory, the farther they move the ball the easier it is to score that single point.

Leave it the way it is.

Or we could get rid of fieldgoals.
Why should a team that can't score a touchdown be rewarded for that failure.

I guess it depends on whether you think the glass is half full or half empty.

I've NEVER liked the single point, but that's me. Probably because I grew up on NFL first before CFL but regardless of that I still have never liked the single pity point.

I agree with Ro. It ain't broke.

Oh and Mechagodzilla. Killer name.

There's a big difference between kicking a ball between a set of uprights and getting 1 point for missing them completely. One takes some skill, the other nearly anyone can do, or because your name is Westwood.

Thanks, but Mechagodzilla always got beat up by Godzilla. Maybe it's not a good one to pick! LOL Sort of like how my opinion is against the grain in this thread (it's all good, I just don't like single points but I do respect that it's a part of our game so there's that).

A. It is was makes the CFL uniquely Canadian.

B. Changing it not to count balls that sail through the air makes no sense. Why would that be any different the one that bounces on the ground.

C. All teams have the ability to stop the single point by running it out of the end zone. Unless of course it goes out of bounds in the air. Most coaches will say they never want a punt to sail through the air through the end zone. So you would likely only be talking about Field goals...and there again it is uniquely Canadian

All this talk about being "uniquely Canadian" is crap. If we change one rule, it wont take away from the CFL being Canadian. The only real way to take away the uniquely Canadian aspect of it would be to go totally to American rules. The suggestion is, on a missed FG, if the ball cannot be returned because that ball goes out of bounds in the air, no point should be given.

Roughy, you make a good point , but I disagree. If you are rewarding the offence for going deep into the defensive zone, what about when the defence bends but does not break? Or, if the offence cant move the ball after a turnover that puts the offence on a short field, and they go two and out, why reward them with a single point if the kicker misses the field goal try? A two and out on turnover that puts the ball on the opponents 35 yd line means the D stuffed 'em. Why punish the defence for coming up big?


I agree with you on the uniquelly Canadian point, except if we change one thing does that then steamroll into more changes to the Canadian aspects of the game?

Anyways I don't see it as punishing the defence, I see it as a reward, albeit a small one, for moving the ball or a reward for the defence for causing a turnover that close to the opposition's endzone.

Not another “let’s change the rouge rule” thread, these keep popping up all the time. There’s no need to change the rouge, no need to Americanise the game even more. We had our game first and Yankee ball was developed from the game imported from Canada (historical fact, look it up).
The biggerst problem with the rouge is that the league changed the size of the endzones in the eighties when BC place was built and didn’t leave enough room for the 25yd endzones. Larger endzones would make it more difficult to kick the ball through the endzone without it hittling inside the EZ first.
Instead of Americanising the game more, why not get rid of some of the Americanisation (that occurred during the '50’s). I am speaking specifically of the way we kick FGs. Canadian football players used to drop kick or punt the ball through the uprights instead of kicking it from a tee (which gives you more accuracy and able to kick the ball with more power). So with 25 yd endzones and FGs being drop kicked, there would be less balls going straight through the EZ without bouncing in it on missed FGs. It would also be a bit more exciting on 3rd down in the opponants half, there would be any different formations for punting or kicking a FG as they would be both punted. The defenders wouldn’t know if the offence was going to punt the ball or kick a FG, might make the game a little more interesting.
Anyeay, we all know the league would never make kicking FGx from tee’s illegal again or change the size of the endzones back to what they were for over 100 years, just understand that if you don’t like the way the rouge “looks” when it goes through the endzone without bouncing first from a missed FG or punt, that is the result of othe changes to the game and not the fault of the rouge rule. I say just accept the rouge rule the way it is, there’s nothing wrong with it, if you don’t like the way it looks, then watch American football and stop whining about the fact that Canadian football doesn’t look enough like Yankee ball.

It has nothing to do with "Americanizing" our game. If you really want to look things take a look at how many "rules" we have borrowed from them,and how many rules they have borrowed from us. Why is it that we have a big inferiority complex when we compare ourselves to the Americans? Its only small change that we are talking about here. It doesnt make sense to give a point where if a ball sails through the endzone on a missed FG, effectively becoming a dead ball.

Excellent point Stampsrock.

It is surprising how many people want to move closer to the NFL, somehow thinking it is that much better.