Roughing the Holder

[FLAHL]

One of our crews had this on a FG attempt last week:

The holder got off his knee to catch a high snap.
He went back down and got on one knee to set the ball. (Legal)
As he was setting - or attempting to set - the ball, the defender and the kicker arrived at the same time.
The R is sure that the ball wasn't kicked.

Sorry that I don't have film for the rest, and I know it's hard to judge without seeing, but...

The defender "went through" (R's words) but didn't "blow up" (his words again) the holder, and the ball squirted out to the side.
My questions are:
Can we have roughing the holder if we don't have a kick? (I know we can't have roughing the kicker.)
If the holder had the ball properly placed for the kick (it wasn't a fumble), is he down as soon as he is contacted?  Specifically, can he fumble after he is contacted, or is the play over?
Any other rules that come into play here?

[NewEra1005]

I don't think you could have a roughing call w/o a kick (unless the contact is unnecessary). At that point he's not reasonably certain the kick will be made so contact would ignored unless its deemed to be unnecessary.

I'm bagging a fumble on the play as the holder wouldn't be ruled down by contact unless he posses the ball after he is tackled.

[Atlanta Blue]

A holder is a player that controls the ball on the ground or on a kicking tee (2-32-7).  What is implied is that there is a person in place to make a kick.  But what is definite is that you DO not need a kick to have a holder.

In fact, Redding (for NCAA) has said a player in the act of making the kick is protected whether or not he has yet to hit the ball with his foot.  His point is the player is in the same vulnerable position as his leg is moving to the ball as it is a tenth of a second later when it hits the ball.  Since the defense is protected from a foul (except a flagrant PF) if they contact the ball, then if they miss the ball and contact a kicker in the act of kicking, they had no intention of blocking a kick anyway.

But whether you buy the Redding philosophy or not, the holder is protected as long as he is controlling the ball on a tee (or on the ground) for a kick to be made.  Just like with rugby style punter, there may be more leeway for a defender since he doesn't know if a kick will be made, there should also be more leeway for the defender if the holder leaves his knee and comes back down.  But once he is back down and controlling the ball on the tee, he's a holder with protection.

[prab]

I'm bagging a fumble on the play as the holder wouldn't be ruled down by contact unless he posses the ball after he is tackled.

Welcome to the forum.  Ignoring for a minute whether the action in the OP constitutes a fumble, there have been previous discussions on the forum regarding the pros and cons of "bagging" fumbles behind the LOS.  The cons are way ahead.

[ncwingman]

If the holder had the ball properly placed for the kick (it wasn't a fumble), is he down as soon as he is contacted?  Specifically, can he fumble after he is contacted, or is the play over?

That's actually a good question I've not thought of. Changing the play slightly, B56 breaks through the line and contacts the holder, with a knee on the ground, who is still holding the ball to be kicked. No "roughing", just a hand on the shoulder before the kick is made.

I would think he would be "down by contact" (to borrow a phrase) since any attempt to tackle the holder would likely constitute roughing, but I have no rule or case play to back that up.

[Rulesman]

That's actually a good question I've not thought of. Changing the play slightly, B56 breaks through the line and contacts the holder, with a knee on the ground, who is still holding the ball to be kicked. No "roughing", just a hand on the shoulder before the kick is made.

I would think he would be "down by contact" (to borrow a phrase) since any attempt to tackle the holder would likely constitute roughing, but I have no rule or case play to back that up.

Down by contact is not in the rule book and touching the holder does not cause the ball to become dead. The fact you have no rule or case play to back it up should answer your own question.

[Atlanta Blue]

Down by contact is not in the rule book and touching the holder does not cause the ball to become dead. The fact you have no rule or case play to back it up should answer your own question.

Correct.  A runner is down when anything other than his hand or foot touches he ground.  The holder has a limited exception.  Him being touched by the defense has nothing to do with that exception.  ANY runner being touched or "down by contact" means nothing in FED (or NCAA).

[ncwingman]

Down by contact is not in the rule book and touching the holder does not cause the ball to become dead. The fact you have no rule or case play to back it up should answer your own question.

So if the holder is in possession of the ball with a knee on the ground, the defense cannot "down" him legally? Any contact that displaces the holder from his position is a foul (running into or roughing).

I guess they could just try to swat the ball away?

[KWH]

I'm bagging a fumble on the play as the holder wouldn't be ruled down by contact unless he posses the ball after he is tackled.

Definitions are important and Quite frankly, there is NEVER any situation in NFHS Football whereby a player would ever be ruled "Down by Contact" as you suggest!  See Rule 4-2-2

[ncwingman]

I'd also like to point out that my use of "down by contact" wasn't even used in its proper sense. So, yes, I know that's not a thing in Fed rules (or NCAA for that matter), but it was just the most descriptive phrase that I could think of.

The holder, with a knee on the ground, should be "down" by rule -- but gets an exception because he's the holder. However, once he's contacted by a defender, does he lose that exception and therefore is "down"? The answer seems to be "no".


Edit to add a follow up scenario:

10 seconds left in the game, 4th and 13 after a couple kneel downs -- A/K is up by 1 and is trying to run out the clock, B just called their last timeout after 3rd down. A/K lines up in a field goal/scrimmage kick formation. The ball is snapped, and the holder firmly holds the ball on the ground while the kicker makes no approach to kick the ball, but he is lined up to do so.

What can B do legally to try to end the down before time expires?

