It's just that the word "enforcement" is usually associated with penalties in football.

In Fed the wording of the provision (6-1-8) is anomalous, in that it states a "shall not" in the opening sentence, and references "penalty" for the act in choices a & c., and is apparently included in the "PENALTY:" portion of 6-1, and AFAIK can still be offset by an opposing live-ball foul, but 6-1-8 choice b doesn't act like it's part of the usual penalty system. In fact it looks most like a team making choice b is declining a penalty.

It would be better if b and c were combined to say, "Decline the penalty and put the ball in play at the inbounds spot either where the ball went out of bounds or 25 yards beyond the previous spot." Then in case of a live ball foul by R, 10-2-1b would apply, precluding team R from taking choice 6-1-8b. And if the rules writers were really thorough, it'd say "25 yards beyond the previous spot, if that puts the spot in the field of play."

BTW, I've been installed as the rules editor for the American Sevens Football League. They needed one badly.

Placing the ball 25 yards from the free kick line (30 yards in NCAA) is a penalty enforcement. It's listed as one possible option in the penalty section of the rule.

It's not subject to half the distance because it's not a yardage penalty, it's an awarded spot.

NCAA at least says the act or event "is a foul", and then by its definition, the "result imposed by rule" is a "penalty". But then they need to either make this an exception in 10-2-6, or explain in 6-2-1 that the 30 yards is not a "distance penalty".

They've been exceedingly clear. They don't need to change the wording because just one person on the planet thinks it could be worded differently.