Roughing the kicker....
 

I was actually doing radio and had never seen this play before. I asked another official later in the week and he said the guys in stripes got it right. The opposing coach wasn't happy.

High School
Point after attempt:

Team A is kicking.
Ball is snapped.... it's high but the holder rises up and corrals it and sets it down. Team B player who is rushing from the edge comes and and tackles the kicker before the ball is kicked. Team B 2/3/4 tackles the holder once the kicker gets whacked.

Result... Personal Foul roughing the kicker and the get to kick again.

Why Team B went straight after the kicker instead of the ball i have no idea.

A kicker is not a kicker by definition until he kicks the ball so you can't have roughing in this situation. That said, if he doesn't possess the ball, there could be a personal foul for unecessary roughness but I would want to see the play to say whether or not that was the case.

Should have added i do believe the kicker took at least one step towards the ball intending to kick it but never reached the ball before being whacked. I don't know if that makes a difference.

It makes a huge difference. You have to touch the ball with your leg or lower leg to be considered a kicker. Then again that was stated previously so that is why roughing the kicker would not be appropriate based on your description. It matters because if you call a RTK or a personal foul you have a difference between an automatic first down and 15 yards and depending on the down and distance the replaying the same down.

Peace

It does not. If he was tackled before kicking, it cannot by rule be roughing the kicker. Could be a PF, or holding, but not roughing.

It doesn't. I guess the question is... was the contact on the kicker such that one would call it USC had the contact been on, say, a WR or OL.

If no, then no - K is just a random player until he actually makes contact between ball and foot, and gets no special protection.

To add, though ... this must have been the slowest PAT attempt ever.

Well, it's not a USC since it's contact related.

But if K was tackled, it's probably holding.

Holding is the right call: NF Rule 9-2-3c. (Assmes contact not excessive or flagrant to warrant Personal Foul)

I would consider this a running play so enforcement would be from the end of the run (basic spot), penalize 1/2 distance and replay the Try.

I negate loose ball play because no loose ball ever was attempted. I interpret NF 10-3-1 Note to mean that the run (by holder in this play) MUST be followed by legal or illegal kick, legal forward pass, backward pass, or fumble for the run to be classified as part of the running play. This play did not have that therefore a running play.

Unless a player is a runner or pretending to be a runner, the defense can't just tackle him. Whether he's about to catch a screen pass or kick a PAT, it's illegal and it's holding.

Agree thatthe correct call here is holding. If this occured on a field goal instead of a try it would NOT result in a new series unless the ball was moved beyond the line to gain.

From the description you might have had two fouls: holding for tackling the would be kicker and PF for tackling the holder since he may have been defenseless.

Agreed that there can't be roughing the kicker, because he was never a kicker.

My guess is that they called roughing the holder.

I know we don't have a kicker until the ball is kicked, but we do have a holder at the snap... If he's not a holder, the ball would be dead as soon as his knee touched the ground while he was in possession.

Rule 2-32-7 defines the holder.
Rule 4-2-2-2 defines what the holder can do (rise and catch/recover an errant snap, then put a knee back on the ground).
Rule 9-4-5 defines roughing the kicker/holder.

The signal for Roughing the Holder is the same as the signal for Roughing the Kicker, so I can see how the OP would've been confused, especially if there's no microphone on the Referee.

I agree with all the details that've been posted, but fortunately in the instant case it didn't matter, it would still have been half the distance & repeat the try.

In the more general case, I think once you take down the intended kicker, if the holder still has a knee on the ground, the ball's dead and no roughing-the-holder is possible.

I don't believe you could have roughing the holder on the OP's play. The holder has possession of the ball, and could easily (and legally) rise to run or pass.

You won't find any rulebook basis to support this assertion.

Just because the holder can rise to run/pass does not mean that the holder is required to do so. As long as he's still controlling the ball on the kicking tee, he's still a holder, and thus, can potentially be roughed.