FG attempt - end of first half

Donate To GopherHole
Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Ding, ding, ding, ding!! Winner!!

You hit that ball a half-inch to inch low on the ball, it flies higher, spins faster, and misses the sweet spot. He didn't catch all of it, plain and simple. I'm amazed at the folks here who honestly think the staff would trot him out there knowing that his range was 45 yards. WTF.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

If only coaches would think these things through a little more thoroughly. (sarcasm)
 

If a guy comes up short on his first ever college attempt at a 51-yard field goal (it lands on the end line)...

... does that mean:

A) He is incapable of hitting a 51-yard field goal, or...

B) He simply came up short on that particular attempt?
 

RememberMurray said:
No, I haven't really 'studied physics'. I just saw the ball land on the end line.
Click to expand...

It has been many years, but have studied physics and this conversation got me thinking so I did some calculations on this. The hand written pages are available by request.

I used a stop watch to time how long from foot contact to touchdown 51 yards later on the video you attached. The average I got was 3.02 seconds. Therefore the horizontal velocity (which is a constant assuming no wind help/hurt) was 16.89 yds/sec.

I will assume a launch angle of 40 degrees (I view this as generous considering 45 is optimal for max distance and that kick was not 45 degrees), based on being there and watching it. If the horizontal component of the velocity was 16.89 yds/sec, and it was kicked at a launch angle of 40-degrees from the ground, then the vertical component was 14.17 yds/sec and the vector was 22.05 yds/sec (using sin and cos functions).

With this we can calculate the max height of the ball’s trajectory to be 9.37 yards (28.1 feet) reached 1.51 seconds into flight. Seems reasonable. We can also calculate that it dropped to 10 feet/3.33 yards (goal post height) in an additional 1.06 seconds (2.57 seconds after being kicked).

Going back to our horizontal velocity component of 16.89 yds/sec, we calculate that at the 2.57 second point of its flight it had travelled 43.4 yards (horizontally).

Similar, we can calculate that the ball would have dropped to 5 feet (a nice “catch height” for a returner) after 45.8 yards (2.71 seconds into flight).

The wind is something I couldn’t factor in and would skew this <I>some</I> - as would an angle change, but going with those assumptions above this would correspond to an attempt that was 7.6 yards short and that would have been easily fielded 4.8 yards deep in the end-zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
It has been many years, but have studied physics and this conversation got me thinking so I did some calculations on this. The hand written pages are available by request.

I used a stop watch to time how long from foot contact to touchdown 51 yards later on the video you attached. The average I got was 3.02 seconds. Therefore the horizontal velocity (which is a constant assuming no wind help/hurt) was 16.89 yds/sec.

I will assume a launch angle of 40 degrees (I view this as generous considering 45 is optimal for max distance and that kick was not 45 degrees), based on being there and watching it. If the horizontal component of the velocity was 16.89 yds/sec, and it was kicked at a launch angle of 40-degrees from the ground, then the vertical component was 14.17 yds/sec and the vector was 22.05 yds/sec (using sin and cos functions).

With this we can calculate the max height of the ball’s trajectory to be 9.37 yards (28.1 feet) reached 1.51 seconds into flight. Seems reasonable. We can also calculate that it dropped to 10 feet/3.33 yards (goal post height) in an additional 1.06 seconds (2.57 seconds after being kicked).

Going back to our horizontal velocity component of 16.89 yds/sec, we calculate that at the 2.57 second point of its flight it had travelled 43.4 yards (horizontally).

Similar, we can calculate that the ball would have dropped to 5 feet (a nice “catch height” for a returner) after 45.8 yards (2.71 seconds into flight).

The wind is something I couldn’t factor in and would skew this <I>some</I> - as would an angle change, but going with those assumptions above this would correspond to an attempt that was 7.6 yards short and that would have been easily fielded 4.8 yards deep in the end-zone.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just... wow.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Was his confidance shaken for trying something?

If the guy can't handle a low percentage attempt ... gonna have a bad time generally.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. The greater threat is a bock or return. Confidence shouldn't be a problem.
 



You've got to better your previous long successful FG at some point.

Why not at that time?

How was he feeling in warmups, what were the wind conditions? Take the shot, but be ready to react if it goes awry.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
I'm amazed at the folks here who honestly think the staff would trot him out there knowing that his range was 45 yards. WTF.
Click to expand...

