"But it's Windy"

[Curious]

This play happened last week:

Very windy night - blowing consistently at 35mph - gusting to 50+
Opening KO; RFP blown
K is lined up with 6 players to the right of the ball and 4 to the left
K can't keep ball on tee.
After 2 attempts to set the ball on the tee, a player (presumably the team's regular holder) from the side with 4 players moves in to hold the ball and takes a position on his knee to the right of the kicker
The ball is kicked deep (no onside trickery)

I understand what the rule says; but under these circumstances, are you going to:
1. Penalize K for IF
2. Stop the play when the player takes his new position and "prevent" the foul
3. Let it go

[CalhounLJ]

Hopefully one of my guys will hustle in when the ball falls off the tee, allow us to reset the 25, and then if the kicker requires a holder, he will be there to make sure we have 4 on each side before he hands the ball back to the kicker. My answer is 2.. Never let them kick with 12, and never let me blow the ready on an illegal formation. We can't help what happens after that, but we can fix it beforehand.

[brettjr2005]

I agree with Calhoun, this is no good and should be shut down by the BJ, so option #2.  If the rule stated that you can have no more than six players on one side then I could at least see trying to justify fudging the "intent" of the rule; although that would still technically be illegal.  However, with the rule stating that at least four must be on each side, even if your "rule intent" justification is to consider the holder "not there,"  you would still be required to have four players on each side in the rare situation of only having 10 players on K. 

Long story short, no bueno, get four on each side of the kicker.

[ncwingman]

I agree that the correct response is #2 -- preventative officiating.

I also agree that, by rule, this is a foul for not having at least four players on each side of the kicker at the kick. Even if the rule stated "no more than six", you'd have the same issue since they're spread 7-K-3.

The intent of the rule is to spread out players to not overload one side of the field -- but it's meant to spread out R as well as K. Ad absurdum -- if K is trying to kick off with 9 players and spreads out 6-K-2, R is going to overload to the 6 side of the field, increasing blocks/collisions/etc. there. In that situation, the intent of the rule is still violated, even if "no more than six" still held.

It's an easy enough fix that, if the holder doesn't count, K still has to line up 5-K(holder)-4.

[refjeff]

The holder will count.  He has to be on one side of the ball or the other.

[NoVaBJ]

The holder, by virtue of transversing the long axis of the ball while in the act of holding, may be logically attributed to either side.

This is not worth the expenditure of preventive officiating or cheap flag capital. The holder is on the short side. Let it go.

[ncwingman]

The holder, by virtue of transversing the long axis of the ball while in the act of holding, may be logically attributed to either side.

Now I want to hear Ed Hochuli explain that to the crowd

[brettjr2005]

The holder, by virtue of transversing the long axis of the ball while in the act of holding, may be logically attributed to either side.

This is not worth the expenditure of preventive officiating or cheap flag capital. The holder is on the short side. Let it go.

Except the rule clearly states "on each side of the kicker," not the ball. 

And I don't think this is being "cheap."  The rule requires 4 on each side.  The team has either 3 and 6 with a holder that we're pedantically not counting or they have 3 and 7.  Neither situation is legal. 

If they wanted an exception they'd put one in.  If they wanted "no more than six on each side" they would put that in.  That's not the wording they went with so I'll continue to enforce the rules as they're written.  Obviously this doesn't mean we need to get pedantic and act like we should enforce every rule exactly to the letter with no regard for common sense or intent of the rule.  But when there is a clear rule such as "4 K players must be on each side" then I'm not going to fudge the rule based on my own opinion of the rule. 

[AlUpstateNY]

Except the rule clearly states "on each side of the kicker," not the ball. 

And I don't think this is being "cheap."  The rule requires 4 on each side.  The team has either 3 and 6 with a holder that we're pedantically not counting or they have 3 and 7.  Neither situation is legal. 

If you really want to get specific, you might review NFHS: 2-32-8 Which advises, "A kicker is any player who legally punts, drop kicks or place kicks.  A player becomes a kicker when his knee, lower leg or foot makes contact with the ball......"

[brettjr2005]

If you really want to get specific, you might review NFHS: 2-32-8 Which advises, "A kicker is any player who legally punts, drop kicks or place kicks.  A player becomes a kicker when his knee, lower leg or foot makes contact with the ball......"

When the kicker makes contact with the ball the holder is clearly on one side of him or the other.  Maybe I'm missing something obvious and will feel dumb when you point it out but I fail to see how that changes the interpretation of anything here. 
 

[AlUpstateNY]

Sorry, you lost me.  I have no idea what your question/interpretation is?