The theory should be that you're giving up a point in exchange for better field position. In the CFL, you take a knee on a missed FG or a punt that goes to the endzone, you give your opponent a point in exchange for not starting much deeper in your own territory. In the NFL, with a touchback, you get 20 yards for free. Where's the strategy and gamesman ship in that?
There aren't touchbacks on missed FGs in the NFL, your opponent gets the ball from where you kicked it Touchbacks are considered a bad thing on punts, hence why teams try to down the ball or put it out of bounds inside the 20, and there tends to be plenty of gamesmanship that goes on around that with guys faking fair catches, etc. The point in the NFL is if you screw up on a kick, you get penalized. I think that makes the game more exciting because it's forcing more teams to go for it on 4th down when they're in that bit of no-man's land that's just outside of FG range but in a spot where your chances of downing a punt inside the 20 are low.
I see it this way - it is reward for field position.
That's fair. I'm not a fan of the rouge but a lot of NFL teams shy away from kicking 45+ yard field goals in some games because in the case of a miss they don't want to provide the opposition with close to mid field position. In this aspect a scoring play is being traded for a punt which is not desirable from a fan's point of view.
I personally feel the 15 yard no yards penalty is the worst rule as you have cover teams running downfield that are severely penalized when a punt is short or hangs up. It's bad enough when a punt is shanked but a lot of times it's compounded by the inevitable no yards penalty due to the ball landing short in a crowd of players. Also how can you expect cover players to run full speed down field only to stop at five yards from the returner then resume running after the catch? Just a silly, silly rule.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 01-26-2018 at 01:23 PM.
Sorry, but I don't see how a FG that goes wide and out of the endzone, resulting in a point is somehow tactically brilliant. The no-yards penalty on punts is also a stupid rule. I get people don't like fair catches but punting in the NFL is much more strategic than the CFL. It also doesn't make any sense that a rouge is worth the same as a successful PAT.
See, this demonstrates my point. There's no tactics in the above scenario, and I as far as I know that's the tactical situation on every missed field goal in the NFL, right? No real decisions or potential of decisions to be made by the receiving team beyond attempting to block and defending against a fake. But on the majority of missed field goals in the CFL, there are far more possible outcomes: the returning team has the decision to concede a single in exchange for field position; or they have the option of returning it out of the endzone (or even, in desperate, end-game situations, open-field-kicking it out of the endzone).
Long field-goal attempts create more likelihood of a big return, making it a more complex risk-reward decision for the kicking team.
The outcomes could be 3 points, a single and good field position for the receiving team, zero points and a poor field position (when a player attempts to run it out but is downed quickly), or zero points and good or great field position for the other team. This requires all members of both teams to be thinking about any of these possibilities (in addition to the block/faked kick type scenarios that exist in both leagues).
As well, the single creates far more diversity in score situations. In the NFL, games decided by less than 3 points are relatively rare (less than 7%), while 3 point games are by far the most common margin in the NFL at nearly 16%. This means that the NFL has relatively few situations where an end-of-game field goal is a win/lose proposition. Instead, end of game field goals are usually win/overtime propositions. In the CFL, the rouge means that there are far more non-3-or-7 scoring plays, meaning more diversity in scores, and hence it's much more common to have win/lose field goal situations. Again, much more tactically interesting.
Last edited by octothorp; 01-26-2018 at 01:58 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
I personally feel the 15 yard no yards penalty is the worst rule as you have cover teams running downfield that are severely penalized when a punt is short or hangs up. It's bad enough when a punt is shanked but a lot of times it's compounded by the inevitable no yards penalty due to the ball landing short in a crowd of players. Also how can you expect cover players to run full speed down field only to stop at five yards from the returner then resume running after the catch? Just a silly, silly rule.
I dislike it for a different reason: in most situations you're asking referees to accurately eye-measure two moving objects from a poor angle with a poor frame of reference. It's a really hard call to make, and sometimes the coverage team holds up and attempts to give the player room, but the ref decides that they were within five yards, it's a massive penalty.
I'd simply call it on intent: if a defender appeared to hold up and intend to give the receiver the five, then it's no penalty or at worst a five yarder. If a guy goes at full speed into the receiver's area without giving him a buffer, then yeah, full 15 yards.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Since this thread has briefly turned into a complaining about silly rules discussion, I'll turn my attention to one at all levels of football: turn the 10 yard holding penalty into a 5 yard penalty. Never understood why such a minor infraction is given essentially a drive-killing penalty, it's dumb.
And of course the PI spot foul; a potential 60+ yard penalty should not be a thing. But everyone knows that one already
See, this demonstrates my point. There's no tactics in the above scenario, and I as far as I know that's the tactical situation on every missed field goal in the NFL, right? No real decisions or potential of decisions to be made by the receiving team beyond attempting to block and defending against a fake. But on the majority of missed field goals in the CFL, there are far more possible outcomes: the returning team has the decision to concede a single in exchange for field position; or they have the option of returning it out of the endzone (or even, in desperate, end-game situations, open-field-kicking it out of the endzone).
Long field-goal attempts create more likelihood of a big return, making it a more complex risk-reward decision for the kicking team.
The outcomes could be 3 points, a single and good field position for the receiving team, zero points and a poor field position (when a player attempts to run it out but is downed quickly), or zero points and good or great field position for the other team. This requires all members of both teams to be thinking about any of these possibilities (in addition to the block/faked kick type scenarios that exist in both leagues).
The basic premise still relies on someone failing at their job though. It makes about as much sense as saying that teams should be able to run back dropped passes on 4th down and then awarding a team that doesn't complete a pass in the endzone a point.
