Another FG above the uprights

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Yeah, but their wording is bad. Should be, "If any part of the ball fails to penetrate the plane surface formed by the inside edges of the uprights extended upward, it is unsuccessful." And that could actually make a difference in a close case with the ends of the ball spinning, because at one instant part of the ball could be outside the edge, and at another (earlier or later) it could pass thru.

You really think there is ambiguity in this rule for officials? Sorry, I have never had a deep debate over this rule ever. It is usually the dumb public or media that had no idea what makes a field goal good or not. And the reaction of what I heard on SportsCenter is the reason this even becomes in issue.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You really think there is ambiguity in this rule for officials? Sorry, I have never had a deep debate over this rule ever. It is usually the dumb public or media that had no idea what makes a field goal good or not. And the reaction of what I heard on SportsCenter is the reason this even becomes in issue. Peace

Absolutely agree, the non-football equivalent would be, "just a little bit PREGNANT" some things in life either are, or they are not, and whether or not a field goal attempt is inside the uprights is a decision made EXCLUSIVELY by the covering game official.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Absolutely agree, the non-football equivalent would be, "just a little bit PREGNANT" some things in life either are, or they are not, and whether or not a field goal attempt is inside the uprights is a decision made EXCLUSIVELY by the covering game official.

That's not entirely true -- if the ball was at the level of the uprights, it can be reviewed.

I have to admit, I worked FJ at the college level for a few years and some of those PAT kicks were BLASTED through. It's not as easy a call as some would make it. And if it was *that* close, I went with my gut instinct and didn't give it a second thought.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's not entirely true -- if the ball was at the level of the uprights, it can be reviewed.

I have to admit, I worked FJ at the college level for a few years and some of those PAT kicks were BLASTED through. It's not as easy a call as some would make it. And if it was *that* close, I went with my gut instinct and didn't give it a second thought.

It is not that hard either and this was a rather long FG attempt. It is not so difficult if you watch the flight of the ball. Either way, what I saw was the ball did not look clearly inside but directly over and that official would have the best look. The media tried to make it like it was an obvious mistake on the official's part.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's not entirely true -- if the ball was at the level of the uprights, it can be reviewed.

I have to admit, I worked FJ at the college level for a few years and some of those PAT kicks were BLASTED through. It's not as easy a call as some would make it. And if it was *that* close, I went with my gut instinct and didn't give it a second thought.

It sounds like we're saying the same thing. Accepting that there is an exception to EVERY rule, "most" instantaneous decisions made on ANY football field for a wide variety of "that close" (bang-bang) decisions are based on the (informed and experienced) "gut instincts" of the covering officials, as well they should be.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You really think there is ambiguity in this rule for officials?

No, not in the official rules of the various codes, but the supposed restatement of one of them quoted above does not accurately restate the provision it purports to.