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.

There was no kick, so you can't have roughing the kicker.

And how can you have roughing the holder? There was no kick - so they essentially tackled the ball carrier.

Would have to see it, of course, but it appears that this was a legal play. The only call you make is to another crew to say "You should have seen our play tonight!" :)

Impossible if there's nobody in position to kick. The intended kicker has been pulled down. There is no longer an exception in effect to the rule that makes the ball dead if the player in possession of it is kneeling.

The exception applies if "at the snap, a place-kick holder with his knee(s) on the ground and with a teammate in kicking position catches or recovers the snap while his knee(s) is on the ground and places the ball for a kick, or if he rises to advance, hand, kick or pass."

The teammate was in kicking position at the snap so the exception is in force and, since it doesn't say while a teammate is in kicking position, there's no reason why the exception would end just because the teammate is no longer in kicking position for any reason.

Sigh... read the rule please. Specifically look for the exception and when it is determined whether that exception is in play.

But once the kicker is gone, the holder ceases to place the ball for a kick. If your interpret'n were correct, that placing the ball for a kick were simply an act that is completed once the ball is teed up, then while in that position the holder who momentarily teed up the ball could then do anything with the ball and it would remain alive. Yet we know that's not the case, because there's a separate exception to allow him to rise, and it's well established that he can't pass the ball from the kneeling position in Fed rules. Therefore placing the ball for a kick must be a continuing action that ends only when the ball is kicked or the holder rises; it is not completed once the ball is teed up, it is ongoing while the ball is held in that position for an ostensible place kick. If there is no kicker in position, then the exception no longer applies.

Your saying that "places a ball for a kick" implicitly includes a teammate in a kicking position, placing a ball for a kick is an ongoing action, and the exception terminates if the ongoing action ceases without the holder rising appropriately. Let's look at them in that order.

If "places a ball for a kick" implicitly includes having a teammate in a kicking position, why would the rule specifically require a teammate in a kicking position and placing the ball for a kick? That would be redundant. I submit placing a ball for a kick is merely putting the ball on the ground so that it can be placed kicked since that action has no other football purpose.

I'll go along with it being an ongoing action but I don't believe it has much relevance as the exception will continue as long as he holds the ball to the ground.

The third point is basically moot as we'd all agree the play is dead if the holder did something other than holding the ball to the ground or rising.

That's a good point, as it wasn't always part of the rules provision, and did use to be implicit. All I know is, if Fed thought they'd clarified this with their current wording, they're wrong. But I had missed that apparently there's now no exception for a ball received from other than either a snap or muffed ball from a snap, which would preclude the scenario brought up here from the video a while ago, i.e. the possibility of a 2nd place kick from a blocked kick -- unless the placer squats instead of kneeling.

I can think of one play situation where the 2 interpret'ns would make a practical difference. What happens when a fake place kick play involves the kicker's closely missing the ball and faking a follow-thru, and then after a delay during which the placer has gotten his body position around to better conceal the ball (and the defense is all looking downfield to try to find it), he arises to continue play? One interpret'n would allow play to continue, the other not.

Also, assuming play is allowed to continue, would the placer be allowed to draw the ball closer to his body to conceal it while he's still on the ground? How about drumming on the ball to simulate the sound of the kicker's foot hitting it?

If it's not kickable from that position, I think he'd be down as it's no longer placed for kicking. I don't see a problem with drumming the ball as far as the exception goes.

Would it make a difference if the kicker was just shoved "down" on his way to but prior to kicking the ball.

Right footed kicker..... end rusher came from the right defensive end

Well, that's what I thought, but others are saying the condition of placing the ball for a kick needs to be satisfied only for a moment, and then he's not down later even if one or more of those conditions no longer apply.

But your conditioning what he is doing based on the continued presence of a potential kicker, who is only required to be there at the snap, whereas, I'm conditioning it only on him ceasing to hold the ball for a kick without rising.

With the rule written as it is, I don't see any reason to read either one as a continuing condition and not the other.

I must respectfully disagree.

Have video of the play
 

I can't pull the exact time because youtube blocked here at work but it's roughly 1/2 way to 2/3rd into it.

Riverheads vs Page County Football Highlights - YouTube

That's just good defense (and a poor snap) - I got nothing.

I also got a no call on the block in the back along the sideline a few plays earlier.

There's an attempted defensive BBW at 2:29 -- watch the MLB.

Yup, that's a side block. And the PAT was a poor snap and no foul.