The 15 yards is not tracked on to the return!!!
Watch this video from Friday night
Taylor catch the ball on the 15 and returns it to the 20
When play resumes after the comercials(which I left in so you cant say I missed a play) They now scrimige from the 30...15 yards from where the ball was caught....Had the 15 been taked on it would have been the 35
click the pic
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ro1313/th_noyards_zpsdbc61636.jpg
The problem is that it's not 15 yard penalties that are tacked on to the play. It's Major Fouls. Those are all 15+ yard penalties, which is where the confusion is coming from. (Rulebook p. 53)
No Yards is not a major foul, even in its 15 yard incarnation.
ahh yes, you have a point. what was I thinking. I also do not have a lot of confidence in the front office of the cfl, so right now I would say its almost 50/50 which is right.
Thank you Tridus! you just sealed the deal.
that's exactly right. no Yards is not a major foul penalty.
That’s a terrible idea. Any pass more than 15 yards downfield, the defender would have an incentive to interfere. That’s STUPID. :thdn:
Strange I thought those were always tacked on. Maybe it used to be a tack on?
No, I don’t like this. See my previous posts on this topic (in this thread and many many others).
Folks who use the ‘reward for failure’ argument look at it from the point of view of the kicker succeeding or failing. It is not an individual game, it is a TEAM game. The team is rewarded for field position. if you don’t want to give up a point, stop your opponent before they get to chip shot range.
Folks need to stop trying to fix the rouge. There’s nothing wrong with it.
By that reasoning, if they get to the one yard line and get stuffed on a 3rd-and-1, we should give them a couple of points for almost getting a touchdown.
You don’t get a reward for throwing the ball out the back of the endzone (which isn’t any easier unless you have an arm like Michael Bishop), so why do you get a point for kicking it out the back of the endzone when you were trying to make a field goal?
Because you kicked it past their goal line and they couldn’t get it back out.
It’s not a kicker missing, it’s a team earning field position. It’s not a single play that failed, it’s a team winning field position over the course of the game, whether driving for it on offense, special teams net or forcing turnover.
If you use that logic, why have the rouge at all? The single point is like rewarding the punter for failing to pin the opposing team deep. You could use this “rewarding failure” example any number of ways. I think the rouge is an exciting part of the CFL, and is fine as it is.
And that’s all true with a passer, only you don’t get a point if you throw it out the endzone instead.
And yes, it is rewarding failure. The goal of a field goal is to get it through the posts. Not doing that is by definition a failure. But if you fail in a certain way you can get a point, and if you fail in other ways you don’t. So why is kicking it through the endzone worth more than hitting the upright (which is a lot harder)? Why is it worth a point when a bobbled snap that you have to eat isn’t, even though you still earned the field position and attempted a kick?
It’s stupid.
There’s lots of excitement from the rogue when the other team has to not allow it, which is when you see things like running it out of the back of the endzone or the really goofy stuff like kicking it.
Missing a field goal and having it go out the back is the opposite of exciting. That should not be worth anything, like it already isn’t if you miss the field goal in another way like hitting the upright.
It’s not the least bit stupid, and the analogy of the pass out the back of the endzone is a ridiculous comparison. An incomplete pass does not advance the ball across the goal line. It’s apples and battleships.
These are all rewards for success, not failure.
If team A only manages to gain 2 yards on first down, then they failed not only to score, but to even move the sticks. Then why do they get a reward of only needing 8 yards instead of 10 on second down? Answer: they are rewarded for moving the ball 2 yards, not for failing to get 10. It’s the exact same principle as scoring a rouge instead of a field goal or TD. It’s a score, so you get rewarded, but it’s just a less impressive score, so you get rewarded a lot less.
No one complains about the 1-pt goal in Aussie Rules. It s the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE.
As far as the upright is concerned, I might be willing to accept a rouge for that providing that the ball stays live and the ball happens to continue across the goal line. But as it stands now, the post is considered a dead ball, meaning that the play ends upon contact, which also means that the ball does not continue into the endzone until after the play is dead. I’m not sure why these kicks are considered dead balls, perhaps a safety issue? although I doubt that as the rules were created long before anyone cared about safety. The rule is fine the way it is, although I would be open to making kicks off uprights live balls. That would be the only change that I would consider.
