I disagree.
Your argument is that if something ends up being dangerous it is an offence.
So by logic, if I attempt a tackle on an opponent and in falling down he breaks his leg, I should be penalized.
I don't think that's right.
We can't live in a world of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Leaving aside the fact that I am
DEEPLY upside that you responded to Flish, but not to my response to your ruck analogy extension... :sarc:
We all know that rugby, as a physical game, carries some inherent risks. And as such, accidents will happen, as I (and others) have said earlier. In a game I did a little over a year ago, two players slid on a very muddy pitch to collect a loose ball - there was a clash of heads, resulting in two concussions and a broken skull (seriously!)... yet nothing illegal had happened, it was just an accident. Nobody (including the guy with the broken skull) claimed that I should dish out penalties or cards because of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
But for all that a physical game carries inherent dangers, the rules are in place to mitigate those dangers as much as possible - and we largely do this by shaping how players
choose to stop an opponent. Otherwise, we could all just go back to some sort of Shrove Tuesday / calcio antico free-for-all where anything and everything is OK.
What the player did in this video was dangerous because his
choice of tackling technique placed the ball carrier neck first onto the ground with force. While 9.18 specifically includes the word "lift", we can see from the way contact with jumpers in the air, etc. are treated, that causing a player to land on head/neck is viewed as dangerous in general (rightly IMHO). I therefore conclude that this tackle was dangerous, and hence liable to penalty under 9.11 or 9.13, take your pick.
As I said earlier, we should be creating an environment where players make the safer choice within the scope of the laws. He could have stopped the attack with a safer tackle, but
chose not to do so.
Safety >> Equity >> Law