The Rouge

I know this has been hotly debated here before, but I think last weekend's game justifies bringing it up again.

I am so happy McCallum didn't get the single point during OT in the Rider game. First, because I'm a Rider fan, and it helped us win. But also because I'm a CFL fan. How bush league does it make the CFL look to win a game in OT by punting for a single! Almost as bad as a winning single point for sailing a missed field goal through the end zone. IMHO this rule needs to be re-visited.

are you joking?, I thought that was a great statagry! mind you, I though he should have at least gone for 2 more downs before going for the Single/FG, but what difference would it have made if they kicked it for a Field Goal and won it on that?

I think if anything needs to be changed about the rule, the OT should begin at the 50s instead of the 35s. At 55 or whereever they kick from if they go for it at the 50, the only posisble score you will get is a single (and it is possible, as the frist kickoff (from Team A's 35) had the ball go all the way to the back of the endzone, with good wind), and you have to work to get a FG or a TD, and therefore might see less of the mistakes that Wally made, and therefore, maybe the CFL would seem less bush.

I think the rouge is justified to a degree... it forces the return in close games. Not only that, a missed FG return is the most likely to go back for 6.

I think the rouge should be adjusted only to count on kicked footballs that are 'returnable'; that is:

-A ball kicked into the opponents endzone that bounces in bounds or touches a returning player in the endzone.

Footballs kicked through the air out of bounds in the endzone without touching a return team player or the endzone surface should be exempt from the rouge.

I don't see the flaw in this and I'm perplexed how the CFL can introduce a 'shootout' overtime without adressing the possibility of a game being won on a rouge. Which is possible on the first play from the 35. McCallum could have done that had he kicked the ball out the side much the same as a coffin kick and could have quite possibly won the game. I was more confused with the straight on kick than anything.

What so wrong with having balls that fly out in the endzone on a FG/Punt be singles? where was the D to stop the teams from getting into range? you got three downs and a bigger field to stop them!

I don't see why people see a flaw in that, when, IMO, they should see a flaw with the goal post not being consided a pair of the deadline.

I agree KK-... I like the rouge helps me feel less american 8) Also i feel it adds something special to the game..
( AS seen in the most recent Rider / Lions game ) -- its never over, until its over!

we are up to 6

I have absolutely no problem at all with how the rouge is done currently. Sure, I agree that it can be perceived as being "bush" if you will since it can be all but automatic at times to punt a ball out of the end zone to win a game but it works for both teams and both teams know this and have to adjust their defences accordingly to try and prevent the other team from getting into field position for this to happen ie. be more aggresive on defence to not let them get there. Without the rouge, defences can just sit back near the end of the game and let them throw 10 yarders but with no chance to get the ball into the end zone with a td. And I love a point on a missed field goal, makes the returner think way more and the coaches as to whether they should give up the single or run it out or kick it out.

The rouge rules as it is - leave it alone please!!! For me not really so much that it is a Canadian thing and not American, I just really like what it brings to the game strategy wise.

I commented at the Riders/Lions game that I didn't want to see the Lions win with a single. Why not the FG? 42 yarder with the wind. If Lions had won that way, of course I would have taken the win but in a way, I'm glad they didn't get the single. The better team won the way it should be won, by a TD or a FG but not a single.

Fully agree with you KK on this one.

Lionbacker wrote:
The better team won the way it should be won, by a TD or a FG but not a single

You're missing what the rouge is all about. In Canadian football, the rouge is a strategy that can win football games and defences must try and prevent this from happening. It's part of the Canadian game.

I also think that the single point should stay. Sure, it's nearly automatic that the point can be scored, but it's the word "nearly" in the last sentence that matters. In the lions/riders game, there's still a chance for a bad snap, McCallum could've fumbled, kick could be short( as seen on Sunday), nothing's guaranteed.

And, the only reason it was something that could be attempted for the win is cause the Lions' guy ran Congi's missed kick out of the endzone. Had they given up the point, or if Congi had kicked his through the end zone, Bouno would've had to have gone for the field goal to win.

