Try this

[ElvisLives]

4/5, B-45, 4:00 (3), A=14, B=21. A17 receives the snap and moves five steps to his right, then pulls up and kicks a low kick to the B-10 where, untouched, it is recovered by A99. Just after A17 kicked the ball, B55 led with his shoulder and blocked A17 to the ground with forcible contact to A17’s head/neck area.

Ruling:

[dammitbobby]

4/5, B-45, 4:00 (3), A=14, B=21. A17 receives the snap and moves five steps to his right, then pulls up and kicks a low kick to the B-10 where, untouched, it is recovered by A99. Just after A17 kicked the ball, B55 led with his shoulder and blocked A17 to the ground with forcible contact to A17’s head/neck area.

Ruling:

The natural result of the play is a scrimmage kick, illegally touched by Team A at the B-10. A17 does not have roughing the kicker protection as he carried the ball outside the tackle box. However, 9-1-4 targeting is applicable: he was defenseless (immediately after kicking the ball, regardless of roughing protection or not), there is an indicator (forcible contact), and it is to a protected part of the player(head/neck). B's privilege of illegal touching goes away when B fouls, so the foul will be enforced 15 yards from the previous spot. A 1/10 @B-30, PC 25, snap (since the previous play was a kick). And B55 is disqualified for the remainder of the game.

[ElvisLives]

The natural result of the play is a scrimmage kick, illegally touched by Team A at the B-10. A17 does not have roughing the kicker protection as he carried the ball outside the tackle box. However, 9-1-4 targeting is applicable: he was defenseless (immediately after kicking the ball, regardless of roughing protection or not), there is an indicator (forcible contact), and it is to a protected part of the player(head/neck). B's privilege of illegal touching goes away when B fouls, so the foul will be enforced 15 yards from the previous spot. A 1/10 @B-30, PC 25, snap (since the previous play was a kick). And B55 is disqualified for the remainder of the game.

Bobby, “forcible contact” is an element of all targeting, but, it isn’t an ‘indicator.’ The indicator, in this case, is the leading of the shoulder by B55. But, all of the elements exist: (1) forcible contact to the (2) head/neck area of a (3) defenseless (4) opponent, with an (5) indicator (leading with the shoulder). Even though A17 does not have rouging the passer protection (because he moved out of the Tackle Box before he kicked the ball), he is still a kicker, by definition, and is, therefore, a defenseless player, and has 9-1-4 protection.
The ball had been kicked when the Team B foul occurred, so it occurred during the kick play portion of the down, and before the kick ended. The legally kicked ball crossed the NZ, and was untouched by Team B when illegally recovered by A99, thus, the natural result of the down is Team B’s ball at the dead-ball spot (i.e., Team B will next put the ball in play).

Does any of this have an effect on the ruling?

[TxJim]

4/5, B-45, 4:00 (3), A=14, B=21. A17 receives the snap and moves five steps to his right, then pulls up and kicks a low kick to the B-10 where, untouched, it is recovered by A99. Just after A17 kicked the ball, B55 led with his shoulder and blocked A17 to the ground with forcible contact to A17’s head/neck area.

Ruling:

As Elvis has pointed out in the past, a general problem with writing plays is we sometimes leave out essential content that we actually, hopefully do judge appropriately with the rule statement when we see it. We need to try to get those facts in there if they have material impact. I've seen some younger officials in JV games forget sometimes there are two components to targeting. When I ask what they have, they will consider 'to target' and making 'forcible contact' to be synonyms and not different words, different meanings, and both that have to be present to unequivocally make it a foul.

So, to be grammatically complete, I think the question should read:
"Just after A17 kicked the ball, B55 led with his shoulder and blocked A17 to the ground with forcible contact to A17’s head/neck area that went beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

It's clear there is a bigger reason for asking this question and I'm excited to see the discussion about it.

[Stinterp]

Elvis, I think you're getting to why is this not a PSK foul?
In the statement of the penalty, under 9-1-16 a, any other personal foul against the kicker who is in the act of ot just after kicking the ball would qualify as a previous spot enforcement with an auto 1st down.

[ElvisLives]

As Elvis has pointed out in the past, a general problem with writing plays is we sometimes leave out essential content that we actually, hopefully do judge appropriately with the rule statement when we see it. We need to try to get those facts in there if they have material impact. I've seen some younger officials in JV games forget sometimes there are two components to targeting. When I ask what they have, they will consider 'to target' and making 'forcible contact' to be synonyms and not different words, different meanings, and both that have to be present to unequivocally make it a foul.

So, to be grammatically complete, I think the question should read:
"Just after A17 kicked the ball, B55 led with his shoulder and blocked A17 to the ground with forcible contact to A17’s head/neck area that went beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

It's clear there is a bigger reason for asking this question and I'm excited to see the discussion about it.

Jim is correct in highlighting the difficulty in crafting questions that lead to the one singular desired conclusion.
In this specific case, the truth is, the term "Targeting" - as defined in 9-1-4 Note 1 - is all that is needed to communicate that the action includes all of the elements and criteria for this flagrant foul. So, if the author is not necessarily trying to make us decide IF we have a foul, but, rather, is only trying to make us reach the right - and complete - ruling, then the question could have been written: "Just after A17 kicked the ball, B55 led with his shoulder and targeted A17’s head/neck area, blocking A17 to the ground." With that, we can then move on to whether or not the contact was anything else, in addition to targeting, and what the penalty enforcement would be.

If the author wanted us to verify the elements and criteria for a targeting foul, then the question could have been written: "Just after A17 kicked the ball, B55 attacked A17 by leading with his shoulder and making forcible contact to A17’s head/neck area, blocking A17 to the ground." With that, we have all of the elements of targeting, including the level of contact as being "above and beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball," and we can conclude that this is, indeed, a Targeting foul. Then we would have to determine the right - and complete - ruling.

