Roughing the holder

[sj]

Is all this thinking correct?

A holder is, "a player who controls the ball on the ground or a kicking tee."

This player is protected period. There's nothing in the definition about a kick needing to be made. Kick or no kick he's protected as long as he's meeting the definition of a holder by controlling the ball on the ground or a tee.

If he's holding the ball on a tee, or the ground, then IT IS reasonably certain that a kick will be made and he's protected. No judgement needed

If the snap is bad or is fumbled and he's trying to regain control so he can put it on the tee then it isn't reasonably certain that a kick will be made and the defense can legally block or contact him in a legal manner if they're trying to recover the ball.

And then there's this from the NFHS case book. 9-4-5 Situation E - The place kick holder is contacted forcibly by a player on the defense clearly after the kick is away. RULING: Roughing the holder. Personal foul. 15 yards and an automatic first down.

So the High School rules makers extends protection to this player even after the kick is away.

If the kick is blocked then the holder is not afforded protection as a holder anymore if the contact by the defender is unavoidable. But he continues to be protected from all other illegal contact just like any other player. 9-4-4-b.

Thanks

[JRutledge]

What are you confused by? It sounds like you have quoted the appropriate rules and understand the premise.

Peace

[sj]

Apparently I'm not confused at all. So we're good. Thanks.

There was just something going around in these parts that if a defender could get to a holder before the kick was made then he's not protected. It's pretty strange thinking.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sj

Apparently I'm not confused at all. So we're good. Thanks.

There was just something going around in these parts that if a defender could get to a holder before the kick was made then he's not protected. It's pretty strange thinking.

Well he is not protected as it relates a penalty. He can be hit as the is the "ball carrier" at some point.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

The only thing that you said that sounded weird to me was that you said NFHS has "extended" protection "even after the kick". Isn't the protection ONLY after the kick? Before the kick, he can be tackled - he's the ball carrier.

[sj]

I think that's the question that's come up. My argument is that if he's holding a ball on a tee he's a holder and can't be tackled like you're saying. He's not a runner, he's a holder. And holders can't be roughed. Now if he's fumbling the ball and it's not being controlled then he's no longer a holder and can be hit. Let me know what you think. Respectfully.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by sj

I think that's the question that's come up. My argument is that if he's holding a ball on a tee he's a holder and can't be tackled like you're saying. He's not a runner, he's a holder. And holders can't be roughed. Now if he's fumbling the ball and it's not being controlled then he's no longer a holder and can be hit. Let me know what you think. Respectfully.

This all makes perfect sense, but regarding the "kick under way" case, ...
It's been established that a passer, snapper or kicker is protected from contact after their "task" is done, and until they've had a chance to protect themselves. Since HS football is more concerned about making sure players are healthy to play another day, then it is about allowing brutal, exciting action that's good television, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the holder's protection extends until he has had a chance to protect himself--especially on a try when NOTHING else can happen, but even on a FG, when the holder isn't going to be a "threat" to R until the kick ends.
If I see a crazy stupid hit on a holder who isn't participating, then a PF for unnecessary roughness is still legitimate.