You make the call
 

A 4th & goal from the 9 yard line, attempting field goal. Snap bounces/rolls 4-5 times before it gets to holder. Holder then muffs the ball before getting it on the tee. His knee stays down the entire time. Rusher from blind side gets there and plows through the holder reaching for the ball. Holder loses contact with ball, but before it falls all the way over, kicker kicks it into linesman where it is recovered by B.

What, if any, penalty or penalties do we have? (Not hypothetical, this actually happened Friday night.)

Both the Fed & NCAA definitions of place kick (when it's taken from scrimmage) require that the ball be controlled by a teammate, so once the holder lost contact with the ball, I don't think it can be said any longer to be so controlled. So the kicking of the ball does not constitute a place kick. It satisfies NCAA's description of illegally kicking the ball, the ball's being loose; but I don't think it'd be illegally kicking the ball in Fed, which specifies intentionally kicking the ball other than as one of the allowed kicks. It may be said that the kicker intended to make a place kick, and simply followed thru. Maybe there's an official interpretation for such a play, which it would seem would come up fairly often.

Then we have a kicked ball touching an official, who presumably had moved infield to cover the field goal attempt. Neither Fed nor NCAA has specific coverage for a kicked ball's merely touching an official, although it might call for an equitable ruling if the deflection off the official works substantially to the favor of either team. Is this considered a tough-luck play, or is an equitable ruling called for?

You didn't say where B recovered. If it was in their end zone, they should decline the previous-spot enforcement of 10 yards for illegally kicking the ball (NCAA) to get an extra yard of field position. Since I'm not sure there was a foul by Fed rules (see above), I'm not saying anything about that.

Sorry for misspelling
 

Sorry, the ball hit a player lineman in the back, not the L. I didn't realize I had an "s" in the word.

To be more specific, does anyone see roughing the holder and/or illegal kicking in this scenario? And this is NHFS rules.

Sounds like roughing may not enter into this, because with the muffed snap and a loose ball laying around, it's not reasonably certain that a kick will occur at all. So unless the contact is otherwise a personal foul (spearing, illegal helmet contact, etc) or you think the contact could have been avoided once it was apparent a kick was going to be made, sounds like nothing on that front.

Absent that, all I have is illegal kicking, because of the ball not being controlled by a teammate or fulfilling the requirements of a drop kick. Fed has a case play that pretty much covers this one:

9.7.1 SITUATION A:

On a field-goal attempt, holder A2 muffs the snap and is attempting to gain possession of the ball on the ground when A1 kicks it between the uprights over the crossbar.

RULING: An illegal kick by A1. If the penalty is declined, the result of the play is a touchback as the illegal kick cannot score a field goal. (2-24-7)

Especially since the contact occurred before the attempted kick.
I don't see how you could ever have roughing-the-holder for its being apparent a kick was going to be made, if the kick had not (yet) been made.
I figured it likely there'd be a case play somewhat on point, but this one doesn't look close enough. A holder's attempting to gain possession of the ball on the ground reads differently from a ball that hasn't even fallen all the way over. In the case play, the kicker definitely still wanted to kick that ball even while seeing it was loose. In the play here, it's likely the kicker had started his motion and had no chance to pull up in time to not meet the ball with his foot. So I'm not sure it fits Fed's illegal kick provision. Because of different wording, though, it does fit NCAA's ruling of illegal kick. So in NCAA, illegal kick, but in Fed, it's a nothing, just a loose ball. Team A provided the impetus if the ball enters B's end zone.

I'm not sure there's really all that much distinction. As we see in the definition of a legal scrimmage kick in Fed:

ART. 4 . . . A scrimmage kick is any kick from in or behind the neutral zone during a scrimmage down. Either a place kick, punt, or drop kick may be used. For a place kick, the ball must be controlled on the ground or on a legal kicking tee by a teammate.

In the OP, we have a ball that is falling over, but just hasn't fallen all the way over. Even if barely falling, that doesn't sound like controlled on the ground or on a legal kicking tee by a teammate to me. Intent of the kicker doesn't matter here, so I still have illegal kicking.

What makes you say intent of the kicker doesn't matter? 9-7-1 says "No player shall intentionally kick the ball other than as a free or scrimmage kick." And since that's the thing that makes it subject to penalty, then the intention of the player is what it's all about. Looks to me like the intention of the player was to make a place kick. The fact that he didn't succeed is irrelevant.

