Just as an extension, keep in mind that 'touching' and 'blocking' of a kick are different things. 'Blocking' of a kick (an attempt to prevent a kicked ball from crossing the NZ) up to 3 yards beyond the NZ is ignored. In such cases, a subsequent touch/catch/recovery by Team A beyond the NZ is simply illegal touching (ignored on a try or in extra periods), and Team B may elect the illegal touching privilege, or, more likely, elect to take the ball at the previous spot or B-20, depending on the location of the previous spot (i.e., unsuccessful field goal attempt, untouched by B beyond the NZ, 8-4-2).
Conversely, a kick that incidentally deflects off of a B player making no attempt to prevent the ball from crossing the neutral zone is 'touching,' and, if that touching is clearly beyond the NZ, Team A is eligible to touch the ball (ignored on try or in extra periods).
What would that look like? I would consider any low kick that strikes any B player in the vicinity of the NZ as being 'blocked,' rather than touched, even if the B player was simply engaged with an opponent, and not really making an attempt to block the kick. Not gonna split that hair. Team A needs a better kicker. On the other hand, let's say a Team B player blocks the kick at the NZ, and the ball deflects toward a linebacker and it hits him on the shoulder two yards beyond the NZ. That's touching of the ball by B, and now all Team A players are eligible to touch the ball.
