Skip to content

Goal post makers say building them higher isn’t easy


The NFL has decided to make the uprights five feet higher this season, and the manufacturers of goal posts say that’s a harder job than the NFL realized.

David Moxley, director of sports construction sales at goal post maker Sportsfield Specialties, told Kent Somers of the Arizona Republic that his company is in the process of an engineering study to determine whether changing the goal posts from 30 feet to 35 feet will make them more susceptible to potentially blowing over on a windy day.

It’s actually pretty significant,” Moxley said. “It isn’t as easy as putting 5-foot extensions on each side.”

Neil Gilman, president of Gilman Gear, agreed.

“I think the NFL thought, ‘Just weld on five more feet and everything will be cool,'” Gilman said. “That’s not the case.”

The companies aren’t saying they can’t add height to the goal posts, but they are saying it’s not as simple as the Competition Committee and the owners might have thought. It’s worth the work necessary to get the call right when a ball passes more than 30 feet over the cross bar, but the work is significant.

Permalink 52 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill
52 Responses to “Goal post makers say building them higher isn’t easy”
  1. thereisalwaysnextyear says: Apr 4, 2014 7:25 AM

    Here is a thought. Use PVC and paint it yellow

  2. otistaylor89 says: Apr 4, 2014 7:26 AM

    If they can put lasers on sharks, they can put them on the top of goalpost.

    Dr. Evil

  3. ottawabrave91 says: Apr 4, 2014 7:30 AM

    that isn’t just the case to just slap 5 more feet on the goal posts. they have to get out of bed, drive into work and actually do stuff. Its a whole ordeal

  4. finsfaninsc says: Apr 4, 2014 7:34 AM

    That is why they pay you to make the goalposts. Get your engineer to redesign using a thicker post to hold the weight and reduce the swaying.

    Yes it will cost more. Yes the NFL has the money.

  5. nygmann says: Apr 4, 2014 7:37 AM

    Oh well. Guess we’ll have goal posts falling down during windy games!

  6. meatcarroll says: Apr 4, 2014 7:37 AM

    Seems like they’re clamoring for attention because they want someone to pat them on the back and tell them how much they appreciate what a good job they did.

  7. nannymcsack says: Apr 4, 2014 7:40 AM

    Is this not the same species that put some of its own on the moon?

  8. jacobk621 says: Apr 4, 2014 7:41 AM

    Brilliant work @OtisTaylor !!!!!! Bwahwahwahwah !!!!!

  9. buzzardpointlookout says: Apr 4, 2014 7:41 AM

    Composite, anyone? Or still go with steel but set the base in a concrete pillar. Or, you know, actually engineer something…

    What a bunch of lazy, whiny weenies.

  10. cmstrick says: Apr 4, 2014 7:42 AM

    Just mount green lasers into the ends of the existing posts…

  11. jimmyhaffa says: Apr 4, 2014 7:43 AM

    Wow…we have to…you know…make the base bigger and stuff…

  12. staffordwives9999 says: Apr 4, 2014 7:43 AM

    oh yea, we have to look and find the colored duct tape.

  13. marvsleezy says: Apr 4, 2014 7:45 AM

    If it’s over the height of the existing upright, it’s no good. Why do we do everything to help kickers? We should be making it harder for them.

  14. Iain says: Apr 4, 2014 7:51 AM

    Why not go with rugby-style two-legged posts then? Is there some charm to the 1-legged variety that we are overlooking?

  15. xinellum says: Apr 4, 2014 7:54 AM

    Carbon fiber. Duh!!!

  16. patriottony says: Apr 4, 2014 7:55 AM

    Holy crap batman… don’t have to extend the physical posts 5 ft,,,,either use a laser at the top of each….or do what BB wants…..make the damn thing REVIEWABLE…..thats what he was arguing at the end of the ravens game…a TD,,,a run,,a fumble,,, a completed pass..all reviewable….but a FG is not? why is that diff from a TD? Even cannot review whether a FG was good or not. WTH not?

  17. cjjones5656 says: Apr 4, 2014 8:02 AM

    Everything is so over thought, engineered and studied these days that we never get anything actually done. The interstate highway system was built in basically 4 years, Hoover Dam built in 5 years….Now a days, add 5 feet to a goal post for a game and they want to do a 2 year study…..