The basic premise still relies on someone failing at their job though. It makes about as much sense as saying that teams should be able to run back dropped passes on 4th down and then awarding a team that doesn't complete a pass in the endzone a point.
So should a play be called dead in hockey after the goaltender makes any save or after a shot goes wide, or after a basketball player misses, or after a deep fly-ball bounces off the outfield fence and stays in play or after an infielder botches their throw to first? After all, those are all someone failing at their primary objective.
Sports if full of 'mitigation of failure' strategies, where one side is unsuccessful in their aim, but play continues until one side or the other obtains a certain outcome. Sometimes, the side that 'fails' is able to mitigate their loss or even gain an advantage. Sometimes, the other side successfully punishes the failing team. Those are often the most interesting moments in sports, and sports would be dull without it. Saying that field-goal kicking should somehow to be the exception to this rule is strange.
So should a play be called dead in hockey after the goaltender makes any save or after a shot goes wide, or after a basketball player misses, or after a deep fly-ball bounces off the outfield fence and stays in play or after an infielder botches their throw to first? After all, those are all someone failing at their primary objective.
Sports if full of 'mitigation of failure' strategies, where one side is unsuccessful in their aim, but play continues until one side or the other obtains a certain outcome. Sometimes, the side that 'fails' is able to mitigate their loss or even gain an advantage. Sometimes, the other side successfully punishes the failing team. Those are often the most interesting moments in sports, and sports would be dull without it. Saying that field-goal kicking should somehow to be the exception to this rule is strange.
I don't think those examples really work because they're not necessarily failures. You can put a puck on net with the intent of scoring a goal or to try to generate a rebound, a double advances your baserunners. They're actually part of the game. You don't kick a FG for any other reason than to score 3 points. I mean you can try and dress it up as strategy if you want and in the context of a punt I can see the argument (barely), but you can also see how it's a consolation prize in FG situations, right?
I haven't watched the CFL for a while but if I understand it correctly, two teams could be tied with 5 seconds left to play and one team at the other's 30 and they could just punt it out of the back of the endzone to win the game, correct? It just seems super mickey mouse to me.
I think if they were smart, they would build on college football
the built in fan base is there, and the February-May period is there for US fans before NBA playoffs/MLB and for some NHL playoffs get going
But why not have a team in Florida with players that went to the Florida Schools, same with California (maybe even Southern Cal and Northern Cal) , or Oregon/Washington/Boise and call it the PNW team, Texas, Arizona etc.
do 8 teams that way, have these NCAA former stars still representing the people that cheered for them. There will be plenty of known guys for people that watch NCAA football, which is a huge audience
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
I think if they were smart, they would build on college football
the built in fan base is there, and the February-May period is there for US fans before NBA playoffs/MLB and for some NHL playoffs get going
But why not have a team in Florida with players that went to the Florida Schools, same with California (maybe even Southern Cal and Northern Cal) , or Oregon/Washington/Boise and call it the PNW team, Texas, Arizona etc.
do 8 teams that way, have these NCAA former stars still representing the people that cheered for them. There will be plenty of known guys for people that watch NCAA football, which is a huge audience
If they really wanted to be smart about they'd waive the eligibility requirements the NFL has for kids to be drafted and just start plucking kids from the NCAA as soon as they want to get paid.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I don't think those examples really work because they're not necessarily failures. You can put a puck on net with the intent of scoring a goal or to try to generate a rebound, a double advances your baserunners. They're actually part of the game. You don't kick a FG for any other reason than to score 3 points. I mean you can try and dress it up as strategy if you want and in the context of a punt I can see the argument (barely), but you can also see how it's a consolation prize in FG situations, right?
I haven't watched the CFL for a while but if I understand it correctly, two teams could be tied with 5 seconds left to play and one team at the other's 30 and they could just punt it out of the back of the endzone to win the game, correct? It just seems super mickey mouse to me.
The only difference is that you've decided that some of those 'are part of the game' and returning a missed field goal 'isn't part of the game'. For CFL fans, the whole complex tree of decisions and possible outcomes after a missed field goal is definitely 'part of the game'.
It's not a consolation prize at all, because it's not a guarantee; in many cases, a team will opt to concede the point in exchange for field position. Do you think a team is doing that because they're being nice and giving the other team a consolation prize? No, they're doing it because they're making a risk/reward trade off on the value of points vs. field position.
Your hypothetical scenario is possible, although I'm only aware of one attempted 'punt to win' in recent CFL history, (I recall Saskatchewan attempting and failing to punt out the side of endzone and failing about a decade ago but I haven't watched as much in recent years). Because the endzone is 20 yards deep and the uprights are at the front of the endzone, typically a field goal is going to be the more reliable way to score.
I'd have no problem with the cfl tweaking their rules on how punts that go straight out of bounds without touching the ground are handled, but that's handling for edge-cases that rarely impact a game.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
The Rouge is awesome, and generally the single point is not a reward. If the single point was a reward, why does the other team usually choose to give the other team that reward?
I think if they were smart, they would build on college football
the built in fan base is there, and the February-May period is there for US fans before NBA playoffs/MLB and for some NHL playoffs get going
But why not have a team in Florida with players that went to the Florida Schools, same with California (maybe even Southern Cal and Northern Cal) , or Oregon/Washington/Boise and call it the PNW team, Texas, Arizona etc.
do 8 teams that way, have these NCAA former stars still representing the people that cheered for them. There will be plenty of known guys for people that watch NCAA football, which is a huge audience
This.
They need to do something to get people to care. Building on built in college loyalties would help. You have to remember, people already care deeply about high school, college and NFL football. This can be good football but people need to have some kind of rooting interest.
Maybe cities without NFL teams is an option too?
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
