Rule Change Exploration Discussion: The Single Point

the idea of changing this rouge has nothing to do with the NFL. Stop bringing up the NFL. Try to have original thoughts instead of the same old retreads.

That attitude that says "oh, we cant make this improvement to the game because it might make us closer to the NFL" is simply football paranoia(sp?)

The only thing that matters is whether or not an adjustment to the rouge would make the game better, NFL be damned. If you got an arguement against that has nothing to do with the NFL, fine, I respect that, but for gods sake, STFU about the NFL.

Excellent post FYB

Maybe the NFL should adopt punt singles

The thing is, rules have been adopted from one league to another for years, and adopting the other league's rules doesnt make the NFL "Canadian", so why would adopting an NFL rule make the CFL more "American"? We arent even talking about changing the whole rule, just tweaking it a little. It not a game changing rule, a game changing rule would be something like going to 4 downs instead of three. No one wants to see that, but saying if a ball is unreturnable so no point should be awarded does not make the CFL more American.

If NFL did adopt it, Jon Ryan would be the leagues leading scorer.

No no no. It is already settled. 76% have voted for no rule change. Thank George Walker Bush for defending our Democracy.

Demoacracy has spoken everybody! Let Freedom Ring! The Single point stays! Hurrah Hurrah! Hip Hip. . . . Hooray!
Hip hip. . . . Hooray!
HIp hip. . . . Hooray!

Victory on three!
One, Two, Three. . .

Amen brother! The CFL changes or massages rules every year, so why is the rouge so sacred? There's nothing wrong with progress people.

We could argue why the rouge should be re-defined for a very long time. But I just want to address the comment about the so-called reward for an offense moving the ball down the field. This makes absolutely no sense. Where's the reward when the offense (in the opposing team's red zone) looses the ball on downs, or looses the ball on a fumble or interception. These are all failures by the offense, not unlike a "missed" field goal. That's called a "failed" attempt. So why does it warrent a reward, and not any of the other failed attempts? Or better yet, where's the reward when the FG hits the upright? It's seems so funny that you are awarded 3 points for making a FG, you get nothing for almost making it, but you get a 1 point reward for missing it completely! Oh well, at least it makes us uniquely Canadian.

The attitude above is a good example of the problem with perception of the single which is an attitude that is spread by the media. The Canadian media, based mainly in T.O., tends to echo the American sports media in regards to the single with the "awarding failure" attitude. With that always being in the media, it's not surprising that many people echol those same sentiments. The problem with that attitude is that it is WRONG! The rules is not and never was scoring a single point for a missed FG, the rule is that a single point is scored if the ball is kicked into the EZ and unable to be returned into the field of play. Very staightforward and simple, and yes a wide FG can set up that situation, so what? You don't automatically get a single point if the FG is wide, it can set up an exciting return, some even go all the way for a score.
The single is fine as it is, it's people's attitudes that need changing. Maybe people should STFU about this "awarding failure" BS and actually learn the rules and appreciate them.

And BTW, I consider any rule change that takes the game closer to the American game, whether intentional or not, to be Americanising the game and something that should be avoided. Any rule changes should enhance the game as well as preserving the uniqueness of our game. I think we've gone to close to the US game and should start going the other way, but I know that's not going to happen.

Its that inferiority complex that just boggles the mind. You must have not seen the part where I said to tweak the rule, not change the whole thing. IMO, you should not get a point if you miss the FG and the ball sails through the end zone without a chance for a return. Its not "Americanizing" the game. The "rouge" stays intact, the only difference being on a returnable ball and not one that is unreturnable.

I don't see what the problem is with the single, can a Grey Cup be won because a field goal attempt sailed though the end zone? Yes, but either team can do it, so whats the problem?

Look at last week's Tor Mtl game, The score was tied and Mtl was marching up the field and I can guarantee you that when Brady punted the ball, every MTl fan was was on the edge of their seats and every Toronto fan was holding holding their breath.

Same thing last night with BC..... Even though they ran out of was far more exciting to know that they might get into single range and send it into overtime!

The single does not hurt the game, it adds to the excitement

If this post was directed at me, maybe you should re-read it before going into your little rant. My point was that the arguement of rouge being sort of reward for an offense marching down the field (as some supporters of the rouge argue) is senseless. It seems this rule is untouchable, and some people will go great lengths to rationalize it.

So the rule would be adjusted if the ball sails through the air, no point. Then how long would it take before it is like regular kick-off, if it is to close to side line or back line they let it bounce out of bounds as a non-returnable kick. Then you would not be awarding a point.

Anybody happen to watch the game the BC game. Winnipeg running out the missed field out of end zone so it wouldn't tie the game. You will remove all incentive from players trying to do that. Because the point would mean nothing.

I agree with you to a point. If the FG is missed, and it sails through the end zone, where is the excitement in that? If the ball can be returned, that is where the excitement is, not if its unreturnable.

So then where is the harm? The rule applies to both team.

It's the Canadian way reward someone for failure. Getting a single point on a missed FG is nuts. I like the other single point rules but why reward someone for missing a FG?? Whatever!

I agree RO, no harm. But it takes away excitement from the game. An offense receives points as result of a skilled play, whether it's a TD pass or run, or a field goal. But punting the ball 40 yards through the EZ (IMO) with no opportunity to return it or kick it back, is not a skilled play and shouldn't be rewarded a point.

BTW, I think in Mtl last week, most people were holding their breath because Brady wasn't a punter.

It is the Canadian way. We're too nice! "Good try, eh. Here's a point for ya." :wink: :wink: :wink:

Maybe its because you are not rewarded ffor missing a field goal
This will continue to be an issue as long as people look at it that way.
It is simply not the case!

I consider any rule change that takes the game closer to the American game, whether intentional or not, to be Americanising the game and something that should be avoided
well hell, them maybe we should unamericanize the shape of our ball. Change our field to metric. Change how many points we get for TDs and FGs. Hell, we shouldnt even have TDs and FGs cause that is too much like the NFL. And while we are at it, why not play 3 periods instead of 4 quarters. And lets not allow forward passing cause the NFL does that. And then there are penalties. We should have a completely different set of penalties, nothing american allowed. How about no punting allowed cause the americans already do that. Lets be an unamerican, unNFL as we can be. Why the hell should we do a single thing as they do, that is just plane unCanadian.

Point is, its assinine to not do something just because the NFL already does it. All that matters is will it make our game better. Also, taking away the rouge only if the ball is not playable is not an americanization. As long as we have the rouge at all, then we are still quite different.

lol It's not that people look at it slanted it's just bizarre way of thinking you miss a field goal and you get a point. so why dont we give 4 points for a make? We use 3 points from the american game; we use 6 for a touchdown. So we want all the basic rules for our game?
I have wondered many times on a long field goal attmpt why a team just doesnt kick it thru the end zone with a point for guaranteed points...

So ro how should a person look at it... logically it makes no sense.

In the Tor Mtl game, Duval missed a field goal and Dorcy ran it back for a TD....Did Montreal score a single? How about last night when Toronto fumbled the ball did SSK get a single..... Calgary-Mtl on Thursday, they botched an attempt. Any single scored? They answer is no for all cases. Why? Because you don't get a single for missing a field goal!

This is the definition of the rouge from the rule book

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.

The word field goal is not in there because you don't get a single for missing a field goal. You can get one, but the act of missing is not what scores the point.