That strikes me as a rather bizarre way of looking at it. I agree with you, he did indeed intend to make a place kick. So we agree that this clause is where intent matters - and we have satisfied that part. That's necessary - but not sufficient.

Why? Because the kick has to be a legal free or scrimmage kick, by black letter of the rule. It can't be a legal scrimmage kick in this instance if it's not controlled on the ground or a kicking tee by a teammate. And it isn't - intent doesn't matter here, for this part. It's either controlled or not. And in this case, it's not, which means it's not a legal scrimmage kick.

So we've established intent and we've determined that, by rule, it's not a legal scrimmage kick. How is it anything other than illegal kicking?

AFAICT, it's a nothing. It's not a legal kick, and it's not illegally kicking the ball as penalizable by 9-7.

Sometimes the definition section of Fed rules helps, but in other cases it seems to go over the same ground as the substantive rules w/o clarifying. This seems to be one of those latter instances. In the definitions, "a kick is the intentional striking of the ball with the...foot," which this is. Then in art. 4 it defines "a legal scrimmage kick", giving the same requirements as discussed here, and in article 9 it says "an illegal kick is any intentional striking of the ball with the...foot which does not comply with" those requirements. So the definition says this is an illegal kick. But what good does that do when 9-7-1, where the penalty is, does not reference the defined term "illegal kick", but instead is a new departure? It would've been so simple to just say, "No player may make an illegal kick," & specify the penalty for that. But noooo, it just says, "No player shall intentionally kick the ball other than as a free or scrimmage kick." What was the point of defining a term that doesn't get used? Rule 2 has been worked over by people who didn't pay att'n to the substantive provisions of the book, it seems.

I suppose you could parse 9-7-1 in a way to make this come out as illegal kicking, taking the "intentionally kick the ball" as a separate factual determination, and then observing that the result was not a legal scrimmage kick, but usually when the word "intentionally" is used like this in the rules, it applies broadly to the entire action. So I think it's supposed to refer to the type of kick the player intended to make, not just the mere fact of kicking the ball, fair or foul.

It also seems harsh to make this a strict liability issue, so that the team of the player who merely follows thru with the kick as the ball starts to come loose (and probably couldn't avoid kicking the ball if he wanted to) is penalized, when that team is already getting nothing good out of the play. However, it would be consistent with the ruling in NCAA. Still, if they want the same outcome, they should word their rules the same.

Was it a legal free or scrimmage kick? No - it didn't meet the very clear definition since it was in no way controlled by a teammate on the ground or a legal kicking tee.

So, now that we've established that it was something other than a free or scrimmage kick, did he intentionally kick it? Yep...trying to say "well, he intended to kick a legal scrimmage kick but it turns out it wasn't a legal scrimmage kick but how could he have known that or it was just the follow thru or the angle of the sun or..." is beyond tortuous. He tried to kick the ball, he kicked the ball. We're done here.

I think you're trying to wedge this into a pre-determined outcome with what may be an overly strict rule, but that is the rule nonetheless IMO.

Is it me, or do more of these questions and answers seem to be about precise grammar and language, a lot more than football. Are we really able to finitely distinguish whether, "the holder reaching for the ball. Holder loses contact with ball, but before it falls all the way over", and whether or not the holder maintained "control" until the kicker's foot contacted the ball.

How else are the rules makers to convey what they mean? They can't spend forever acting out possible scenarios in front of us & saying how they should be ruled.

Fed has defined a term, "illegal kick", but not made conforming changes as to "illegally kicking the ball", which was pre-existing.

So when a player throws a forward pass intentionally, and the pass winds up in an area not occupied by an eligible receiver on that team, is that intentional grounding? Not necessarily, because "intentionally" has to be read in its scope over the whole sentence. It has to be thrown intentionally into an area w no receiver to be grounding.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this tangent, since that rule clearly includes a reason qualifier, that it's only a foul if "intentionally thrown to save loss of yardage or to conserve time."

I think this discussion has run its course.

For the past 100, or so years, the rule makers concerns have been expressed through written rules, supported by updated official interpretations (Case Book examples), annual, official, Points of Emphasis, extensive Association training and discussion all intended to establish and support the solid judgment of competent, impartial and experienced professionals interpreting, and enforcing, the rule makers intentions.

Although somewhat short of perfect, the process has been working exceptionally well and continues to offer better prospects than constant nit-picking to try and fit hypothetical instances that may never happen.

The current system, despite it's occasional flaws, is very likely the best option currently available.