I'm glad Russell is ok, and yes none of us want to see players getting hurt, least of all by foul play.
However the calls on this that the tackle was reckless/dangerous are wrong..on several counts.

Firstly the tackler makes a legitimate attempt at a tackle, it's very clear that he goes to wrap his arms around as part of the tackle.
Secondly, the 'height' of the tackle/impact point IS at elbow height, literally just above normal waist level.
I freeze framed it with inches between the players, Bridge is standing not a few feet to the right as seen in the original live angle so determining both players 'height' and the impact point is quite easy.
The tackler himself is in a stooped position (so TS call for players to bend their backs is valid already in this instance), he cannot do anything else with regard to that.

Thirdly, you cannot have an expectation of a tackler (or indeed an attacker) running in to deviate in that split second between a player being upright to one that might or might not be much lower. At the very very best with an expectation of an event happening it takes 0.7 seconds for the brain to 'react', this can easily be 1.5 seconds (there are plenty of papers out there if you want to check). Then the brain has to move the body that is in motion whilst trying to predict on the fly what an opponent is going to naturally do (which is what happens in ALL aspects of the game including tackling). In this case the player has to react to something that unfolds in front of him (Russell misjudging the catch & having bent legs & leaning forward at impact) in too short a time for him to deviate. He could not predict or 'second guess' that Russell's body position would be vastly lower than normal.

To suggest he dipped or leant in to use the shoulder directly to the head is so far from what actually really happened.
I can understand why Wire fans might think it is, it's your player and of course you're being protective..we ALL want players to be safe, but we also need to understand that some outcomes ARE unavoidable in a collision sport. This was one of them.
Yes we want tacklers to take the majority of the responsibility to ensure the person with the ball doesn't get hurt illegitimately, (there is also a responsibility on the attacker too) personally I never felt the need to shoulder barge in my short career as a 2nd row but loved tackling as hard as I could. Yet I understand that nasty outcomes happen that cannot be avoided and the expectation that players can magically just fly out of the way or move their bodies in such a way knowing how an opponent is going to be positionally in a tackle is just not a reality.

As an aside, wearing of head gear has no validation with regard to protecting anything except cuts. Indeed head gear can potentially amplify the shock, increase brain rotation injuries and worse case makes players take more risks than without one or indeed (wrongly) legitimises them to play when they really shouldn't be..

Your first point was wrong so I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

tl;dr

Contact with the head = guilty charge.

I think the disdain with which the RFL regards high tackles & player protection was highlighted in last nights game. Bentham ,who i thought had a good game last night, just gave a penalty for the high tackle on Ratchford whereas Rhys Evans walked straight away for what the ref said was a professional foul. I don't know if the ref had been talking to the teams during play & warning about holding down though.

www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5820 And here's the evidence, clear as daylight

www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5820 And here's the evidence, clear as daylight

Selective angle to suit agenda.
You want to show the front now?

Irrefutable!

That video shows there was no attempt to tackle Russell ,just a straight forward shoulder charge. Surely the match review panel could see that.

It shows there was also opportunity to pull out too, like Myler did in the same match.