Did not see it. However, is there a better angle than the official under the post? Just saying, I know that is annoying. Sorry.

Only one opinion counts...no good.

If the entire ball was not inside the upright as it crossed the vertical plane of the crossbar, it's no good (from http://www.mycommunitynow.com/sports/rules-of-officiating... ):

Here are five of the biggest things fans may not realize:

1 The kick is no good if it's directly over the upright. If any part of the football is "outside the inside of the upright extended," the kick is no good. Rule 8-4-1c states: The kicked ball shall pass between the vertical uprights or the inside of the uprights extended and above the crossbar of the opponent's goal. Case Book play 8.4.1 Situation A provides the following: The field goal attempt: (a) goes directly over an upright; or (b) is clearly over the cross bar between the uprights. In (a) and (b), the ball is blown back by the wind so that it drops into B's end zone. RULING: In (a), it is an unsuccessful attempt because the ball did not penetrate the plane of the goal between the inside of the uprights extended. It is a legal goal in (b) and it doesn't matter if the ball comes back above or below the crossbar.

(Also, here: http://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/rsfc/intro/johnson.shtml )

Question: When the offensive team attempts a field goal, sometimes the ball will travel high above the field goal posts, especially when done at a close range. If the ball appears too travel just above the left or right post of the field goal post or even higher, at what point is the goal good?

Answer: NFHS & NCAA: The ENTIRE ball must pass to the inside of the INSIDE edge of the upright extended indefinately above the upright.
NFL: The ENTIRE ball must pass to the inside of the OUTSIDE edge of the upright extended indefinately above the upright.

BOTH: Since the upright is 3-4 inches in diameter and the football is more than 4 inches in diameter in any direction, a ball that passes EXACTLY over an upright will be no good under all 3 codes because part of the ball will be breaking the aforementioned plane.

Related question: why was there no attempt to review this close call?

Do you know this for a fact? Announcers say many things, sometimes they actually know what they are talking about.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be combative. But, I find it curious that while from the first camera angle it looked to be not only above the upright but no good based on the rules as Pataskla stated them, from the second angle it look like the ball was a little lower and inside the upright. So, it would seem to me that they could review where the heck the ball actually was. I'm not arguing that the call was wrong. I'm just curious about the process.

Thanks, Pataskala, this makes sense, but what confuses me is that I thought that on the second camera angle the ball looked a little lower and I wasn't sure it was as high as it looked on the first one. I guess the bottom line is that on these types of plays camera angles can be very deceptive, even when the camera is right back of the end zone. Maybe we need laser beams on the top of the goal posts to extend the effective height on plays like this. I just want them to get it right. Yes, that Toledo-Syracuse botch was clearly the worst call of that season and the reigning worst call until the now-infamous four-yard line safety.

Balls above the uprights are not reviewable, as there is No camera angle that would be in perfect view of the ball in relation to the uprights extended.

I thought the kick was good, but I thought the "no good" call on the kick made up for a terrible "no call" on the prior play involving intentional grounding by the Indiana QB. Had they got that right the yardage and loss of down would have made the kick even more problematic.

This call reminded me (in the reverse) of the AFC championship game in January 1987 ('86 NFL season) where Denver kicker Rich Karlis was credited with making the game winning FG on OT against the Browns. I was there and to this day I still feel the kick was no good. But with it being a judgment call and the misleading angles we sometimes see on TV, who knows if that Indiana kick was good? I did feel bad for the kicker who was kind of left to himself on the field wondering "what happened."

Ted, this angle thing is very confusing. The angle you said is terrible, the announcers said, or implied, was the better angle. Again, I'm not saying that the FG attempt was good, just that there seem to be all kinds of differing opinions on what angles are best to ascertain these things.

No it's really not. The referee stands under the upright (best angle) not in the middle of the uprights (not a good angle).

I'm not sure how you can look at the picture I posted and still have doubt. Unless you just don't want to believe it. Even if you move the point of view to the left, the ball would still be "touching" the goalpost. Given the angle of the kick, the ball would have been even further outside. I guess we'll all just have to agree this is A-Rod's fault.