The Single Point

I wonder if the CFL will ever do away with the single point. A game which is tied with 2 seconds left, a team should never be able to win that game by just kicking the ball through the end zone.
As well, a team should not get a single point for missing a field goal, why is the team awarded for failer

Well I sure hope that the CFL never does away with the single point. I am about 99% sure that they never will do away with it.

I have been a season ticket holder in the CFL for 25 years and have watched many games over that span. The number of games that are actually decided by a single point at the end of a game are few and far between, less than one per season in the whole league.

There are a few people who incorrectly identify receiving a single point after a missed field goal as being rewarded for failure. Those people need to realize that the single point is actually a point a team gives up in exchange for field position. If you give up a single on a missed field goal, you get the ball at the 35 yard line, or past the 35 if the line of scrimmage was outside the 35 for the field goal attempt. Teams often give up the single, but the other team gets called for no yards. The team then gets the option of giving up a single and taking the ball at the 35, or taking the no yards penalty, giving up no single, and getting the ball at the 15. Almost every time the team will give up the single, decline the no yards, and take the better field position. Field position is more valuable than 1 point most of the time as having good field position could translate into a touchdown for your team.

Field goals attempts of inside 40 yards are not missed often. Those are the kicks that if missed, are likely to go through the end zone for a point and the returning team has no option of running the ball out. A kick from outside the 40, will take at least 60 yards to boot it all the way through the end zone, which is a big kick. The returning team has the option of giving up a point for guaranteed field position, or trying to run it out for the purposes of improving field position or not giving up a point.

Glen Suitor pointed out in the Toronto / Montreal game that having the single point makes for a mroe exciting finish, as the Argo had to kick the ball out of the end zone at the end of the game.

Having the single point increases strategy in the game as teams have to decide when to gvie up the single and when not to. Will a team try to run the ball out of the end zone even if they only get to the 5 yard line?

If you take away the single point, you take away a lot of strategy in the game and you take away a lot of excitement in the return game. Dominic Dorsey's exciting return in tonight's game may never have happened if there was no single point in our game. He may have taken a touchback rather than risk losing field position.

Devastator makes some very good points.

I add a few points:

  • I really belive that it is a matter of perspective. Rather than the single point being seen as rewarding failure, I see it as a reward in proportion to the success of getting far enough down the field to be in a position to score. Six (seven with the convert) is like the gold medal for that drive, 3 for a successful field goal is like a silver medal and a punt single or missed field goal single is the bronze medal - not as valuable but still some reward for the full effort on the drive (not just the kick itself).

  • I am not saying that this is your case, but I can't help but wonder if many people who espouse your point of view have an inferiority complex with the NFL. Why can't we stand up and say "we came up with a more exciting, more proportioned approach that is superior to other leagues" (for many of the reasons that Devastator noted) and celebrate it instead of apologizing for it?? It doesn't have to be just like the NFL to be good.

Glad to see a new participant on the forums, but I am afraid you picked a lousy first point to try to make.
Both Sober and Deva make excellent points about why the single point is an integral part of Canadian football.

If the single point is seen as a reward for failure, then why is a fieldgoal also not a reward for failure?
Fieldgoals and converts have, over time, been reduced in value as the touchdown was seen as the "reward" for success(someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a TD was 5 points, a fieldgoal 4).
The point being, how is kicking the ball through the uprights from centre field, possibly without moving the ball one inch, ie., two unsuccessful plays, a reward for success?
Yet moving the ball 79 yards and getting a single is failure?
Especially as the % of fieldgoals made from distance has increased dramatically in the last 30 years?

Anyway, keep the rouge.
It is an excellent part of the game.

I have never liked the "reward for failure" point of view because it is simply not the case.
The best example was last night. When Dorsey returned the missed field-goal, the Als "did fail", yet they did not earn the single point!

"Reward for failure" perspective is just plain distorted truth as you guys explain. That would like saying a fair catch in American football is "reward for being wimpy" which also distorts reality.

The other ridiculous saying people use about the CFL is the expression "pass happy league". What does that make the NFL a "run happy league" yet we never hear this expression.