to read those indeed.

You have an interesting interpretation, that hasn’t been part of the majority of targeting calls since the rule was written.

Time and time again targeting is called on players where the receiver suddenly crouched or ducked. Intent has never been part of the rule even though you’ve creatively interpreted it that way.

The basic rule is written thus:

“No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul.”

Another thing you’ve ignored is that the list of “indicators” is specifically noted to *not* be exhaustive. They are only a partial list of potential indicators.

Finally, “when in question, it is a foul”.

If that’s not targeting, the rule is fundamentally different than what has been enforced for years with the rule written as is.