Why wouldn't we enforce it?
I'm sure that most of us were aware of this interpretation, this is one of those case plays that interpret a very specific but rare situation and could be considered "classic", and received a lot of attention when it was first published. I believe that previous to this "new" interpretation, the old interpretation was the opposite, the touch, even though it was an illegal touch, during the kick was considered to have ended the throwin, thus allowed the alternating possession arrow to be switched.
I actually had this play once, in a prep school freshman game, where my partner was brand new. I had ruled the old way, he came over to me and reminded me about the brand new interpretation (he was brand new, so it was the only interpretation he knew of), so I changed my call.
Coach asked us a polite question, and I explained that it was a new interpretation, and we moved on. While coaches are more than willing to argue about subjective calls, they seldom want to argue about stuff "deep in the weeds".
The situation reminds me of another "classic" reversal, another interpretation of a very specific but rare situation when a jumper illegally catches the jump ball (not an illegal touch on the way up (different interpretation), but an illegal catch). In ancient times, this was considered a possession, an illegal possession, but still a possession, so the offending team lost the ball and lost the alternating possession arrow. Now the interpretation is different, the offending team loses the ball but gets the alternating possession arrow.
I have often stated that learning the rules is the easy part, but for veteran officials, the stumbling blocks are the rule changes, and the longer one officiates (for example, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.), the more changes (or reversals) accumulate, and the more difficult for one to remember the rule.
There is a limited amount of space in veteran's dinosaur-like, walnut-sized brain.
