Brilliant, just brilliant!

http://uproxx.it/1JHNY5s

 

 

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

 

 

Throw back to our rugby roots or not .. the concept of rewarding failure sucks.

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

 

Throw back to our rugby roots or not .. the concept of rewarding failure sucks.

Yup.

Apparently we can make the OT an Arcade game, but the loser point stays.

I suspect it's rugby related.

 

I might be the only person who isn't in favour (favor?) of moving the convert back, but to me it's simple.  It makes a touchdown worth more than two field goals.  Which it should be.  It's almost automatic?  Don't care.  So is the kneel down at the end of the game.  Why not change the rules so the QB has to do it in front of the Oline if excitement is the only reason any rule exists?

 

(What Rich Voodoo said)

 

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

 

I can't confirm but I believe the wording on the rule, is the team returning a missed fg  surrenders a point for failing to return the ball from the the endzone.  Not verbatim, but it's a little bit complex-ed than simply missing a field goal. 

But the play doesn't happen unless you miss a field goal.

Aguy intercepts or recovers a fumble, his team doesn't give up a point for not getting it out of the end zone.

I just don't like the rule.

I think the main point of that article was to poke fun at ignorant US football fan statements, and I think it was pretty well written actually.  Overall, the bias against the CFL isn't nearly as strong as you might think.  I know a lot of American fans who like watching the games during the down times.  I think the main deal that kind of keeps them from being too glued into it is that it runs into the NFL and college football seasons, and nobody's going to give up any slots in those times when their NFL or Alma Mater team is playing to watch any CFL games, that's just how the beast runs.

 

Overall, I don't find too many opinions coming from Americans too degrading on the league, the people I got real problems with are some of the Brits I seen writing blogs or articles on American football in general who admit they don't know how the game works even but feel they can have credibility in writing about it and talk down on it.  That's what I got a problem with.  I don't mind if they prefer their version of football to ours, it's a sport that's got some good deep rooted traditions and history and can be a fun game to watch and play in the video games, but they should know if someone tried to degrade that sport when they know nothing about it, it'd make em look pretty stupid and as such, they shouldn't be trying that tactic with our football either.

I enjoy the rogue because it creates more excitement that it forces teams to try to attempt to return the ball instead of just ending the play right away.  They have the option give up one point or put the ball into play.  How often have we got the excitement of seeing an awesome return for a TD after what would have been a rogue was kicked.  Do we think those returns would still happen if the team wasn't forced to put the ball into play?

I would trade that for not losing a game on a loser point.

Personally. The vast vast majority of the time nothing happens on those plays.

Vast.

 

 

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

 

It's not a point for missing a field goal, it a point for kicking a ball into the endzone and preventing the other team from returning it out of the endzone. 

It bugs me even if in jest when people talk about not understanding single points. It's a really ******* simple rule. Kicked ball goes through the endzone or the returner is downed in the endzone it's 1 point. Not rocket surgery there. 

 

Explain it to Burke then.....

 

 

 

 

takes a ******* knee

 

It bugs me even if in jest when people talk about not understanding single points. It's a really ******* simple rule. Kicked ball goes through the endzone or the returner is downed in the endzone it's 1 point. Not rocket surgery there. 

 

Explain it to Burke then.....

 

 

 

 

takes a ******* knee

 

 

I actually laughed out loud at this. Almost blowing my cover at work...."yes, this email is hilarious, the numbers and such".....

 

 

 

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

 

It's not a point for missing a field goal, it a point for kicking a ball into the endzone and preventing the other team from returning it out of the endzone. 

 

A prize for mitigating your failure to kick the fg.

 

I can buy the idea of the point being incentive to make a return, but they should take away the point for having the ball roll through the endzone. Why is there a point for kicking through the endzone on a punt or fg attempt, but not for a kickoff? Weird...

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

It's not a point for missing a field goal, it a point for kicking a ball into the endzone and preventing the other team from returning it out of the endzone.

Then give a point on turnovers in the end zone. More excitement!

Any old-timers remember Harvey Wylie, stamps v blue, I think,  kicking it out of the end zone trying to save a game as time ran out.

 

something like that. tension was high.

I would trade that for not losing a game on a loser point.

Personally. The vast vast majority of the time nothing happens on those plays.

Vast.

 

I did used to think that if a game was tied at the closing seconds, a team shouldn't have to lose a game because somebody shanked a FG and the ball either went out the back of the endzone or the opposing team failed to get it out, That to me was something I originally saw as a bad play that was falsely rewarded, but as you can't really just kill a clock and run it down to the closing seconds that easily, and as that scenario doesn't happen too much in this league, it actually does add a great twist to the game.  Plus the opposing team if they can't get it out can also kick it back out of the endzone into the field of play if I recall right, so there is that.  Plus it can also be a benefit to a team that's down by 1, misses a fg, and gets a rouge out of it.  Plus as opponents get the ball at the 35 yardline, most teams aren't going to go for it.

 

 

 

 

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

It's not a point for missing a field goal, it a point for kicking a ball into the endzone and preventing the other team from returning it out of the endzone.

Then give a point on turnovers in the end zone. More excitement!

 

well if you get a turnover in the endzone I believe they give you 6 points for it. 

Pretty funny article...

 

this had to be my favourite line:

 

"Despite a very long history, the Riders have only won the Grey Cup 4 times, so mathematically you might want to root elsewhere, even if they did win pretty recently (2013)"

 

Such stupid logic. The cubs havent won the WS in over 100 years, so no one cheer for them. Aaannd theyd be gone. Basically every pro sports team would have folded by some point in time if people followed that kind of logic.

