If it wasn’t targeting then they should rewrite the targeting rule and allow for all the justification people are now using to accept the ruling. I thought it was text book definition of what targeting was written to prevent. Hurting a defenseless player by making direct contact with helmet to helmet. I’ve seen targeting called when the helmet was not even involved with one of the two players involved. Yet, the intent to injure or “lay the wood” to an opponents head was still ruled as targeting. Game announcers even agreed it was likely targeting after watching the replay.