Not a problem. Just make sure you use rigid PVC.. No flexing in the wind or snapping off in the cold.. Make sure to cap the top and/or drill some drain holes....

Could'nt we just move an official behind the holder?

 

About 5 yards or so, to me this would be the best vantage point?

Could'nt we just move an official behind the holder?

 

About 5 yards or so, to me this would be the best vantage point?

 

The best vantage point for the officials is as HeyRef described: directly under the posts. Judging a kick from behind the kicker creates the same problem as judging it from the stands; distance creates illusions. Longer goal posts would make some of our judgements less contentious, but that's about it.

 

offside

¿You paying for them?

We are going to have human error and complaints from the fans no matter if the goal post were 100 feet tall. College goal post are also more narrow than the high school post. This would be tougher to make a FG or PAT at the HS level.

I was never suggesting college width goalpost, only for the heigth to be corrected.

In high school few kicks will be above the newer posts. That's the only point. It illiminates some of the judgment calls. There is no perfect angle for the officials. Anyone who has ever seen one official sneak an embarrassed look at the other before signaling knows that sometimes under the post is not perfect either. There will always be judgement errors, its just that this is one that would be easy to limit.

 

As to the cost, I don't think anyone should be forced to put the new posts in place. Simply make a rule that for new construction higher posts must be used.

I'd like to see our goalposts replaced purely for aesthetic reasons. The taller goalposts just simply look better. I love our stadium in all other respects. The goalposts just seem out of place in an otherwise topnotch facility.

In high school few kicks will be above the newer posts. That's the only point. It illiminates some of the judgment calls. There is no perfect angle for the officials. Anyone who has ever seen one official sneak an embarrassed look at the other before signaling knows that sometimes under the post is not perfect either. There will always be judgement errors, its just that this is one that would be easy to limit.

 

As to the cost, I don't think anyone should be forced to put the new posts in place. Simply make a rule that for new construction higher posts must be used.

 

 

As some refs have noted in these forums before, their 'sneaking a peak at the other ref' is not from confusion of the call but to let the other know so that they both can signal the call at the same time. And under the post is the perfect postition to make the call.

I'd like to see our goalposts replaced purely for aesthetic reasons. The taller goalposts just simply look better. I love our stadium in all other respects. The goalposts just seem out of place in an otherwise topnotch facility.

 

 

I agree with your post completely. It reflects our opinions of Ashland's stadium.

...There is no perfect angle for the officials. Anyone who has ever seen one official sneak an embarrassed look at the other before signaling knows that sometimes under the post is not perfect either.....

 

JoeFan, that is not a look of embarrassment. Knowing if a kick is successful or not is quite easy when you stnad directly under the post. Officials are trained to look at each other and nod (for good) or shake (for no good) so that they both give the same signal. This is because an official under the right post cannot tell if the kick was good if it was close to the left post.

 

As I stated in an earlier post, calling FG's and PAT's is as easy as being in the right position. And there is only one right position, under the goal post. No other view anywhere in the house has a good view at all. So you see, there is a perfect angle, and only the officials have it.

Look guys, I've had more than one ref tell me they had a problem on a close call, once because of sun, once because the goal post swayed, and once because the ball went just inside or partially over the upright. My comment wasn't a slam on refs. My point was simply that most of the questions would be eliminated. I've spent a lot of time on the sidelines and I know its the worst position on the field to judge a fieldgoal. That's not the point. However, if your point is that the officials are perfect in calling fieldgoals, me thinks thou doth protest too much.

... if your point is that the officials are perfect in calling fieldgoals, me thinks thou doth protest too much.

 

WE protest too much?:lol:

 

Seriously, it is obvious that longer goal posts would make judging kicks easier for everybody.

 

And perfectly marked, million dollar artificial turf fields make judging out-of-bounds a no-brainer.

 

And instant replay, with multiple network camera angles and HD jumbo-trons, makes correcting errors a snap.

 

Oh, and $1000 game checks would help with recruiting and retaining highly-experienced officials who get fired for mistakes.

 

All the above statements are true (especially the one about the game checks ). But Friday night football, no matter how seriously we all take it, is not the same as the "money-ball" played on Saturday and Sunday. Please understand and embrace the differences.

 

offside

Look guys, I've had more than one ref tell me they had a problem on a close call, once because of sun, once because the goal post swayed, and once because the ball went just inside or partially over the upright. My comment wasn't a slam on refs. My point was simply that most of the questions would be eliminated. I've spent a lot of time on the sidelines and I know its the worst position on the field to judge a fieldgoal. That's not the point. However, if your point is that the officials are perfect in calling fieldgoals, me thinks thou doth protest too much.

 

The spot is perfect, not the referees. While there are great referees out there doing their best, there will never be a long enough field goal post that takes away the human element of each decision.

WE protest too much?:lol:

 

 

 

Thou.

 

 

 

 

And perfectly marked, million dollar artificial turf fields make judging out-of-bounds a no-brainer.

 

I'll buy that.

 

And instant replay, with multiple network camera angles and HD jumbo-trons, makes correcting errors a snap.

 

I doubt it.

 

Oh, and $1000 game checks would help with recruiting and retaining highly-experienced officials who get fired for mistakes.

 

Watch any of the NFL playoff games?

 

 

Look I understand there are judgment errors. The only ones I get a little teed off about are the ones where somebody is out of position to make the call because they are watching the ball. (Fortunately that doesn't happen often).

 

I hate replay. It breaks up the game and they still don't get 100% of them right. I'm just saying that if you are building a new facility why not get the longer ones.

 

Oh, and I'd support higher game fees, if you'd support higher coaching stipends.

Look, without sounding like I'm complaining...

Longer posts sway more that shorter ones, so if swaying gives you problems calling kicks, then shorter is better. However, if the official is under the post, there is no way to get the call wrong. You look right up the post and see where the ball passes, inside is good, over or outside is no good. And it is still the only place to know for certain if a kick is good. No matter how high the posts are. The kick may be close, but it is not hard to call.

 

Now for an entertaining kick, with an official in the wrong position ckeck this out: http://home.comcast.net/~minnmo/football/Cancila_Kick___WMV.wmv