That's my only concern. Judging intent.
If they write the rules cleverly, though, they can make it more about accidental collisions versus after-the-fact meanness. If a ball carrier is already out of bounds or sliding and a defender is still on their feet, they should have time to react. You're still gonna have debates on the calls, but that's all sports.
Nate Gerry's back-to-back targeting calls against Iowa and UCLA are prime examples of how this rule could have resulted in 15yd penalties against Nebraska instead of an ejection of one of our defensive leaders:
Exhibit A: Nate Gerry vs Iowa
Gerry is already launching into a tackle when the receiver twists mid-air and brings his helmet directly into Gerry's line of attack. Targeting aside, this was a PHYSICAL tackle, which likely added to the refs' perception of targeting. Gerry wasn't trying to murder the guy. The ball carrier moved into a vulnerable position after the defender already launched into his tackle.
Exhibit B: Nate Gerry vs UCLA
This is an even better example of a non-malicious tackle. Gerry has more lead time on his tackle here, and he matches the ball carrier's body language and position. They collide evenly and the hit is clearly not a direct attack to the helmet. Gerry makes an effort to wrap up the defender while they are both upright, plus he also moves his shoulder so that there is not direct helmet-to-helmet contact. He's attempting to push his shoulder towards the ball carrier's face, which to me, shows that he's being even more careful from the last game to make a clean, wrap up tackle without any malice.