I agree with you and in general that unless patently obvious to the casual observer, which means one ignores the homers or the opposing fans for purposes of the determination and leaves it to the officials and the neutrals, we should not be in the general business of focusing on determination of intent in officiating rather than what is actually done, including most especially when the offence is serious and one that either causes serious injury or even was merely an unsafe act such that serious injury was at risk.
The problem regardless of intent is the offending player’s habit or instinct of play. THAT is what has to be corrected regardless of intent.
The rugby example you provide is an excellent one. Players are held to the higher standard for their conduct regardless of intent when their play goes really bad. The favourable results are there now after players have adjusted their play over time.
I’ll give a recent example of a favourable change in soccer for comparison.
Yesterday in a UEFA Champions League soccer / the other football match for example, as is another change in officiating in this era under VAR but one that has gone for the better, a Bayern defender was sent off in the second half for a late and reckless challenge that involved a stab and stomp on the ankle of the attacker, who was also in the goal area so as to make it a penalty and rare double jeopardy for the offending team, which is worse.
In recent times usually when a penalty kick is given in soccer after a serious foul in the goal area, to avoid double jeopardy the offender is merely given a yellow and warning, but nope, on this occasion it was an unsafe act regardless of the offender’s actual intent.
At one time in officiating in soccer, the focus was largely on intent for such acts. There were numerous serious injuries over the years and sometimes yellows were given and sometimes merely a foul whenever the intent was not clear or doubtful. Of course many defenders know well how to play the game to get away with a “hard one”, including that involved a deliberately unsafe act whether playing the ball or not.
That era is less the case. For example, a defender can no longer approach a player with the ball in a stabbing or stomping motion, even to claim play of the ball and EVEN if winning the ball, and then when the act lands the stomping foot on a player’s ankle or higher to foul him, then play the innocent “just playing the ball” act.
It’s for the better with such a change to judge the act, not focus on the actual intent, and there has been a marked improvement in defending and player safety for the better.