Being rewarded for allowing TD

[#92]

Once again, Rom Gilbert is what made me wonder. His 2015 Weekly Quiz #12:

Fourth & 8 on the A-42. A8's punt is illegally touched by A83 on B's 24. B44 recovers the ball and advances to the B36 where he fumbles. A2 recovers B44’s fumble and carries the ball into Team B’s end zone. During A2's run, B77 tackles A56 on B's 18 to prevent him from blocking B96.

His ruling:

B 1/10 B-24. The score does not count. Five- and 10-yard penalties are not administered on the try or the succeeding kickoff. The penalty for Team B’s foul is declined by rule. The ball belongs to Team B at the spot of illegal touching, B’s 24 (10-2-5-a-2).

This is in fact a more detailed depiction of A.R. 6-3-2-III (see below). So I don't disagree. However, I'm having a hard time seeing the fairness in it. Because if A2 was tackled on B-2, the foul would not be declined, and B's privillege would be cancelled. It would be A: 1/G at B-1.
So Team B is rewarded for not stopping the runner and Team A is punished for reaching the EZ instead of stopping short.

Or am I wrong?

6-3-2-III: Team A’s punt goes beyond the neutral zone and is first touched by A80, then picked up by B40, who runs five yards and fumbles. A20 picks up the fumble and scores. During A20’s run, B70 holds.
RULING: The score does not count. Five- and 10-yard penalties are not administered on the try or the succeeding kickoff. The penalty for Team B’s foul is declined by rule. The ball belongs to Team B at the spot of illegal touching (Rule 10-2-5-a-2).

[TXMike]

If you spend a lot of time looking at Rom's stuff you will come to see the incredible football mind he has and the ability he has to ferret out parts of the rules that , when applied, can make for some apparently unfair results. 

[#92]

If you spend a lot of time looking at Rom's stuff you will come to see the incredible football mind he has and the ability he has to ferret out parts of the rules that , when applied, can make for some apparently unfair results.

It's my newly found means of spending office time when nothing's on my plate

[TXMike]

Don't miss the video pages

[Kalle]

To be fair to the rules committee I doubt if this situation ever actually happens in a game. Flagging team B for IBB or holding during team A's run seems unlikely. Still, it wouldn't be a huge editorial change to add to 10-2-5-a-2: "A team B foul cancels a team A illegal touching violation."

[#92]

Could be a facemask tackle attempt, for example.

[Kalle]

Could be a facemask tackle attempt, for example.

That would be a personal foul which is enforced on the try or the succeeding kickoff.

[#92]

Indeed, just realized that. Nonetheless, this is a loophole

[Kalle]

Technically fighting is not a personal foul nor an unsportmanlike conduct foul and would be declined by rule, but I don't think anybody would actually rule that way on the field.

[bossman72]

One of the few instances where the FED rule is better.  If B COMMITS a foul after touching the ball, illegal touching is cancelled.  Thus, this play would result in a TD

[texref]

If memory serves this anomaly has been around for a long time in NCAA rules. I remember attending Rogers Redding's (and then Jim Blackwood's) June Rules Clinics at Univ. of North Texas (NTSU) 20+ years ago. This play always made my head spin. Depending on the who, what, when and where the ball belong to B or a TD for A.

Fortunately it never happened on the field in one of my games.