So, see the next post for a discussion of the ruling. 

[ElvisLives]

Elvis, I think you're getting to why is this not a PSK foul?
In the statement of the penalty, under 9-1-16-a, any other personal foul against the kicker who is in the act of ot just after kicking the ball would qualify as a previous spot enforcement with an auto 1st down.

In full disclosure, I did not "invent" this down. It came from another source, although I doctored it a bit in my first post to clarify some things needed to allow us to more accurately determine the ruling. Now, I admit that I deliberately edited the question to assure that it had all the elements of one type of penalty enforcement (as you have noted), knowing fully well that such enforcement would be incorrect. So let's dive into it a bit.
The first thing we have to do is make a ruling regarding a possible Roughing (RRK)/Running Into (RNK) the Kicker foul. A17 moved outside of the tackle box (a fact that could have/should have been made more clear) before he kicked the ball. By doing so, he lost his 9-1-16 Roughing/Running Into the Kicker protection. So, there is no foul for Roughing/Running Into the Kicker.
However, B55's contact on A17 is described well enough that we can rule a 9-1-4 Targeting foul. So what's the penalty and where is it enforced?
Once we recognize that this is not RRK/RNK, then the foul is classified as (9-1-4) Targeting (TGT), only. The tendency by many, at this point, is to follow the penalty statement associated with TGT, which says that TGT is "15 yards," and makes no mention of the enforcement spot (for live-ball fouls). 10-2-1-a tells us that, when no enforcement spot is specified, the enforcement is by the 3&1 principle from the Basic Spot. 10-2-2-d-4 tells us that the Basic Spot for fouls that occur during the kick play portion of a down is the previous spot, UNLESS the foul is governed by post-scrimmage kick (PSK) rules. So, is this foul governed by PSK rules? I'll shorten this discussion a little bit by stating that ALL of the elements required for PSK do, in fact, exist. (See my reply to dammitbobby at 11:25pm last night.) So, again, the tendency is to think that this is PSK enforcement.

Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. And getting to the correct enforcement is a bit indirect. But, let me take you directly to it. Go back to the penalty statement for 9-1-16-a. That penalty statement says that the penalty for RRK/RFH OR ANY OTHER PERSONAL FOUL AGAINST THE KICKER or HOLDER is 15-yards from the previous spot, plus a first down.

So, there you go. 15 from the Previous Spot, and auto-first for Team A. (And, being a legal kick down, the play clock is set to 25-seconds, and the game clock will start on the snap.)

Hope this helps.

[dammitbobby]

Bobby, “forcible contact” is an element of all targeting, but, it isn’t an ‘indicator.’ The indicator, in this case, is the leading of the shoulder by B55. But, all of the elements exist: (1) forcible contact to the (2) head/neck area of a (3) defenseless (4) opponent, with an (5) indicator (leading with the shoulder). Even though A17 does not have rouging the passer protection (because he moved out of the Tackle Box before he kicked the ball), he is still a kicker, by definition, and is, therefore, a defenseless player, and has 9-1-4 protection.
The ball had been kicked when the Team B foul occurred, so it occurred during the kick play portion of the down, and before the kick ended. The legally kicked ball crossed the NZ, and was untouched by Team B when illegally recovered by A99, thus, the natural result of the down is Team B’s ball at the dead-ball spot (i.e., Team B will next put the ball in play).

Does any of this have an effect on the ruling?

Thanks for correcting me - I was rushed, trying to get some other work done and write this out at the same time. I did mean to put leading with the shoulder as the indicator.

[Stinterp]

Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. And getting to the correct enforcement is a bit indirect. But, let me take you directly to it. Go back to the penalty statement for 9-1-16-a. That penalty statement says that the penalty for RRK/RFH OR ANY OTHER PERSONAL FOUL AGAINST THE KICKER or HOLDER is 15-yards from the previous spot, plus a first down.

It should be noted that the timing of this foul is importatnt.  The foul must occur against the kicker who is in the act of ot just after kicking the ball,  if the kicker is fouled after he has clearly kicked the ball, then this would not under 9-1-16 a.

[ElvisLives]

Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. And getting to the correct enforcement is a bit indirect. But, let me take you directly to it. Go back to the penalty statement for 9-1-16-a. That penalty statement says that the penalty for RRK/RFH OR ANY OTHER PERSONAL FOUL AGAINST THE KICKER or HOLDER is 15-yards from the previous spot, plus a first down.

It should be noted that the timing of this foul is importatnt.  The foul must occur against the kicker who is in the act of ot just after kicking the ball,  if the kicker is fouled after he has clearly kicked the ball, then this would not under 9-1-16 a.

Yeah, we gotta gotta know our definitions, and a foul against either the kicker or the holder AFTER the kicker has regained his balance is not a foul under 9-1-16-a, but certainly can be other personal fouls, which would be penalized according to the penalty statements for those fouls. This includes a kicker who has lost his 9-1-16-a protection by moving outside the tackle box before kicking the ball.
While a foul may not qualify for RRK, a facemask foul, a striking foul, a horse-collar tackle, a tripping foul, or, of course, a targeting foul, while he is still the kicker, would qualify for 9-1-16-a penalty enforcement at the previous spot. But, for example, a blindside block - with, or without, targeting - while the kicker is running down the field following the kick would follow the penalty statement for Personal Fouls or Targeting, as appropriate. Neither of those statements specify an enforcement spot for live-ball fouls, so, they follow 10-2-2, which could lead us to 10-2-3 (PSK), or 10-2-2-d (end of the related run).

Really good discussion.