I will say this one more time to make it clear. NO ONE ever scored a point for missing a field goal in this game. A point is scored for kicking the ball ACROSS THE GOAL LINE. This is a basic tenet of our game that should never be removed.
You can’t properly debate someone that fails to use logic in their arguments. I believe the ONLY reason for this debate and the assumption of awarding failure is purely due to the fact that the same scoring opportunity doesn’t exist in the NFL. There is a variety of scoring opportunities with various points awarded for carrying or kicking the ball into the endzone in all the rugby related sports (at least 3 varieties of rugby, CFL, NFL, Aussie Football). There is NO inherent reason in ANY of them for the point value and scoring method - the scoring methods exist because THOSE ARE THE RULES and that is what makes each game unique.
No, the reason for this debate is because the point of a field goal is to kick it through the uprights. If you don’t do that, you failed. Only if you fail in a certain way, you still get a point. If you fail in a different way, you don’t. Certain kinds of failure are better than others, but only when kicking.
There’s no special failure in passing where they give you a consolation prize. That lack of anything is just as arbitrary as rewarding kicking failure, and people seem fine with the inconsistency. Why? Because that’s how it’s been for a while, not because it makes any particular sense.
one rule I think should be changed is that olinemen should be able to catch the ball, at least behind the line of scrimmage.
question: can a qb laterall to an olineman now. Ever seen it down??
Why is it not a point when you hit the upright? Because you didnt kick it through the endzone.
Why is a failed snap not a point…Because you didnt kick it through the endzone!
Its not a reward for failure. If I fail to kick the fieldgoal and the recieving team runs it out…There is no point, no reward.
Both your examples of a bad snap or hitting the post are failures yet no point. Therefor it is not a point for failure
Why not look at it from another angle…If you kick the ball out of the endzone…you get a point. But if you manage to kick it through the uprights during that attempt, then you get an extra 2 points. Its the same thing but failure does not come into play
In baseball, why should I get a base if I fail to hit the ball. You could say its because the pitcher failed to throw strikes…well the receiving team failed to get the ball out of the endzone
In hockey you get a point for losing in overtime. You failed to win yet you get a point…Some will say you get a point for being tied at the end of reg time the other team failed to beat you…fine well you get a point in football if the other team does not get the ball out of the endzone
Why should we even have field goals, the object is to get the ball in the endzone, well, you failed to do that
It is one of 4 ways to score
TD Field goal safety and single
I dont know why it bother people, other than maybe NFL fans turn down their noses at it. Well forget them because even it we turn it into NFL north, they will still turn down their noses at it
answer no
A lineman can only catch the ball after it has been touched by another player…fumble or tip
Very good discussion. Regarding the suggestion about pass interference, I personally think that the one biggest change is actually not a change in the rules at all; that is, I wish that the concept of "catchable ball" that is already in the rules would be applied at all, never mind consistently. I think there would be considerably less demand for rule changes for PI if this penalty wasn't called when it wasn't even catchable in the first place. It is ridiculous how many PI's advance teams forward 10, 20, even 50 yards when, yes, there might have been illegal contact, but it was physically impossible for the receiver to catch the darn pigskin. It actually can be the biggest penalty in the books, depending on the length of the pass (i.e. over 25 yds) so it should be tightly controlled in my view.
By using the reward for failure argument: If you drive the ball down the field but either run out of downs and/or time before you reach the endzone, then you settle for a field goal, then the field goal made good for 3 points in itself is a reward for failure. You failed to score a TD and therefore you got 3 points. By YOUR OWN LOGIC, the touchdown should be the ONLY score allowed in the game because any other method of scoring would only be a ‘reward for failure’.
One more time … no one, I repeat NO ONE has EVER scored a point in this league by missing a field goal. A point is scored by kicking the ball across the goal line. You just get 2 BONUS points if the kick happens to go between the posts.
I know of no rule that bars anyone from receiving a LATERAL pass.
