The Coriolis effect is negligible in this situation in the sense that you would have a very hard time seeing any difference in results for a kicker who adjusts his aim to account for the Coriolis effect.
For a real kicker who aims for the center between the uprights, the actual path of the ball deviates randomly from his aim point by some angle. That deviation angle likely has a normal distribution with a mean value of zero, and a standard deviation large enough so that he misses the uprights maybe once every game or two.
Now imagine he shifts his aim point by a quarter-inch (at the plane of the uprights) to one side to account for the Coriolis effect. Let’s suppose it’s a shift (a hop?) to the left. Statistically, more of his right-deviated kicks will then result in a score, and more of his left-deviated kicks will result in a miss - and, statistically, the difference between those two changes will mean his performance improves. But my guess is you’d have to have hundreds (possibly thousands) of attempts before you’d expect to see a difference of even one more successful kick.
A big part of the problem has to do with expecting that a kicker even can adjust his aim carefully enough to account for the Coriolis effect. A standard extra-point kick has the kicker kicking about a 100 feet from the uprights. To offset the path of the ball by a 1/4” at the uprights, we’re asking the kicker to adjust his aim by 0.011 degrees. There’s far more variation in all of the other factors affecting the launch direction of the ball: where the holder plants the ball, how he holds it, how the kicker plants his feet as he runs toward the ball, and finally, how he actually kicks the ball. 0.011 degrees is noise on the noise.
You may argue that for a particular kick that barely went in, the Coriolis effect mattered. But for a kick where a 1/4” mattered, it would have to be one where the ball hit one upright, traveled almost parallel to the crossbar, and then bounced off the other upright and just barely went in.
Some of you ding-dongs just can’t enjoy a good bit of hyperbole, can you? Jesus H., pretty soon you’re going to beat the living shit out of Caesar’s Last Breath. Just try to relax.
If a kicker was going to (try to) adjust for the tiny Coriolis factor, they’d need to know the latitude of the field and the orientation of the long axis of the field. The higher the latitude and the more due north / south the field, the greater the effect. But it’s still tiny.
Even assuming perfect precision in kicking, somebody who flubbed that calc and aimed e.g. 3mm left when the correct correction was 6mm left would in fact be reducing his success rate.
It’s of course impractical, but it’d be a neat thought experiment to come up with reasonable estimates for all the sources of imprecision in a field goal attempt. Then rank order them by magnitude. E.g.
How precise is the spot of the ball left/right & fore/aft?
How precise is the position of the holder and the snap of the ball?
How precise is the vertical angle the holder holds the ball (left/right and fore/aft)?
How precise is the orientation of the ball = where the laces are aimed when the foot makes contact?
How perfectly made is the ball itself and how much dirt or fingerprints are anywhere on it?
How precise are the uprights and crossbar versus the standard?
What is the exact wind field over the entirety of the ball’s flight?
