"Yeah, coach, they committed the dead ball foul. But they got the first down during the play, so they're starting at first and 10.
Actually, they got it AFTER the play, on the dead ball foul by B.
No, coach, it's not first and 25. Yes, coach, I know you think it should be. But we always start a series with 10 yards to go."
Well, he was right at one time (up until mid to late 90s or so). It would have been 1st and 25 under the old rules.
And we don't always start a series with 10 yards to go. Sometimes the series starts inside B's 10 yard line.
I still prefer the NCAA application of this rule, which would offset the double fouls since the happened in the same dead ball period. In the above scenario, A gets "punished" more for retaliating than B did for committing the same foul. The same miscarraige of justice can occur if they are deep in A's territory, A commits the first DBF, and B retaliates. In that case, A can "benefit" by starting a fight.
Example: ball at the A8, 3rd and 6. A is held for no gain. Following the play, A shoves a B player, who in turn, shoves back. A penalty moves the ball back to the 3, B penalty moves it out to the 18, 1st down.
I know, B didn't have to retaliate, but the penalty for retaliation is FAR worse than the original foul that instigated the fight. If I'm a quick thinking A player, and I just saw us come up short on 3rd down, it's worth me shoving someone after the play just to see if I can get them to retaliate. Not a huge difference punting from our own 6 vs our own 3, and a HUGE upside potential of gaining a first down if I HACK off the right B player. It's almost a no risk foul for A. I'm not talking about A taking a swing at someone, just a late shove into the pile of a player standing around.