And, at least last I looked, subtly different from NCAA's, which defined "fumble" by exclusion, and would (or at least did) classify leaving the ball on the ground, even deliberately, as a fumble. But that's neither here nor there in this case, because the dead ball exception didn't invoke fumbles.

It does? I'm sure everybody would rule it that way, but it doesn't say so. So I agree the intent is clear in that case, but I don't think it's clear in the case of deliberately leaving the ball on the ground. This is one of those situations where, because you wouldn't construe the rule literally in one case, it makes me wonder whether it should be construed literally in the other. It wouldn't be a difficult factual judgment at all, because a player just getting up & away from the ball is undoubtedly doing so by design, but it is a difficult judgment of intent of the rule.

If the snap had been muffed, no matter, because then you wouldn't have a player in possession of the ball with a knee on the ground.

Probably counting on the other team to follow the holder, who has gotten up, turned away, and not made any passing motion with the ball. Similar in effect to a Hugo special, fumblerooski, that sort of thing, but not specifically illegal. Meanwhile players trying to block the kick will over-run the spot, trying to cross its trajectory.

Robert in the Bronx

That's actually 7.2.8.

That's a very interesting play that requires a lot of digging for references. I would rule both legal. First nothing in 4.2 would make it a dead ball. Second, since the snap by definition is a backward pass, nothing in 9.7.3 makes it illegal either unless your holder has an ineligible number.

If the holder "Muffs" the snap, which is subsequently caught by another player and advanced, nothing has happened to cause a live ball to become dead, so TD.

The second option is just too silly to ever happen twice. Some fool may try it once, but whoever called such a silly thing would likely be fired, and possibly exiled from the game. However, since a "snap" is defind as a pass (NF: 2.40.1) which fits the definition of "backwards" (NF: 2.31.5) it complys with the restrictions related to "batting a pass" (NF: 9.7.3) and still doesn't cause a live ball to become dead, it would still result in a TD.

Robert: The horse you're trying to ride has already been processed through the glue factory. It's way too late to breath life back into it. Trying to defend something clearly understood to mean one thing, to imply the opposite, simply to satisfy the most extreme semantic possibility, is an endless quest, that leads nowhere.

I think the original post is legal.