Suggestion Rule Change: Modification to the Rouge

Nobody is afraid of the NFL. They are more concerned about making the CFL into NFL lite.

You do not get a point for missing a field goal. You get a point as you are the last player to touch the ball.

If anything the NFL is more drastic when it comes to changing the game.

If it ain't broke why fix it.

Those who want to change the rule believe it IS "broke".

Shows how "knowledge" some people are about Canadian Football.

By the time everything changes I might too old to even care and l am only 48.

Please let me enjoy Canadian Football the way it is.

Not sure why everyone is so hung up on a rouge on a field goal. Punting and field goal is classified as a scrimmaged kick why kicking rules apply.

1 Like

I hear ya. I don't have a problem with the rouge as it is. But I know that those who do have a problem with it think it's a broken rule.

But the rules change from year to year. Sometimes I like the changes, and sometimes I don't. That's the game.

And some people(not you) wont be happy until we have NFL rules!

1 Like

Well that is not true

Some people are much too afraid of the NFL.

If truth be known the NFL has adopted more rules and regulations and modifications from us as we have from them .

1 Like

I noticed that they now say “declined” when referring to a penalty, whereas they used to say “refused”.

Not close, change is good Dave
Evey year there is change, we've learn to except it

1 Like

It would TOTALLY affect the field goals. It would make for situations where teams attempt to do something silly like try to make a 10 yard FG land in the endzone, or snap the ball back 15-20 yards for the hold on a short FG, or even worse ... have to make a decision ion 2ND DOWN whether to actually try to make a 1st down or just waste a play to run back and take a 15-20 yard loss to make sure that the FG lands in the endzone. It would be stupid.

And all because a handful of people don't understand the rule as it is now and that it in no way rewards failure.

Imagine this, two games played:

Game 1 is played in the afternoon. Team A is losing by 1-pt against team B in the last minute. They get stopped at the 35 and kick a 42 yard FG. It is wide and they tackle the returner in the endzone for a single. The game is tied, goes to OT and Team A wins.

Game 2 is later that night. Team C is losing by 1-pt against team D in the last minute. They manage to drive all the way down to the 10 before they are stopped. They kick a 17 yard FG. It is wide and sails out the back for zero points and they lose the game.

Team C played better by driving farther and were penalized for their success on field position.

The rouge rewards field position. The rouge rules are perfect the way that they are. If you mess with them in any way you will wreck something. Please don't do that.

And they're wrong. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hence the change to the change to the 20-yard line in that scenario. The offensive team still gets some reward for getting close. Actually, I should have said 25-yard line to match with a turnover.

1-yard or 5 yard line might be too harsh unless you give that team the choice to surrender the point and scrimmage on the 35, which defeats the purpose of the change as I am making to encourage more returns.

When was the last time someone missed a 10-yard field goal.

What will it take to get you to understand how the rule works just fine now? It's not broken. It doesn't need fixing nor changing. In fact changing it would break it.

No they don't They got too close and the ball sailed out of the endzone....no point = penalty

How are you trying to encourage more returns when the issue is the ball going out of the endzone?
That is what we are discussing here...the ball going out with WITHOUT a chance to return it. You say no point! Ok but how does that encourage more returns?

I am fine with a ball that sails out of the end zone being flagged an "illegal kick".

But then give the receiving team the option:
a) Field the ball at the "x" yard line (5? 10? 25?) OR
b) decline the penalty, give up a point, and field from the 35

I don't think this changes the mentality of the kicking team. If going for a field goal, they go for a field goal, they're not going to ALSO make sure they have the option of a point on a missed FG.

If they are trying to "punt for a single", well, then it just got a bit tougher, and I think that's fine.

The receiving team will still put someone back to field the ball, because it would be silly not to.

While this does give extra leverage to the receiving team, it is similar to what happens if the kicking team hits the upright. Hey, maybe we should allow the receiving team to concede a point in favour of better field position

1 Like

I think the idea is that kicking teams will try to take a bit of oomph off their close-in FG attempts just in case they miss. Or maybe they'd take delay of game penalties to push the attempt back further so that the FG attempt won't go out of bounds.

That's the idea, but I can't see either of those scenarios actually taking place. Thus, as I think you're suggesting, the rule change would not result in any more kick returns. It would just result in reduced scoring.

I like the OP's idea. If you want the point, give the other team a chance to return it.

1 Like

On the other hand, if you want to stop the point, defend your goal. Don't let the opposition get close enough to kick the ball through the goal.

Tough to do with some kickers putting them through from mid field.

I know it's a Canadian game thing, and goes back to rugby roots, but I've always hated the rouge. We have enough other unique features to differentiate our game without it.

I know it will never go away, but the OP suggestion seems a good compromise to me.

1 Like