This sounds nice, but I wonder, is it really this simple? The NFHS "interpretation" says to only change succeeding spot to end-of-related-run when there is a "loss of possession" conflict (which I assume to mean loss of player possession based on the plays provided there). I don't know that we can entirely disregard the succeeding spot unless there is an explicit NFHS or state interpretation specifying to do that; it seems like they're suggesting that they want to stick with it. Of course they haven't touched the conflict of when the succeeding spot is the second half kickoff but the accepted penalty requires extending the 2nd quarter.
My theory of events, which Ralph can probably neither confirm nor deny:
1) Rules meeting happens where members have 45 minutes to debate rule changes. They decide that offensive holding should be a 10 yard foul, not potentially a 14 yard foul depending on spot. Since they don't have time to debate the nuance of the rule itself, they pass the motion in general terms only.
2) The voted change is given to the rules/editorial(?) committee (not sure of the correct name here). Said committee dun goofs by making a major philosophical change to the rule book (eliminating the ABO principle) that goes WAY above and beyond the intent of the voted and passed rule change.
3) Leadership realizes the rule books, that are printed and shipped apparently sight unseen because of how the process above unfolds, contain a terrible implementation of the rule change, but can't come out and directly say that because that would undermine trust in the process (or whatever). They issue a statement saying that the rule books are correct, except for the parts that aren't, but they can't say what isn't right because it's all correct, thus firmly planting their foot in the pile of dog poo they saw coming.
My advice, and I'm just some random dude on the internet who is allowed to be ignored and out voted, is not to do something that is philosophically stupid because you're trying to follow the letter of a very poorly written rule change. Yes, they used "succeeding spot" incorrectly in several places since that phrase has a specific meaning defined in 2-41-10, but don't let the unintended consequences ruin the game. The intent of the rule change was to prevent a 10 yard penalty from becoming a 15 yard penalty because of the spot of the foul behind the LOS. If there is a change of possession involved, or a score, or bridging to the next kickoff, ask yourself what you did last year and keep doing that -- doing anything else because you're hyper focused on the incorrect usage of "succeeding spot" is an unintended consequence.
The clarification press release has already poked a hole in the infallibility of the phrase "succeeding spot". Play 3 (B commits a foul THEN recovers the fumble) is enforced has it had been previously (i.e., from the end of the related run and A keeps the ball, not the actual succeeding spot where B gets the ball). Be smart, not literal.
However, I'm also failing to come up with a scenario where the succeeding spot is the 2nd half kickoff, but the penalty requires an untimed down. If the second quarter must be extended, then that untimed down is the succeeding spot, not the 2nd half kickoff. If there is a score that allows penalty enforcement on the succeeding kickoff, then there is no period extension (3-4-4-b(4)).
