Targeting rule/penalties

So here's a reprint of the rule straight from the rulebook:

 

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4) No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14) Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.

So "targeting" as a verb (deliberately separated in the rule from initiating) implies a deliberate take aim (with "initiating" representing launching/hitting) at the head/neck area. Intent definitely matters. How going for the ball translates into intent to target a head area is beyond me. 

Anyway, in situations like that, would rather see a soccer-like system employed:

Yellow, if at all, if it's on the margins and intent isn't clear. Player stays on the field, maybe a second yellow in the same game gets you tossed.

Red if the player went headhunting. That's usually pretty clear-- the crouch, the launch, the hit. Player gets ejected immediately. 

I thought it was a bullshit call today.

It was a bad call, as were some of the PI calls on Michigan on the PSU TD drive. That said, it wasn't a close game and the call had no bearing on the outcome.

Huge miss on targeting in Stanford game.

Jesus that Stanford kid got laid out on a helmet to helmet hit. Replay booth doesnt fucking rule it targeting? This is getting out of line.

PSU guy nearly got the pick and was clearly going for a ball low to the ground.

Does he get called and ejected if he makes the pick?

I would change the rule to include only obvious kill shots. that play today was just football. it was offensive to me as a viewer that they called it a penalty.

If you're using the transitive verb "targeting", then you're saying that intent matters. The penalty isn't called "helmet-to-helmet contact", or "hitting the head"; it's called targeting. This simple fact seems lost on the NCAA, which is astonishing because they're the ones who made up and enforce the stupid rule.

I'm all for protecting players, especially their heads. But intent has to matter, because the objective of the rule is to change voluntary behavior--i.e., intent. Otherwise we end up with stupid calls like the one yesterday and Joe Bolden getting blocked into a targeting ejection. 

They won't revise it unless they're sued, because it's the lawyers who told them to do it in the first place (even a commentary in another game said this). They don't give a damn about player safety, which is impossible in football. Far too many of the ejections were totally accidental by the offending player, going for the ball like the penn state defender yesterday, or being pushed into someone like the UM player vs State last year. It's just a mess, horribly thought out, no common sense involved, they do nothing about the RBs or linemen butting heads every play, and it will quite possibly harm the popularity of football as a 'tough' sport or at least you will fewer and fewer quality athletes pursue careers on defense. It's just like quality DBs don't go to the PAC-12 cause they call PI if you even breathe on the receiver. I sure find myself watching a lot less of football. I am not unsympathetic to injuries (i would ban football for minors), but i find this the totally wrong solution. I have even seen a defender not dive to stop a touchdown out of fear of getting fucked by "targetting"