Why the "Rouge" should be kept

It's simple. Don't think of it as rewarding a kicker for missing a field goal; rather think of it is rewarding the team for getting the ball in scoring position. The American game doesn't use the single point rule because it is much easier to get in to scoring range when playing on a field that (excluding endzones) is 10 yards shorter.

Completely agree Phythons but the more casual fan of the CFL sees it as rewarding for failure and therefore says the CFL is "bush" or whatever have you. I really don't have an answer for this and I don't know to what extent the CFL should reach out to these casual fans who see it as such, but reaching out to potential fans is always good as long as the integrity of the Canadian game remains.

Now what exactly are the essentials of the Canadian game to keep it's integrity as such? That's a very good question I would say and who the heck knows.

As I wrote in the '3 rule change consideration' thread:

I don't understand why there are two distinct camps here on the rouge. People who say don't touch it and people who say do away with it all together.

The reality is that the rouge is not always a reward for failure bit it is sometimes a reward for failure. When a team concedes a rouge by way of taking a knee or being tackled, the kicking team very well earned that point. When a 15 yard field goal is shanked and darts through the air out of the back of the end zone with zero chance of anyone catching the ball or preventing it from sailing out, the rouge in this case becomes a definite reward for failure.

Award the rouge when the ball lands in the end zone. Make the end zone 25 or 30 yards. Heck give the end zone an out field wall or a rebound net. (I'm not being serious) But do not claim that a shanked 15 yarder that goes into row 30 is worth a point.

A prevented return is worth a point... a ball kicked into the end zone hot tub shouldn't be.

I don't think we should change something just because a certain group is ignorant toward the game.

Let me elaborate on WHY we have the Rouge in the game ....

The ball crossed the GOAL line. Therefore, the offence accomplished their "goal", and did not fail, as you suggest.

They failed to achieve a "Field Goal", or a "Touchdown", which is why the score is called a "Rouge" and not worth as many points.

Moving the ball down the length of the CFL field and over the goal line is a scoring play, unless the defending team is able to return the ball across the goal line before being downed.

Again, completely agree. It baffles my mind why there seem to be a fair chunk of people out there unable to “get this” unless they are so skewed by what is so dominant on our airwaves, US football, that anything else is just simply not football in their minds, or proper football in their minds. I have no idea.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get it, the complaints of the Rouge is that a single point can be rewarded as a point even though the D has no chance to return the ball. Ive seen it where teams will try to get a single point by kicking it in a position where the ball goes out of bounds before a D man can get to it on a failed GF

In those circumstances I don't like the Rouge cause the point is rewarded for failure and it just isn't pro NFL fans that don't like the rule, CFL fans like myself don't care for it either.

Im an NHL fan but don't support the shootout rule or rewarding a team with a point for losing in extra time but I still support the sport.

I doubt the rule will be tampered with anyways

I suppose that is a question to which every fan of Canadian football would have a different answer.
For me one of the main essential differences are those centered around the kicking game.
The rouge, no-yards, onside punts, quick kicks and return kicks out of the end zone are all an integral part of what I
love about Canadian football. And although something like an onside punt doesn't happen very often it's pretty exciting when it does. You can't change one of these without affecting the entire kicking game.

If you remove the rouge you change the face of the game, for the worse.

READ THIS PERSON's POST!

Calgaryred, you are the first person whose take on the rouge I completely agree with. Keep the rouge on returnable kicks!

Looking at this matter from a broader perspective, I think what is really happening is a trend over time whereby the influence of the roots of football (i.e. rugby) are waning while the influence of America (the NFL) are gaining. As time goes by, new generations get exposed to the NFL and have little to no exposure to the history of football, so it is quite natural that the pressure to move away from one and towards another will increase over time.

One way to overcome the pressure of "impure" (i.e. NFL) influence is education. As several above have pointed out, the rouge - understood in its historical context - is, in fact, not rewarding failure, but rewarding forward progress, just as its root sport, rugby, does. Or if it rewards "failure", it is rewarding the kicking team for the returning team's "failure" to get the footbal out of the endzone (see discussion below about why I don't see these statements as being quite the same thing). If this history and rationale is not well-known (and it certainly is not, I believe), I think the league should be doing more to make it known rather than bend over to ignorance (and I don't mean that word in the perjorative sense). For example, they could have a series of "Did you know ...?" spots during 1st or 3rd quarter intermissions, etc., to explain it and other unique rules.

