Targeting confusion

In the first quarter of last weekend's game, an MTSU defender (#1) put a nasty hit on BB3 at the end of a run. Targeting was called on the field, but the call was overturned by the replay official. There was a brief debate in the gameday thread where I said that I didn't think it was targeting based on my real-time view of the play. Now that I've re-watched the clip, I came back to admit that I was wrong, but then I re-read the NCAA rule on targeting, and now I'm more confused than ever.

The hit in question took place at the 4:47 mark of the first quarter:

Targeting is covered in Rule 9, Section 1 (Personal Fouls) of the NCAA rulebook:

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below)."

The defender didn't lead with the crown of the helmet, so I don't think ARTICLE 3 applies. Up next:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) 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).

Note 1 in the rulebook gives some common indicators of targeting, including launching, leading with the crown of the helmet, or leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area (emphasis mine). I initially said that I didn't think this hit was targeting because the defender didn't make forcible contact to the head or neck area; it looked more like the back to me. Watching the clip above in slow-mo, I was obviously wrong. I don't think it was the defender's intent, but his shoulder clearly makes contact with the back of BB3's neck and thus we have the required indicator of targeting.

However, ARTICLE 4 also requires that the hit involve a defenseless opponent. Note 2 starts by saying that "When in question, a player is defenseless", and then goes on to provide a number of examples of defenseless players, including: a player who has just thrown a pass, a player who has just caught a pass and has not yet had time to protect himself, a player in the grasp of an opponent whose forward progress has been stopped, or a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst. (emphasis mine).

On the play in question, BB3 has clearly given himself up, but is NOT sliding feetfirst. Therefore, while there was a clear indicator of targeting (forceful contact to the head/neck), it wasn't targeting because the player who had obviously given himself up wasn't defenseless (because he didn't slide), despite the "when in question" guidance. Do I have that right?

If so, it's no wonder that this rule isn't called consistently...