 As for what an american thinks? I dont give half a crap. I follow the cfl because i love the game and i love the blue. Not because it might get bigger or other may come to love it. 

 As much as i want the league to succeed and make money and get better talent, i dont want to see a 15 or 20 team league, or american expansion again. If it stays the way its been the last few years ill be very happy.

 

 

 

 

 

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

 

Throw back to our rugby roots or not .. the concept of rewarding failure sucks.

Yup.

Apparently we can make the OT an Arcade game, but the loser point stays.

 

 

There are loser points in hockey for losing in OT or the Shootout.  And that rule has only been in place for a decade or two...

 

I loved this part:

 

“But I don’t know the players” you say. Yeah? You know Michael Sam! You remember Chad Johnson/Ochocinco! Also, don’t pretend you know all the players in American football. Name me a defender on the Tennessee Titans. See?

 

I sat there for about a minute trying to think of a Titans player... The only one to come to mind was Cortland Finnegan... who hasn't played there in 4 or 5 years... clearly I'm not in mid-season form...

 

 

My guesses are Smith and Johnson.  Every team has at least one player with either last name.

I take it more as why do you get a single point.

Which is a valid question.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why.

You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

 

Throw back to our rugby roots or not .. the concept of rewarding failure sucks.

Yup.

Apparently we can make the OT an Arcade game, but the loser point stays.

 

There are loser points in hockey for losing in OT or the Shootout.  And that rule has only been in place for a decade or two...

At least it goes away in the playoffs.

I would trade that for not losing a game on a loser point.

Personally. The vast vast majority of the time nothing happens on those plays.

Vast.

 

I did used to think that if a game was tied at the closing seconds, a team shouldn't have to lose a game because somebody shanked a FG and the ball either went out the back of the endzone or the opposing team failed to get it out, That to me was something I originally saw as a bad play that was falsely rewarded, but as you can't really just kill a clock and run it down to the closing seconds that easily, and as that scenario doesn't happen too much in this league, it actually does add a great twist to the game.  Plus the opposing team if they can't get it out can also kick it back out of the endzone into the field of play if I recall right, so there is that.  Plus it can also be a benefit to a team that's down by 1, misses a fg, and gets a rouge out of it.  Plus as opponents get the ball at the 35 yardline, most teams aren't going to go for it.

I feel the same. I used to, but do not anymore. We have each done 180s.

 

Pretty funny article...

 

this had to be my favourite line:

 

"Despite a very long history, the Riders have only won the Grey Cup 4 times, so mathematically you might want to root elsewhere, even if they did win pretty recently (2013)"

 

Such stupid logic. The cubs havent won the WS in over 100 years, so no one cheer for them. Aaannd theyd be gone. Basically every pro sports team would have folded by some point in time if people followed that kind of logic.

 As for what an american thinks? I dont give half a crap. I follow the cfl because i love the game and i love the blue. Not because it might get bigger or other may come to love it. 

 As much as i want the league to succeed and make money and get better talent, i dont want to see a 15 or 20 team league, or american expansion again. If it stays the way its been the last few years ill be very happy.

 

 

I agree. There are dozens, if not hundreds of other reasons not to cheer for the Riders

 

 

 

I loved this part:

“But I don’t know the players” you say. Yeah? You know Michael Sam! You remember Chad Johnson/Ochocinco! Also, don’t pretend you know all the players in American football. Name me a defender on the Tennessee Titans. See?

I sat there for about a minute trying to think of a Titans player... The only one to come to mind was Cortland Finnegan... who hasn't played there in 4 or 5 years... clearly I'm not in mid-season form...

Pacman Jones is still there, right?

Don't know if you're joking but he's a Bengal.

Little slow on thursdays

 

joking, though I am a little surprised to learn he's still in the league. I don't pay much attention to the NFL

 

 

 

Throw back to our rugby roots or not .. the concept of rewarding failure sucks.

 

 

It's how our society has been moving for at least a generation now.  The CFL was just ahead of its time. Now, instead of a point for missing the FG, how about this?  The entire ST group is giving participation ribbons, and taken out for pizza and sodas after the game.  I don't even think keeping score is relevant, its that the players had fun is all that matters.

Any old-timers remember Harvey Wylie, stamps v blue, I think,  kicking it out of the end zone trying to save a game as time ran out.

 

something like that. tension was high.

 

This has to be the most heart-breaking example of the rouge being used to beat the Bombers, in almost their entire history:

 

 

 

Saskatchewan cut the lead to 24-14 heading into the final 15 minutes, and roared back with 10 unanswered points -- including a Reed major with 3:24 left to play -- to square the affair.

 

And then it got interesting.

 

Riders kicker Jack Abendschan misses a field goal as no time is left on the clock. Mike Law, knowing he can't allow the single point under any circumstances, promptly boots the ball out of the end zone and back into the field of play. "I got it off as fast as I could," Law told the Free Press after the game.

"Did it have a spiral on it?"

 

Lancaster picks up the pigskin and launches a punt back into the Winnipeg end. His kick is picked up by Paul Williams, who quickly punts the ball back to roughly the Bombers 30-yard line, where the Rider returner eventually gets tackled.

Overtime, right? Wrong.

 

Amid the craziness, Winnipeg gets flagged for a no-yards penalty, an infraction to the defensive team that allows Abendschan a second chance at glory. He punches through a 32-yard field goal to give Saskatchewan a 27-24 victory.

 

"I missed the big one but they gave me two chances," Abendschan said after the game. "As I was running back into position, I pass (Winnipeg's Rob McLaren) and said: 'You gave me one too many chances.'"

 

Of course the Riders went on to choke in the Grey Cup against Hamilton.