Can we talk about the insanity of goalposts on the goal line?

They had been in the back of the endzone before, they were moved up in the 30s so there would be more FGs and less ties. Then kickers gradually got better and passing games got sophisticated enough to exploit the middle of the endzone that it didn’t make sense anymore

The posts themselves are straight from rugby, which still has its posts at the goal (try) line. For the majority of its existence, including most of the period in which the posts were moved back up, football was far closer to rugby and nothing like today’s game. It’s not that insane when you consider this

And it wasn’t like the stanchions were on the goal line either, they were a few yards back

quote:

---

They had been in the back of the endzone before, they were moved up in the 30s so there would be more FGs and less ties. Then kickers gradually got better and passing games got sophisticated enough to exploit the middle of the endzone that it didn’t make sense anymore

The posts themselves are straight from rugby, which still has its posts at the goal (try) line. For the majority of its existence, including most of the period in which the posts were moved back up, football was far closer to rugby and nothing like today’s game. It’s not that insane when you consider this

And it wasn’t like the stanchions were on the goal line either, they were a few yards back

---

good post

One of the things I like about football in general is that it isn't rugby. The more they separate the two sports, the better, IMO.

I am a purist that bemoans the change. It all went downhill in this sport after we allowed face masks and uniforms with colors of prancing nancies. I’m not much for the hip hop either.

quote:

---

In the NFL’s earliest days, the league followed the NCAA rule book. Goal posts were on the goal line. When the NCAA moved them to the end zone’s backline in 1927, the NFL followed suit.

In 1933, however, the NFL adopted its own rule book and placed the goal posts back on the goal line.

---

The reason they moved them back in 1974 was to discourage long-range FGs that start at your own side of the field. See Tom Dempsey thread.

The NFL didn't seem to care the goalposts were often in the way once passing picked up huge in the 40s and 50s.

Goal Posts determined the outcome of the 1945 NFL Championship Game

quote:

---

Washington's Sammy Baugh threw from his own end zone early in the game. He had a wide-open receiver to his left, and that receiver had a blocker in front of him. However, the goal posts knocked down Baugh’s pass. By 1945 rules, that counted as a safety for the Rams defense. The Rams won the title 15-14.

---

Great
Football back then.

quote:

---

In the NFL, it was double-posted until 1967 and not moved to the back line until 1974!

It truly just seems unthinkable. Shows how inertia can uphold even the stupidest of stupid things.

Were there "purists" at the time who bemoaned the change?

---

You didn't even make the case for why you think it's stupid.

quote:

---

For the majority of its existence, including most of the period in which the posts were moved back up, football was far closer to rugby and nothing like today’s game. It’s not that insane when you consider this

---

College had it on the backline since the 30s. I maintain it was utterly insane that it continued until 1974 in the NFL.

quote:

---

And it wasn’t like the stanchions were on the goal line either, they were a few yards back

---

Even worse, as it meant the overall footprint of the apparatus was across a broader space.

quote:

---

Reminds me of when Minute Maid park had a hill and pole in center field. Center fielders must’ve loved that shite.

---

Stuff like that is what made baseball awesome. Once they removed the hill and pole the park formerly known as Enron became the same boring crap MLB has become known for.

quote:

---

The case against putting immovable structures in the field (and air) of play?

---

Yes. There's many reasons one might object to it. You called it insane. What's your reasoning?

quote:

---

Yes. There's many reasons one might object to it. You called it insane. What's your reasoning?

---

The obvious.