Earl's right, it's all about the strategy involved.

You got me thinking monkey from reading your post also why not just give a team a single point for a convert, why even line up and do it since it practically also is a given to get this point.

Again Earl, I think it's the part that it's not fully automatic that you should keep it. There's been botched holds, snaps, kickers just plain missing...... and then that one point can matter near the end of a game. If the team that missed the extra point gives up a field goal as well, all of a sudden they're down by 4 points (all things being equal) and instead of a final drive to tie with a field goal, they have to get a touchdown to win. Makes for a bit more excitement in my opinion. I love the different wacky ways you can get points in this game, makes for lots of combinations.


I'm going to agree with you KK on this one too. The rouge is not for missing a field goal, its for the receiving team failling to get the ball out of their end zone.

You all know me , I hate change, so leave the rule as it is! (Although, as KK points out, moving the start point of overtime from the 35 to midfield makes sense to me)

Sorry Earl, I had to read it for the 3rd time to see the sarcasm in your first post. Hope you're not mad that I didn't catch it sooner.

To weigh in on the other point, I like starting at the 35 because it means that the field goal is typically "guaranteed", otherwise teams would be less likely to go for a touchdown to begin with. And also less likely to actually get the touchdown with having to march half the field... lets more of those "bend don't break" defences work their evil magic...

Australian Rules Football also awards singles on missed goals. It's called a "behind" Down Under. I wonder if there are people who think the AFL is "bush" because of this. I doubt it!

Without getting into a CFL versus NFL war, you know what I call "bush?" A punt returner taking a knee (i.e., the faircatch). Or worst yet, when the play clock keeps ticking and you see the offensive team hurry up to the line of scrimmage frantically scrambling to get the play off. How stupid does THAT look?

First of all, I couldn't give a rat's furry little behind about Australian Rules Football. If you're into it fine, all the power to ya. But this is CFL discussion. Second, I don't disagree about the fair catch - it's a dumb rule that takes away from the game.

I don't think this is a "Us vs. Them" topic. And saying that a certain rule should be kept as is because it keeps us Canadian, is as dumb as the rule itself. Are we putting our national identity at risk if we change a uniquely Canadian rule?

I'm not totally against the Rouge - but in certain situations, yes for sure! IMHO, the rouge should not come into play at all during OT. With the game on the line, we should force the winning team to earn their win with a TD or (a successful) field goal. And I've always supported the idea (as someone else mentioned here) that the rouge should not be awarded unless the ball lands in play (not through the EZ). At least the return team has a CHANCE to return the ball. Although I'm not totally convinced the rouge encourages returns out of the EZ. How many times does the returner concead the single? What bothers me is punting through the EZ to win a game (wouldn't it look bush to punt from say the 4 yard line?). Or winning a game on a missed field goal. If I was a fan of the winning team, I would think it would take away from the win.

It doesn't matter what it looks like, the fact is if a team was successful by driving the ball down the field and used strategies to overcome defensive strategies to do so, then kicking the ball for a single out of the EZ or whatever should be rewarded as such as this is the Canadian Football League that has had this rule for eons. Not a Canadian thing vs American thing, it's a strategy thing. Without this, you just see defences that just allow a team to get down the field but not into the end zone.

The rouge and kicking for a single point is all about strategies, why can't some people see this??? And as stated above, no kick at all is ever a given, all sorts of things can happen, in fact, it is more dangerous than actually handing the ball off to a back I think so again, why not be rewarded as such as has been the case for decade after decade with the Canadiang game?

First of all I agree about AFL. WHO CARES!
Second of all why should it bother you if a team won by punting the ball out of the end zone? Its part of the game! It is one of the ways that points can be scored?
Do you find it dumb that in baseball you can score the winning run because of a bases loaded walk? No! Its part of the game!

As for how many times the returner gives up the point, often when its early but late in the game when 1 point can make a difference they run it out! The returning team has to decide between 1 point and 35 yards of field.

As for punting from the 4....they will go for a field goal!