Is this rule change the answer ..time will tell...are we going in the right direction ...YES
Eliminating UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL hits from our game is, and always has been, a positive idea, worth pursuing. Overreacting, and using a meat cleaver to slice off bad behavior is using the wrong tool to accomplish the goal.
Emphasis has always been on the actual mechanics of the contact, was the contact itself somehow illegal, unnecessary or dangerous, rather than ignoring what actually happened and reacting to the sound, ferocity or result of the contact alone. "De-cleating" is NOT the issue, what specific action was delivered to cause such severity is, and always has been, the problem worthy of correction.
Over reaction to generalized, and often inaccurate and unsubstantiated exaggerations, by external critics serves primarily to add fuel to illconceived fires. Extending clearly recognized descriptions to situations that have never previously qualified, doesn't necessarily help clarify ANYTHING.
A "defenseless" player has been clearly understood to be; a kicker, additionally vulnerable because of the actual action related to kicking, a passer, focused on the act of passing, a snapper, focusing on completing the long snap, and ANY other player who has ceased actively participating in the game, and not otherwise paying attention to the storm surrounding him.
Any player, however, who has ended these special vulnerabilities and has CHOSEN to fully participate in the normal and general actions of the game, deserves ALL the protections afforded to any other player fully participating, as defined by rules.
The passer, who has totally completed all of the actions associated with passing, is given special protections until (NF:2-32-11) "the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play", at which time he is no longer a "passer" and returns to being a "player". When he CHOOSES to re-join and participate in the play, either as a blocker or a defender, whatever special protections he enjoyed as a "passer" have EXPIRED and no longer apply.
What determines if a contact is legal or illegal is, and should be, the manner and method of the contact and how the contact is delivered. That is an observation made, and judgment rendered, BEST by an impartial, trained and experienced official assessing the mechanics of the specific contact being observed and how it complies, or violates, specific rules designed for that specific circumstance, rather than some emotional reaction from a bystander, too often responding to some external agenda or objective.
Searching for a "One size fits all" solution, to address an infinitely different set of circumstances is unlikely to produce a satisfactory answer. Perhaps the understanding of a "cheap shot", much like the understanding of "beauty", is best determined, "In the eye of the beholder".