And, I believe the announcement in the game was the word "flagrant" and not "deliberate."
The announcement was, "Personal foul, deliberate personal foul, #1 of the kicking team. The Penalty is declined, the result of the play is a first down, however #1 is ejected."
You can hear it at the 2:07 mark of this version of the play:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded,As for the quoted AR, you are correct, it creates a conflict with it's wording. In full, here is the AR:
Fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in
position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he
touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to
elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with
the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified.
The ruling calls it a "flagrant personal foul", but then further defines it as "interfernce with the opportunity to catch a kick". It then says the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which is consistent with KCI, but inconsistent with the "flagrant personal foul". I think this case play assumes there was not a further advancement by B. Had there not been an advancement by B, this whole discussion is a moot point. But because there was, it points out the conflict in the ruling. Is this a "flagrant peronal foul", or is it "interference with the opportunity to catch a kick"? The AR says it is both, but only gives the enforcement of the latter.