You have the wrong end of the stick. I was asking people to stop dealing with this situation as if it were the expected outcome of jumping to catch the ball, and claiming it means we should ban all such activity. I think everybody agrees that Hearn's injury does not mean we need to ban tackling any more than the well known legal cases of scrum injuries mean we should ban scrummaging. I would like people to stop using this particular case as a basis for demanding a radical change in the laws.Strange that you bring this example up, when the same argument could easily be applied in this case in defence of Russell.
Russell's actions were legal. Biggar's actions were legal. The result was unfortunate.
I have consistently said that Russell got it wrong; that can make a player culpable eg the IRB reference to "reactionary" high tackles in relation to penalty tries.
At one time it became the practice to jump for the ball with a foot stuck out in front of you. I attacked this as unacceptably dangerous play, and fortunately it has been treated as such, so the practise has ceased.It appears to me that the 'best' way to mitigate this risk is for all players competing for a kicked ball to be held responsible for their decisions and not just the one on the ground.
You must have missed the posts where I said a discussion about the general situation was reasonable. What I object to is people attacking officials by claiming they should have dealt with the situation according to a different set of rules from the ones currently in place.Perhaps if you stopped falling back on the argument of 'this is how it is currently adjudicated' you could see the value in this incident being a catalyst for a close look at how the current interpretation fails to create more safety in some situations and could be revisited.