I'm not going to claim to have an affirmative answer. I've always followed the rule language and the ARs. I don't rely on Redding's Guide (have never actually owned one). But, if the language in that Guide example actually uses the expression, "...crosses NZ...," by definition, that means that the legally kicked ball has been touched by Team A anywhere beyond the NZ; has touched the ground anywhere beyond the NZ; or has been touched by Team B in flight more than 3 yards beyond the NZ (i.e., not "blocking" by definition). If we are to be guided by this example (as presented by Chief), then that would seem to indicate that the rule may not be as we - well, I, anyway - think it is.
In all honestly, I've always understood this rule to mean: once the ball has officially crossed the NZ, then illegal batting and kicking no longer carry the loss-of-down component of the penalty. But, the rule language, taken at its English language face value, technically, means something else. Nowhere in the rules does it say, or even imply, that the NZ "goes away" once the ball has crossed the NZ. That being the case, the fact that the kicking/batting penalty statements say, "Exception: No loss of down if the foul occurs when a legal scrimmage kick is beyond the neutral zone," may not mean what we have thought it to mean. Note that it doesn't say, "when the scrimmage kick has crossed the neutral zone." It says ,"..when the scrimmage kick IS beyond the neutral zone." If that language is taken at face value, then Redding's guide example makes sense. The foul occurred when the legal scrimmage kick was beyond the NZ.
While I've not known about Redding's Guide example until now, I have been aware of this language 'curiosity,' and have wanted to get a ruling from Redding before he vacated the Sec-Ed position, but never got a chance to pose the question to him.
The reason for the exception, as I have always understood, is because, once the ball has crossed the NZ, Team A gets no advantage by kicking/batting the ball because that is also illegal touching, and Team B could always invoke the illegal touching privilege. 10 yards plus LOD at the previous spot would be too much penalty, especially for a foul truly committed beyond the NZ. Note that this rule was created long before the ability to penalize Team A fouls at the spot where the dead-ball belongs to B, but it certainly applies, making the LOD component even more moot.