I'm in your camp on this one.....

BUT...you never know. Glen Mason once trotted out Dan Nystrom for a 59 yard FG into a stiff wind & the ball landed just past the goal line.
 

Spoofin said:
It has been many years, but have studied physics and this conversation got me thinking so I did some calculations on this. The hand written pages are available by request.

I used a stop watch to time how long from foot contact to touchdown 51 yards later on the video you attached. The average I got was 3.02 seconds. Therefore the horizontal velocity (which is a constant assuming no wind help/hurt) was 16.89 yds/sec.

I will assume a launch angle of 40 degrees (I view this as generous considering 45 is optimal for max distance and that kick was not 45 degrees), based on being there and watching it. If the horizontal component of the velocity was 16.89 yds/sec, and it was kicked at a launch angle of 40-degrees from the ground, then the vertical component was 14.17 yds/sec and the vector was 22.05 yds/sec (using sin and cos functions).

With this we can calculate the max height of the ball’s trajectory to be 9.37 yards (28.1 feet) reached 1.51 seconds into flight. Seems reasonable. We can also calculate that it dropped to 10 feet/3.33 yards (goal post height) in an additional 1.06 seconds (2.57 seconds after being kicked).

Going back to our horizontal velocity component of 16.89 yds/sec, we calculate that at the 2.57 second point of its flight it had travelled 43.4 yards (horizontally).

Similar, we can calculate that the ball would have dropped to 5 feet (a nice “catch height” for a returner) after 45.8 yards (2.71 seconds into flight).

The wind is something I couldn’t factor in and would skew this <I>some</I> - as would an angle change, but going with those assumptions above this would correspond to an attempt that was 7.6 yards short and that would have been easily fielded 4.8 yards deep in the end-zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Post pics of the hand-written notes/calculations. Please.

In other news, does anyone else watch Silicon Valley? One of the best scenes of any show or movie is the dick jerk calculation. It’s is classic. Kind of like this thread and these calculations.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lpqt1

PS - Clearly at some point in time he has hit a 51-yarder or the coaches wouldn’t have trotted him out there.
 



Replacement Gopher said:
PS - Clearly at some point in time he has hit a 51-yarder or the coaches wouldn’t have trotted him out there.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, that wasn’t my point. I was disputing the claim that it was ‘close’ and that it couldn’t have been easily returned. Since me telling him I was in row 20 on the 15-yard line wasn’t proof enough I thought I would do some calculations. I’ll PM you the paperwork.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Ding, ding, ding, ding!! Winner!!

You hit that ball a half-inch to inch low on the ball, it flies higher, spins faster, and misses the sweet spot. He didn't catch all of it, plain and simple. I'm amazed at the folks here who honestly think the staff would trot him out there knowing that his range was 45 yards. WTF.
Click to expand...

Who said his range was 45 yards, other than you? Could have been on the edge of his range. Maybe he's made it a few times, or just once. How strong was the wind? All could factor into sending him out to attempt.
 

Spoofin said:
It has been many years, but have studied physics and this conversation got me thinking so I did some calculations on this. The hand written pages are available by request.

I used a stop watch to time how long from foot contact to touchdown 51 yards later on the video you attached. The average I got was 3.02 seconds. Therefore the horizontal velocity (which is a constant assuming no wind help/hurt) was 16.89 yds/sec.

I will assume a launch angle of 40 degrees (I view this as generous considering 45 is optimal for max distance and that kick was not 45 degrees), based on being there and watching it. If the horizontal component of the velocity was 16.89 yds/sec, and it was kicked at a launch angle of 40-degrees from the ground, then the vertical component was 14.17 yds/sec and the vector was 22.05 yds/sec (using sin and cos functions).

With this we can calculate the max height of the ball’s trajectory to be 9.37 yards (28.1 feet) reached 1.51 seconds into flight. Seems reasonable. We can also calculate that it dropped to 10 feet/3.33 yards (goal post height) in an additional 1.06 seconds (2.57 seconds after being kicked).

Going back to our horizontal velocity component of 16.89 yds/sec, we calculate that at the 2.57 second point of its flight it had travelled 43.4 yards (horizontally).