  18. ridingwithnohandlebars says: Apr 4, 2014 8:06 AM

    If the wind messes up the goal post, who will Goodell fine?

  19. pats777 says: Apr 4, 2014 8:09 AM

    Sounds like the NFL needs to put out a request for proposals. Heck, I’ll give them a new design that has a giant razor blade across the crossbar. That way Jimmy Graham will have to decide if losing a hand is worth the 15 yard penalty!

  20. MichaelEdits says: Apr 4, 2014 8:09 AM

    Falling goal posts would take the boredom out of the PATs

  21. allseeingone says: Apr 4, 2014 8:11 AM

    Simply drill small holes in the upright so they’re lighter and allow the wind to pass through.

  22. jimmyjamm03 says: Apr 4, 2014 8:11 AM

    I’m no engineer, but the obvious answer is to incorporate perforations into the posts to reduce the effects of wind. Now go make millions off my idea.

  23. mikea311 says: Apr 4, 2014 8:12 AM

    They are complaining that the are getting more work out of this?

    Pay me, i’ll be more than happy to redesign it for them.

  24. matt2calvin says: Apr 4, 2014 8:15 AM

    I’m laughing at all the experts that say use PVC, lights or lasers – sorry, that won’t work.

    What happens when the ball breaks the PVC? Was it a good kick?

    What happens when the ball passes through the light or laser?
    Was it a good kick?

    They need something that will deflect the ball when it hits the post. The ball either bounces through the goal post or it bounces away – but you know definitively that the kick was good or not. You can’t achieve that goal with lights or PVC…

  25. uglydingo says: Apr 4, 2014 8:16 AM

    This is the green light for the goal post manufacturer to invoke a very big markup. “This is going to be very hard. We will do it but this is very hard to engineer and manufacture. This is like constructing something very big and very costly”

  26. halasfan says: Apr 4, 2014 8:17 AM

    This might be completely crazy but instead of a Y they should look at possibly uses and H shaped. If it had two legs supporting the structure in the back of the end zone you can make it as high as you want.

    I think I have even seen this once somewhere.

  27. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Apr 4, 2014 8:17 AM


    We can put men on the moon to hit golf shots and do doughnuts in lunar rovers – and then return safely to earth — and nearly a half century later, we have a highly compensated supplier of NFL goal posts whining about adding a mere 5 feet to the height of the uprights?

    Unbelievable. I’m sure German engineers are snickering at this pitiful display of incompetence.

    Strengthen the base, put composites in the uprights, you could even make the posts partially meshed to allow air to pass through, etc.

    The last thing I want is some guy who I’m writing gargantuan checks to — is for him to complain that it’s a major inconvenience or it’s simply “too hard for him” to deal with.

    It would be like, NEXXXXXT!!!

  28. mpoles says: Apr 4, 2014 8:20 AM

    Quick, easy and cheap solution that won’t add much in extra weight:

    Rather than have the extra height be metal, simply create stiff foam pylons (like the endzone corner markers) that simply screw into the top of each post.

  29. broncostevenp says: Apr 4, 2014 8:23 AM

    why not make it a rectangle by putting a bar at the top? If a kicker has to make it through a rectangular box that will also make the extra point harder. You would kill 2 birds with one stone. If it doesn’t go through it’s not good. You will never miss another call again. Simple fix.

  30. Canton Bulldogs says: Apr 4, 2014 8:31 AM

    Go back to an H instead of a Y and rescind that no dunking rule.

  31. grumpyoleman says: Apr 4, 2014 8:33 AM

    Everything in life doesn’t have to be 100% correct all the time. Goal posts are fine as they are and the refs standing underneath each post are more than capable of making the correct or mostly correct call.

  32. cshearing says: Apr 4, 2014 8:36 AM

    All this is is a notice to the NFL that they are going to get charged a premium for this.

  33. greymares says: Apr 4, 2014 8:40 AM

    the posts must remain metal, can’t lose the “DOINK” factor.

