Doesn't it really boil down to a judgment whether the foul (holding) was an actual, "attempt to conserve or consume time illegally", or just someone violating the blocking rules apart from any consideration about affecting timing.

Interestingly, during this weekend's Nebraska defeat of Michigan State, holding foul on third down was declined with a minute and change in the fourth quarter. On the succeeding 4th down, the play clock started on the wind at 25 instead of 40, giving Nebraska a few more seconds on their next possession. Had the foul been accepted, the extra down would have allowed Michigan State to run out the clock, or at least to within a few seconds of zero.

Not as far as I'm concerned.....I'd say some of those in this thread agree with me.

When a foul obviously benefits the team committing the foul with respect to the clock, it's common practice to start on the snap.

A player commits a false start with a running game clock with 1 second on the play clock on 4th down with 24 seconds left in the game. Are there officials here who would even consider starting on the RFP?

For a False Start, with 1 second left on the play clock, I'd agree with restarting the clock on the snap, but the question was about a holding penalty on an 8 yard gain, where it seems at least reasonable to suspect the intent of the foul was a lot more about achieving the next 1st down, rather than manipulating the clock.