Similar, we can calculate that the ball would have dropped to 5 feet (a nice “catch height” for a returner) after 45.8 yards (2.71 seconds into flight).

The wind is something I couldn’t factor in and would skew this <I>some</I> - as would an angle change, but going with those assumptions above this would correspond to an attempt that was 7.6 yards short and that would have been easily fielded 4.8 yards deep in the end-zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am so glad you did this because it was going to take me a lot of effort to come to this conclusion.
Personally, and this is just my opinion, it seems as if the wind must have been blowing in a way to make the ball more catchable about 8 yards deep in then endzone, not 4.8. Perhaps a gust came towards the ball which "held it up" some causing the ball to fall in a more directly vertical fashion. The height at which most people catch a ball is around their midsection. On a 6 foot player that would appear to be around 42 inches of height.

I don't think by the bounce of the ball we can determine that landing angle.
 

Replacement Gopher said:
Post pics of the hand-written notes/calculations. Please.

In other news, does anyone else watch Silicon Valley? One of the best scenes of any show or movie is the dick jerk calculation. It’s is classic. Kind of like this thread and these calculations.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lpqt1

PS - Clearly at some point in time he has hit a 51-yarder or the coaches wouldn’t have trotted him out there.
Click to expand...
LOL. The Middle-Out Dick-Jerk Algorithm. One of the classic sitcom episodes of all time.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 



Spoofin said:
It has been many years, but have studied physics and this conversation got me thinking so I did some calculations on this. The hand written pages are available by request.

I used a stop watch to time how long from foot contact to touchdown 51 yards later on the video you attached. The average I got was 3.02 seconds. Therefore the horizontal velocity (which is a constant assuming no wind help/hurt) was 16.89 yds/sec.

I will assume a launch angle of 40 degrees (I view this as generous considering 45 is optimal for max distance and that kick was not 45 degrees), based on being there and watching it. If the horizontal component of the velocity was 16.89 yds/sec, and it was kicked at a launch angle of 40-degrees from the ground, then the vertical component was 14.17 yds/sec and the vector was 22.05 yds/sec (using sin and cos functions).

With this we can calculate the max height of the ball’s trajectory to be 9.37 yards (28.1 feet) reached 1.51 seconds into flight. Seems reasonable. We can also calculate that it dropped to 10 feet/3.33 yards (goal post height) in an additional 1.06 seconds (2.57 seconds after being kicked).

Going back to our horizontal velocity component of 16.89 yds/sec, we calculate that at the 2.57 second point of its flight it had travelled 43.4 yards (horizontally).

Similar, we can calculate that the ball would have dropped to 5 feet (a nice “catch height” for a returner) after 45.8 yards (2.71 seconds into flight).

The wind is something I couldn’t factor in and would skew this <I>some</I> - as would an angle change, but going with those assumptions above this would correspond to an attempt that was 7.6 yards short and that would have been easily fielded 4.8 yards deep in the end-zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Impressive calculations, you obviously received a totally different education than I did at The U. LOL
 


HoustonTXGopher said:
Impressive calculations, you obviously received a totally different education than I did at The U. LOL
Click to expand...

Not so fast. A launch angle of 40 degrees means that puppy was 17.5 feet high at the line of scrimmage. Seems high - especially if anyone is remotely worried about a block.
 
Last edited:


Replacement Gopher said:
Not so fast. A launch angle of 40 degrees means that puppy was 17.5 feet high at the line of scrimmage. Seems high - especially if anyone is remotely worried about a block.
Click to expand...

Funny stuff. FTR, your math is wrong, as is your logic. Since it is already below 45-degrees a lower launch angle would result in a shorter kick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Funny stuff. FTR, your math is wrong, as is your logic. Since it is already below 45-degrees a lower launch angle would result in a shorter kick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not if time is a constant.
 



Since I'm guessing it has been well hashed out here already, what about this Devil's Advocate?

the staff went to Lantz and asked him if he wanted to give it a shot, saying it was OK if he didn't feel comfortable at that distance, and the young man said "yeah, I want to try it!" ?
 


Otis said:
OMG, 1998 will never go away. You are so right though.
Click to expand...

Every time we have the ball near the end of a half ... I think of it.

I'm not opposed to taking a knee! There are times.

I just don't like leaving opportunity out there, especially when you have an offense that can do things.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom