Roughing the holder

[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.