Doesn't USSF specifically address the dual purpose goals/uprights, not the free standing uprights? I am perfectly fine if they are the same but technically the picture they use in their instruction power points is not a stand alone piece of equipment. The uprights they make a ruling on are physically part of the soccer goal structure.
Strictly speaking, I think you're right under ATR 1.7, but I believe 1.8(b)'s use of "include" is broad enough to capture the free-standing variant. But I suppose that's also open to interpretation, so again, best to make sure everybody's on the same page before the kickoff.
I felt the differences were based on "why" the item was there. In the case of tree, it is part of the natural environment and the pitch. If the pitch were moved, the tree could be removed from the field. In the case of the ball hitting the tree, if it stays on the field, play on; if it hits the tree on it's way out of the field, restart is whatever it would have been absent the influence of the tree. It normally doesn't affect one team more than another. They are part of "nature". As to man made structures, they were introduced to the field of play by man in an effort to have goals for all the games play on that field, this includes soccer goals, football uprights, etc. They influence the field where the field is placed and cannot be "removed" from the field since they were specifically placed where they are because the field is there. It may also be that most of these items occur near the defending team's goal and any influence they have on the ball will typically benefit the attacking team more. If the ball hits the football upright, it is will likely be above the soccer goal, the result of an inaccurate shot on goal, and on it's way off the field as a missed shot. If it were allowed to rebound back onto the field, it would likely drop near the goal area and in a prime location for a shot on goal, much like a player being in an OSP cherry picking a goal.
When I took my refereeing course many years ago I was taught to not watch the ball in flight when way up in the air, rather, watch the players. So....if the ball hits an overhanging branch or wire I probably will not see the event. I do tell the teams before the game that we will keep playing if the ball hits the tree or wire in the air, as long as the ball comes down on the field of play.
I was going to bring that up in my long-winded post above, but i thought my post was already long enough!
From NJ Ref - So, in one example of an overhanging tree over the goal, if a ball, which otherwise would clearly go in touch hits the tree and is deflected into the goal, we have a goal? I don’t know about you, but I’d like to leave the field alive. It is extremely clear in the ATR on what happens. People that want to referee USSF matches must follow the ATR - there are too many gutless people that refuse to make the correct call or no call.
There is a field in San Francisco ( actually 2 of them) Franklin Square and Crocker Amazon Fields both have trees that hang over the goal. At Franklin.. it is rather high so I have not seen it hit lately... but at Crocker, the tree can definitely become a factor. I include it in my pregame discussion with the teams(captains)so all know how it will be handled during the course of play.
It allows for ROC, not making up rules at the field if you are playing under USSF. The default is the trees are always in play when they overhang the field. If you don't know the ROC and play by some made up rules you have to report this in a full match report to be evaluated by your league as an unusual incident.