Should High School replace their goalpost?

You hear of several instances about a game being questionable because of field goal/extra point attempt that was called good/no good when the opposition felt otherwise. My question to you is that should all high schools ban the traditional goalpost and incoporate the taller, more thinner uprights?

The cost to replace these two uprights could cost up to $10,000 per school and no less than $6,500. Is it worth it? Would this even save any arguments if the uprights were about 10 feet taller than the traditional ones seen at some establishments?

Then to add to that argument should teams have nets placed behind the posts to solidify the fact the a kick was a good to the ref, I mean it would have ultimatley hit the net and bounce back leaving no doubt and the majority of high school kickers cannot exceed the heigth of a 25 foot kick in the air, so this would leave no doubt for all to see and witness.

Would $10,000 have been worth it to Johnson Central last year to get the win against Ashland in a controversial kick?

Below are the illustrations of what I'm referring to.

The top picture is that of a revised goalpost and the bottom is the illustration of a traditional goalpost seen at almost every field in Kentucky.

Then to add to that argument should teams have nets placed behind the posts to solidify the fact the a kick was a good to the ref, I mean it would have ultimatley hit the net and bounce back leaving no doubt and the majority of high school kickers cannot exceed the heigth of a 25 foot kick in the air, so this would leave no doubt for all to see and witness.

Would $10,000 have been worth it to Johnson Central last year to get the win against Ashland in a controversial kick? .

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You're statement that nets behind the goal posts would solidy the fact that a kick was good "to the ref" shows a complete and utter zero understanding of how referees call kicks. Just to help you with your interest in football; referees do NOT look back behind the goalposts to see where the football went

........excuse me, while I stop laughing at that one :laugh: :laugh:

The goal posts could have been 200 hundred feet high and JC would still be riding their school bus back to Johnson County crying about something.

Poor JC, Boo hoo hoo ..............:cry: :cry: :cry:

Cheers, Woody Jr

I don't think it's necessary, if it were free I'd say do it but it's not worth the money for a few kicks per season.

While I think it is great in theory and I would love to see it changed, that is just too much $$$ on some programs I think. If they decide to do it then I'm going to get in the goal post making business though!:lol:

I think Ashland should be the guinea pig on this one....

Well, we certainly have experience dealing with individuals around us with tiny little brains who tend to spin their wheels a lot - uh, so to speak

Cheers, Woody Jr

You hear of several instances about a game being questionable because of field goal/extra point attempt that was called good/no good when the opposition felt otherwise. My question to you is that should all high schools ban the traditional goalpost and incoporate the taller, more thinner uprights?

The cost to replace these two uprights could cost up to $10,000 per school and no less than $6,500. Is it worth it? Would this even save any arguments if the uprights were about 10 feet taller than the traditional ones seen at some establishments?

Then to add to that argument should teams have nets placed behind the posts to solidify the fact the a kick was a good to the ref, I mean it would have ultimatley hit the net and bounce back leaving no doubt and the majority of high school kickers cannot exceed the heigth of a 25 foot kick in the air, so this would leave no doubt for all to see and witness.

Would $10,000 have been worth it to Johnson Central last year to get the win against Ashland in a controversial kick?

Below are the illustrations of what I'm referring to.

The top picture is that of a revised goalpost and the bottom is the illustration of a traditional goalpost seen at almost every field in Kentucky.

I know every field pretty much I have played on for the most part had the new goal post, I actually haven't seen to many of the older style goal post except for on practice fields!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

You're statement that nets behind the goal posts would solidy the fact that a kick was good "to the ref" shows a complete and utter zero understanding of how referees call kicks. Just to help you with your interest in football; referees do NOT look back behind the goalposts to see where the football went

........excuse me, while I stop laughing at that one :laugh: :laugh:

 

The goal posts could have been 200 hundred feet high and JC would still be riding their school bus back to Johnson County crying about something.

 

Poor JC, Boo hoo hoo ..............:cry: :cry: :cry:

 

Cheers, Woody Jr

Not sure about the hostility in your post or the need for the sarcasm.

If you know anything about 3wishes he could care less about the JC-Ashland feud you have been embroiled in. He's a Rockastle guy and a good one at that. :thumb:

His comment about the nets might have been off but your response was a little on the uncalled for side.

He does raise an interesting point about increasing the height of the posts. It would be a help but I don't know about mandating it and making a program spend that money that it could use elsewhere.

Do yourself a favor, Woody, and lose the attitude. You have the wrong guy and the wrong team.

I'm sure 3Wishes grew tired of the childish remarks traded between Ashland and JC last season, just like the rest of us did. No doubt that played a part in his posting this thread.

I'm sure it would have been worth the ten grand in that case to the administrations of both schools, just so they could have avoided being embarrased by the way some of their fans were acting.

Good question, 3W.

I think it would be nice to have the higher posts, especially for playoff games. But I don't think the benefit would justify the cost of mandating them for everyone.

Our refs do a great job and we only hear of a very few controversial kicks each year, and only a few of them are game breakers. That is a pretty small percentage of the total kicks taken per year. So how much would we really gain by mandating an financial drain of over 2 million bucks on our football playing schools?

From an official's perspective....

Calling a field goal or try good or not is as easy as being in the right position, directly under one of the uprights. Each official under the uprights looks straight up the post, as if looking down the barrel of a rifle. If the ball passes completely on the inside of the post the kick is good. If any part of the ball passes over the top of the post, it is no good. It matters not how high the post is.

No one in the stadium has a better view of the kick than the two officials under the goal post. No One!

From an official's perspective....

 

Calling a field goal or try good or not is as easy as being in the right position, directly under one of the uprights. Each official under the uprights looks straight up the post, as if looking down the barrel of a rifle. If the ball passes completely on the inside of the post the kick is good. If any part of the ball passes over the top of the post, it is no good. It matters not how high the post is.

 

No one in the stadium has a better view of the kick than the two officials under the goal post. No One!

Excellent explanation! :thumb: :thumb:

The real issue is the games played on college fields where the uprights are 6 feet narrower than high school.

From an official's perspective....

 

Calling a field goal or try good or not is as easy as being in the right position, directly under one of the uprights. Each official under the uprights looks straight up the post, as if looking down the barrel of a rifle. If the ball passes completely on the inside of the post the kick is good. If any part of the ball passes over the top of the post, it is no good. It matters not how high the post is.

 

No one in the stadium has a better view of the kick than the two officials under the goal post. No One!

Thank you - that's what I needed to read before I voted! :thumb:

Thank you - that's what I needed to read before I voted! :thumb:

I agree, the only problem that the refs had in Raceland games when Petry was here was finding the football after his kicks:lol: They usually ended up in the middle of the softball field on one end and over the hill and in the field on the other. Back to the question, though - I do agree that if the refs position themselves correctly it should not be a problem. the fans in the bleachers /stadium have a poor angle on close kicks as to whether they were good or not.