CLEVELAND — Browns kicker Phil Dawson stood by his locker and lectured like a Harvard calculus professor.
Breaking down the elements needed to make a field goal — angle, speed, trajectory and the probability of an oblong football sailing through tricky winds and between stationary uprights — Dawson caught the attention of linebacker Scott Fujita, his well-read teammate who earned two degrees at California.
“John Nash, everyone,” Fujita said with a laugh in comparing Dawson to the famed mathematician and subject of the film “A Beautiful Mind.”
Well, Dawson’s IQ isn’t quite at genius level, but he does have vast knowledge on kicking field goals.
Lately, he has learned how difficult field goals can be to judge. Because for all the technological advancements that have made NFL games safer and more enjoyable — from improved helmets to the computer-generated yellow line that allows TV viewers to see whether a first down was made to instant-replay systems designed to ensure officials make calls correctly — ruling on field-goal attempts remains an inexact science.
In fact, there’s no more science behind it than two pairs of human eyes under the goalpost.
“It’s a rough spot for officials, to stand under the goalposts, look straight up and discern if any part of a ball is outside the uprights,” Dawson said. “It’s not easy.”
And it’s not the kicks that miss by a few feet, or even inches, that are difficult to assess. It’s the ones that fly directly above the 30-foot-high uprights that are trickiest. Indeed, a few recent ones have caused a small outcry — mostly by kickers, the game’s most exacting players — for the league to adopt a better way to rule on field goals.
Ask any kicker, and he’ll suggest remedies for the problem: Raise the uprights. Mount cameras on the crossbar. Implant a computer chip inside the ball. Shoot lasers above the uprights. Add another official designated for field goals.
Redskins special-teams coach Danny Smith said he has tried to address the issue with the NFL office for years. Smith says he has a solution — or two.
“Why don’t you do it like tennis?” Smith said. “Why don’t you laser it? Or extend them? It’s ridiculous they don’t do that. Do it like tennis, with the laser in there. Is it good or is it not? Check it and go. We’d do it with the replay machine. It would be easy. Let’s just be fair.”
League spokesman Greg Aiello said the current system is sound, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be improved.
With the Browns leading 14-10 in the fourth quarter on Nov. 20 against Jacksonville, Dawson’s 38-yard field goal attempt was ruled wide right. The 13-year veteran disagreed with the call. He was told his attempt could not be reviewed because it had sailed directly over the upright, adding more confusion.
“The rule states that if the ball is above the upright, it’s good,” Dawson said.
The rule says: “The entire ball must pass through the vertical plane of the goal, which is the area above the crossbar and between the uprights or, if above the uprights, between their outside edges.”
Dawson’s argument is that rule and its interpretation conflict.
“Well, if you go set a ball directly over an upright, it’s fatter than the upright is wide,” he said. “So if the ref says he sees part of the ball over the upright, they are going to say it’s no good. Either they need to change the rule or come up with some other way to take some of the subjectivity out of it.”
