I seem to hold my breath every time they talk about targeting - especially the two yesterday.  Based on the rules, a targeting foul occurs if all elements are found:

1. Rule 9-1-3:

(a) A player takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
(b) An indicator of targeting is present.

2. Rule 9-1-4:

(a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14).
(b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area.
(c) An indicator of targeting is present.

So with both of those elements, it seems as if the referees made the right calls?

1) T. Mitchell - he seems to turn his head as the runner was going down and tried to lead with his shoulder - but incidental contact with the helmet / side of the helmet.  I'm assuming this was not targeting because it wasn't the crown and he didn't launch himself and it wasn't a defenseless opponent (running back)

2) L. Ransom - this one seemed a little closer - seemed to hit the guy in the shoulder and then his momentum carried his helmet into the receiver's helmet.  Was he defenseless?  Not sure - they said he made a football move for the catch...  was he taking aim to forcible with the crown?  I didn't think so...

With a lot of the ejections we've had (Bosa, Wade, etc) in big games - you'd think they would try and remove an subjectivity to it so players know what to expect.

I also don't know which commentator said it, but if you watch it slow enough, you're bound to see some targeting in it...