  34. 12brichandfamous says: Apr 4, 2014 8:41 AM

    You don’t just slap on 5 feet and call it good unless you want lawsuits. Want to design it right? You model the structure, it’s anticipated loads, and do an engineering study to determine the correct materials, design, and assembly process. It’s called engineering.

  35. wrdtoyrmama says: Apr 4, 2014 8:45 AM

    If this is too difficult for the current goalpost makers, find some new ones that can do it minus the drama and hardships….

  36. sbchampsagain says: Apr 4, 2014 8:51 AM

    The NFL should just put the referees underneath the goalposts and have them look up when a team kicks it.

  37. ijahru says: Apr 4, 2014 8:52 AM

    Translation: this is why we are gonna to charge an outrageous amount of money for the new goal posts

  38. binarymath says: Apr 4, 2014 9:01 AM

    Instead of raising the height of the UPRIGHTS, how about raising the height of the CROSSBAR 5 or 10 feet by using a taller base post?

    Then put the ball on the 1 yard line for both PAT kicks AND runs. Kickers would need to loft the ball more to clear the higher crossbar from point blank range. That would result in more 2-pt attempts.

    higher crossbar would encourage more 4th down attempts vs. long field goals. Would serious football fans object to that?

    It would also eliminate the need for the silly “no dunk celebration” rule – If someone can dunk at 15 feet, that would be worth the ticket price all by itself! Heck, anyone who can dunk a football at 12 feet should be awarded another point.

    Of course, any of those changes would tick off the oddsmakers, so the crossbar ideas have absolutely no chance.

  39. surfinbird1 says: Apr 4, 2014 9:08 AM

    Gee what a nightmare yet we can put stuff on Mars and the Moon etc.

  40. chunkala says: Apr 4, 2014 9:32 AM

    Everyone is spot on with their comments here,
    What real corporation makes comments like these? You are in the business of making goalposts, why are you complaining about that.
    The NFL wants you to change a specification, so you can change it and received e revenue. That’s the nature of the business/product cycle.

  41. jlinatl says: Apr 4, 2014 9:46 AM

    A couple observations:

    1. More difficult = more money.

    2. At no point did it occur to anyone to consult with the company that engineers and manufactures the goalposts to inquire what the potential challenges would be?

  42. smackingfools says: Apr 4, 2014 9:55 AM

    NFL considering banning high fives too, if they are too hard

  43. Wineshard says: Apr 4, 2014 10:03 AM

    Hey I know where these guys are coming from – you make more money on change orders than the original contract.

  44. wtfchiefs says: Apr 4, 2014 10:21 AM

    Just have the two tallest dads of some of players join hands and put their outside arms up to make goal posts like when I was in pee wee league.

  45. weeniss says: Apr 4, 2014 10:53 AM

    Ummm….put more bracing on it? Jeeze, it’s not that hard to figure out.

  46. shaunypoo says: Apr 4, 2014 11:10 AM

    I don’t see any reason why we don’t just go to some kind of laser for the whole vertical post. Make it the rule that if the ball touches the laser at all, it doesn’t count. They are going to do away with the kicking game eventually, why go through so much trouble to change things now?

  47. antalicus says: Apr 4, 2014 11:12 AM

    Its 5ft. Use pvc extensions.

  48. skoldier612 says: Apr 4, 2014 11:42 AM

    So we can fly someone to the moon but can’t make longer goal posts?

  49. goodguyattorney says: Apr 4, 2014 12:13 PM

    The goal post folks are brilliant. They know that they can practically duct tape extensions to the top but they see re-engineering fees and expediting fees and know that the NFL will have to pay now that the rule has changed. Brilliant.

  50. bert1913 says: Apr 4, 2014 12:25 PM

    Bigger base and add gussets below the cross bar

  51. porkcarrot says: Apr 4, 2014 1:46 PM

    Love all these people saying how simple this is. Pretty sure what the engineers are saying is “We have to do a lot of stuff to make sure these things never break or fall over during a game because if someone got hurt they’d sue us for millions.”

  52. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: Apr 4, 2014 9:59 PM

    This was a stupid idea from the start. But don’t worry it can be done for a nominal fee that will be passed on to fans in the form of higher ticket prices.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!