[ChicagoZebra]

The holder, with a knee on the ground, should be "down" by rule -- but gets an exception because he's the holder. However, once he's contacted by a defender, does he lose that exception and therefore is "down"? The answer seems to be "no".

This is actually interesting and made me look it up to be sure. The exception in 4-2-2-a specifically mentions the holder's knee(s) as being exempt from ground contact. Presumably, once any other part of the holder other than his knees, feet, or hands touched the ground, he is down.

[FLAHL]

So if the holder is in possession of the ball with a knee on the ground, the defense cannot "down" him legally? Any contact that displaces the holder from his position is a foul (running into or roughing).

I guess they could just try to swat the ball away?

Or "gently" (I'm being facetious) lay him on the ground?  This is the exact situation our guys were faced with last week.

[Rulesman]

10 seconds left in the game, 4th and 13 after a couple kneel downs -- A/K is up by 1 and is trying to run out the clock, B just called their last timeout after 3rd down. A/K lines up in a field goal/scrimmage kick formation. The ball is snapped, and the holder firmly holds the ball on the ground while the kicker makes no approach to kick the ball, but he is lined up to do so.

What can B do legally to try to end the down before time expires?

Do you really think an OL can keep the defensive rush at bay for 10 seconds?

[KDJBBBJ]

If R gets there before the kicker, and I have seen this more than once.  If they are trying to secure possession of the ball that is being held on the ground or tee by the holder, and in that process they make contact with the holder and possibly  the kicker then I believe there is no foul committed.  now if you go in and blast the holder and are in no way trying to secure the ball then you have a foul and it probably would be roughing he holder. 

[Ralph Damren]

 

   Play I : Jumbo, the DE, dives in the air as Hans, the kicker, kicks the ball with Sugarfoot, the holder, holding. Jumbo blocks the kick. Jumbo then unavoidably lands on top of Hans and Sugarfoot.

   Play II : Jumbo ,the DE, dives in the air as Hans, the kicker, waits for Sugarfoot, the holder, to stop juggling the snap. Jumbo unavoidably lands on top of Hans and Sugarfoot.

 

Is there....or should there be a difference???

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Edit to add a follow up scenario:

10 seconds left in the game, 4th and 13 after a couple kneel downs -- A/K is up by 1 and is trying to run out the clock, B just called their last timeout after 3rd down. A/K lines up in a field goal/scrimmage kick formation. The ball is snapped, and the holder firmly holds the ball on the ground while the kicker makes no approach to kick the ball, but he is lined up to do so.

What can B do legally to try to end the down before time expires?

As soon as the kicker fails to move forward as he normally would, I would say it is no longer "reasonably certain that a kick will be made."

I think that you could also easily make the case that the exception for when the defense touches the kick near the kicker should be applied when the defense touches the ball near the holder before a potential kick occurs.

[AlUpstateNY]

Despite the absence of a specific ruling to exactly fit this possible scenario,  common sense suggests that if the defender elected to simply touch the holder, while he was on the ground holding the ball rather than forcibly contacting the holder, I would respect, and appreciate, his judgment, kill the play and the clock and thank the defender for his excellent sportsmanship.

[jason]

Despite the absence of a specific ruling to exactly fit this possible scenario,  common sense suggests that if the defender elected to simply touch the holder, while he was on the ground holding the ball rather than forcibly contacting the holder, I would respect, and appreciate, his judgment, kill the play and the clock and thank the defender for his excellent sportsmanship.

That seems contradictory to your approach 99% of the time.  Interesting.

IMHO, if the defender is even remotely angled towards the ball, he's going for the ball.  If Mr. Sugarfoot the holder just happens to be there at the same time, so be it.

[AlUpstateNY]

That seems contradictory to your approach 99% of the time.  Interesting.

IMHO, if the defender is even remotely angled towards the ball, he's going for the ball.  If Mr. Sugarfoot the holder just happens to be there at the same time, so be it.

I'm not sure what you find contradictory, Jason.  Working with Interscholastic athletes, or younger, I see no benefit in penalizing a player choosing to avoid what may very well amount to an unnecessarily severe, and potentially dangerous contact, albeit technically permissible, with an opponent, when a far less violent collision will accomplish the same result.

I see no value, or benefit, in eliminating an option for a player to choose sportsmanship and respect for an opponent, or penalize him for doing so.

[jason]

I'm not sure what you find contradictory, Jason.  Working with Interscholastic athletes, or younger, I see no benefit in penalizing a player choosing to avoid what may very well amount to an unnecessarily severe, and potentially dangerous contact, albeit technically permissible, with an opponent, when a far less violent collision will accomplish the same result.

I see no value, or benefit, in eliminating an option for a player to choose sportsmanship and respect for an opponent, or penalize him for doing so.

I just meant that most of the time you are a "absolutely by the book" kind of guy, with little wiggle room.  In this case, not so much, since what you propose is not technically "by the book."

For the record, I like the "down by contact" approach you and others have taken.  Further, I like the idea of congratulating the defender for good sportsmanship; I do it often.

[NewEra1005]

I'm not sure what you find contradictory, Jason.  Working with Interscholastic athletes, or younger, I see no benefit in penalizing a player choosing to avoid what may very well amount to an unnecessarily severe, and potentially dangerous contact, albeit technically permissible, with an opponent, when a far less violent collision will accomplish the same result.

I see no value, or benefit, in eliminating an option for a player to choose sportsmanship and respect for an opponent, or penalize him for doing so.

I agree 100%. We have to protect the kids and hope they learn to show mercy on defenseless players. It's killing the game.