I believe that the policy rationale underlying any rule has to be clear and understood before the rules are set and then set the rules to futher the policy rationale in a manner that is consistent with the policy rationale/objective. For example, the person who made the first post stated that the rouge is for "rewarding the team for getting the ball in scoring position". That is a slightly different nuance than "rewarding a team for keeping the other team from getting it out of the endzone". If the former is going to underpin the rules applicable to the rouge, the current rules probably don't need much changing - you get the ball across the goal line, you get rewarded, do it by getting it through the uprights, you get rewarded more. However, if the latter forms the basis of the rationale (and this is the one that is truer to rugby, in my view), then suggestions like joedavtav's more closely reflect that rationale - if it is physically impossible to return the ball out of the endzone (because the ball was kicked out of bounds or passed the endzone), awarding a point isn't consistant with the rationale since the focus is getting the ball out of the endzone - rather than about not giving the returning team the opporutnity to do so in the first place. I think rule changes over time have not helped to ensure clarity because they sometimes support one rationale and sometimes the other so that we are left with a hodge-podge of rules no longer founded on rational objectives.

On another note, quite frankly, I am surprised that the rouge is one of the top three selected by the league from fan submissions. I see Mark Cohon as trying to distinguish the CFL from the NFL ("our game", etc.), a position I, for one, applaud. Rather than just put up with (or worse, cave into) NFL influences, I would rather see the CFL fight back with education and marketing where there is a sound rationale upon which to do so. I'd be willing to write to a few BOG members to say so in respect of this particular issue - it is one of the distinguishing features of the Canadian game that is not "stupid" or "bush" if it is properly understood.

That could not have been said better.

I've been dying to find the words to explain why I have the feeling that some rules need to be clarified, tweaked and streamlined. This is it exactly.

Good post Legal. I personally am shocked and disappointed if out of all the rule suggestions the league received, they felt these 3 were the best of the bunch. It must have been a sorry group of rule change suggestions.

I like the rouge and don’t think it should change especially when you get a touchback in the U.S. and you can’t run the ball out so you take a knee and get twenty yards for free, I like the fact the yards in the CFL are gonna cost you something.

Sorry educated fan here played the game at a high level and I still hate the Rouge. The rouge and touchbacks are down falls of the CFL IMO. Again just IMO

Exactly!! The absolute basis of the game is to get the ball over the end line. 6 points to carry it across, 3 to kick through the uprights and 1 to kick the ball across the line.

I'm hoping the league pulled this stunt to get it's hardcore fans ( aka US ) out of the woodwork screaming out to protect OUR league.

I also sincerely hope the Rules committee uses this opportunity to explain to these fans WHY they are taking these suggestions and wiping their ***es with them.

And I'm also hoping that the rules committe is entertaining some "real" suggestions.

Sorry, you can't argue that the rouge is simply the lesser of rewards for advancing the ball over the goal line. You aren't awarded those points upon breaking the plane.

Can you prevent a field goal by way of running it back out after its passed through the goal posts? No. Can you prevent a touchdown by stripping the ball after its broken the plane and and taking it back out? No.

Can you prevent a rouge from running it out? Yes. Therefore the rouge isn't scored by advancing the ball over the line. Its only scored in the same manor as the TD and FG by advancing the ball by way of a kick over the side lines in goal or the back of the end zone, not the goal line.

The other way, (what I feel the rouge should really be about & what i feel is important about the rouge) is preventing the kick returner from advancing out of the end zone.

There should be a small penalty for not returning a kick out of your own endzone. The rouge fits that bill perfectly. Also, why not reward a long punt? The only change I'd make to it would be to apply it only to returnable kicks. That way, a kicker can't just boot it as far as possible - he has to consider landing it in the endzone, too.

Don't change just for the sake of change, or to appease the non-fans. That's what the NHL has done and it's completely bastardized the game.

Also, I'm sure that if the NFL used the rouge as well, there wouldn't be any complaints up her about it being in the game. Considering that 90% of the people who complain about the rouge aren't even huge fans (ie, aren't on a forum discussing the league), they're probably way more concerned about conforming to the hype of the NFL, rather than the actual intent of the rule. People care less about the rouge because of it's single point, and more about the fact that the NFL doesn't have it. And if the NFL used the rouge and the CFL didn't, most of the same people would be saying the CFL should implement the rouge.

Keep the rouge,if you don't like it,go watch the no fun league.

Whats with some of the posters on here with the inferiority complex of the NFL? If you don't like the game down south fine don't have to keep bringing it up, glad CFL top guns don't have that kind of attitude or this league would have no progress. Its about ideas to improve the sport and guess what folks the NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL does it, its healthy its progressive. The Rouge doesn't make or break the differences between the CFL and NFL and no sure why the National Football League has to always be brought up in such a negative light.

Football is Football

Football evolves like generations improvements to the game is done to market the game better

The constant NFL bashing is getting really old