Suggestion Rule Change: Modification to the Rouge

I would like to see a modification to the rouge.

Background: It is often mentioned (even in ads by a league sponsor) the rouge is given for a missed field goal. That is not the intention. It is rewarded for preventing the other team from getting the ball out of the endzone when it is kicked in.

I know that changes were discussed and rejected in 2005 but I think it should be revisited.

Rule Change Suggestion: On kicks into the endzone for the rouge to count it must be deemed 'returnable', having touched the end zone or a return team player without being advanced back into the field of play. Kicks directly out of bounds in the end zone result in the ball being scrimmaged on the 20-yard line.

The idea is that the receiving team needs to have an opportunity to return the ball. A missed field goal out the back of the endzone results in no points whereas one that fielded by a player is the same as today.



So you want to make the Canadian game more like the American. No thanks... American football already exists. Go enjoy it, but don't try to change our game.


I have never seen a commercial that talks about the rouge let alone implies its for missing a field goal
Why do you want t change it?
To attract fans that will never be fans no matter what we do?


Leave the Canadian game as is.

Stop obsessing over the rouge.

The single point is in use in Aussie rules as well and that game is fine as is.


I agree, the only reward for failure is hockey for giving a point in the standings for losing in overtime

1 Like

This topic gets discussed several times each year. I agree with others that I don't think a change would create much impact on the way the league is perceived.

Having said that, I'd be OK if the kicking rules were changed so that all punts and place kicks must land inbounds or face a penalty. Well, not for place kicks that successfully go through the uprights and then land out of bounds since the play is dead the moment the ball sails through the uprights.

So, no more coffin-corner kicks. Punt the ball inbounds or it's a penalty and rekick further back, even if the punt is within twenty yards of the endzone.

If a place kick doesn't go through the uprights but sails out of bounds, then apply a penalty and re-kick. If the receiving team doesn't want to accept the penalty, then they choose to accept giving up a rouge in exchange for scrimmaging the ball at the 25.

I'm a CFL traditionalist. Even loved the 25 yd endzones of the 1960s & 70s but understand they had to be shortened due to stadium layouts, designs & grandstand placements.
Lots of unique wizardry in the CFL you seldom see in NFL, a bit in U.S. college ball.
I am torn on the rouge. In a tie game - punting it or kicking it thru the endzone, avoiding collisions with goal-posts has been an additional way for games to end.
A single is not an exciting play - but in the heat of the moment with no time left on the clock it somehow became part of CFL lore - and I loved it.
But I'd be willing to have a one-year experiment where the ball has to at least give the opponent an opportunity to return or kick it out. Makes for more skill in kick placement, I agree.

So lets give it a chance!




Still not sure as to why the shootout is necessary in hockey.

10 mins of 3 on 3 and move on to the next of 82 games in the season.

Because people want someone to win

Although it's makes for exciting football, I agree the should be playable to be awarded a point.
If I'm not mistaken rules are pretty strict as is, with the 20 yard rule. As Lyle_B_Style said maybe try it one year, or perhaps preseason

Someone brings this up like once a month as if no one has thought of this before.

There is nothing wrong with the rouge. In fact to change the rule would ruin things. A rouge is NOT awarded for missing or failing anything. It is awarded for field position. If you don't want to give up a single point, don't let the opposition get close enough that you can't return the kick. It's that simple.

If you make the kick have to land in the endzone then you will have teams purposely backing up to make sure that the kick lands in the endzone and that would be REALLY stupid.


Ah yes the cocktail hour as referred to by Dan Russell of Sportstalk fame.

The sport was fine without the shootout.

I mean the NFL allows for ties in the regular season but it's not acceptable in the NHL?

3 on 3 overtime for 10 mins might help to reduce ties.

Another option is to not count ties in the standings like the NFL used to do. That might be an incentive to win in regulation time.

The NHL brought in overtime back in 1983 to reduce ties. They still had too many ties.

They gave a point for losing in overtime in the mid 90s. They had many many dull finishes to regulation to get that point and still had many many ties.

They got rid of ties, gimped the game with 4 on 4 OT and shootouts and STILL give the point for losing after regulation. They have tons of boring OTs and shootouts that just make the games longer AND it's impossible to tell who is above or below .500 in the standings anymore.

You want to get rid of ties? Play 60 minutes. That's it. No OT, no shootout, no nothing. Just 60 minutes. If you win you get a point in the standings. If you lose you get nothing. If it's a tie, NEITHER team gets a point.

Teams will have 5 ties out of 82 a year GUARANTEED! And those last 5 minutes of a tie game will be crazy intense.

Problem solved.

1 Like

It was a Shaw ad and ran in either 2016 or 2017 in leadup to the Grey Cup and had a line that said Canadians are so nice we reward a point for a missed field goal.

The idea is not to make the game more like the American game, but the exact opposite. The idea is to create more opportunities for kick return plays, by keeping the ball alive and in the field of play more.

1 Like

What is the incentive to return the kick if there's no rouge? Just take the touchback.

Don't ask me, there is literally nothing on this earth that I care less about than hockey...
Well maybe ballet.....I care less about ballet than hockey but just barely

I never saw it...If I did I would have written them a letter and told them they were morons

But it won't do that, The field goal is good or it is not and the ball stays in or it goes out!
Its not like the kicker will not kick it as hard so that it stays in if he misses. Point or no point they prefer the ball to go out to eliminate a TD return

This topic is akin to flogging a dead horse. It’s been done to death and it’s time to put it to rest.....let’s many more cliches can I think of that match the theme of this post.....If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it......there’s more where that came from, but we’ll put a plug in it for now.

1 Like

Exactly. You can't ask a kicker to 'take something off' his kick to make sure that it lands in the endzone. That's ridiculous. It's like asking a hockey player to take a slapshot but not too hard.

The only people who call for a change to the rouge are the ones who don't understand it. Much like I thought the rouge needed to be changed ... when I was 12. Then a couple of years later I learned the true essence of the game and it all made sense. The rouge is perfect just the way that it is. To change it would ruin things.

1 Like