Roughing the holder

[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.