Concussion will always be a risk when playing high impact sport, through accident or intentional, the University of Boston have been world leaders in the study of CTE, especially within the NFL. Even with their protection it’s still very evident. I personally believe a bunker system would be far more effective then the new rules, which as you say have had to be brought in for insurance issues.

So to me, the only difference between what you say and what the rule says, is that they want to put a benchmark in to apply the penalty/yellow/red.
If you leave it to the bunker they'll just apply the same rule.

I was speaking to a current international coach this morning, he said the new rules will change everything, not only the way you defend but also attack and offload. Also it will be a penaltyafon leading to greater fatigue and more careless tackles. For me it will not only ruin the game, but not make that big of an impact on players physical welfare. The reason I said about the bunker is that how many incidents are missed through the game that would be picked up, players showing variable symptoms of concussion missed by a single ref, high shot, off ball stuff etc. You see the bunker pick up loads of concussed players just playing on as they have been missed by the match official but picked up by the bunker and taken off the field.

How would you tackle a small player who ducks into a tackle against a forward. It was difficult to avoid head high tackles within the current system so the new limits will make it virtually impossible.

That has to be included in the rules for me. If they are small, the defender needs to adapt. If they duck, it's on the attacker.

This is my biggest issue with the rules. There is little to no responsibility on the attacker to look after themselves (if they are going to follow the Union model). It’s all on the defender.

I watched a couple of games in the Union World Cup (all the paint in the house had dried) and there were 2 straight red cards in games where the ball carrier literally head butted the shoulder of the defender. The result was a red card to the defender who literally didn’t move.

We have to ensure that attacking players are not putting themselves in dangerous positions when making these penalty decisions not just focus solely on the actions of the defender in isolation.

Something that hasn't been mentioned here is the messing around they're doing with rules changes for the junior game, which I think could be more damaging to the game in the long run.

Where they'll be playing touch rugby till they're 10, I know I wouldn't have started playing for Eastmoor if that was the case when I was 7 and just carried on playing union but it was the amount of times you got the ball, made tackles and was just generally more physical that made it like RU but on steroids. I loved tackling and testing myself physically even at that age.
So basically it seems you won't start to learn how to tackle till you're in the U10s, which is nuts imo. Coaching had my tackling technique pretty nailed down by that age, if not before that tbh, as most half-decent players did. Then they're messing with the 10-meter defensive line which I don't have a major problem with at that age tbh, just means the attacking line will be deeper, as it generally is when you're younger. Under 10s fixtures will be a maximum of nine players per team with a 5-metre retreat by the defensive line; and Under 11s will be a maximum of 11 players per team, again with a 5-metre retreat by the defensive line.
From Under 12s to Under 18s, a trial will be held in at least one member league in 2024 to reduce the retreat by the defensive line to 7 meters, and to minimise knockout cup fixtures – with a view to more widespread introduction from 2025.

Who knows how all this is gonna affect the game in the next generation or two?

I agree with the principle of what you are saying, but the defender has to attempt to miss the players head.
If they go into the tackle upright and they catch the head, it's on them. They need to bend their back more.
Many head high tackles are just lazy defenders.

The Union ones where where the player was crouching.

The ball carrier had to literally head but the defenders shoulder there was a definitive movement from the ball carrier to throw his head at the opponents shoulder.

The emphasis for the tackle to be safe has to be the responsibility of everyone in the tackle not just the defender.

Like has been said, it’s how they police it that will decide it. There’s nothing particularly exciting about a tackle round the shoulders anyway. Give me a shoulder into the ribs any day of the week.

Simple rule: no penalty if attacker contributed to it, or if accidental.

But I’m with jonh. Greedy ex players jumping on the compo bandwagon have caused this. I came across one in my professional capacity and booze was a factor. But it gives the game a year to get it right. I’d like to think that there are enough smart thinkers to know that to grow a spectator sport, you need spectators. Interestingly, the NRL has got more popular as it’s got safer.

I must be missing something isn't it a penalty now if player hits the shoulder and goes up to the head. I honestly don't see an issue with the armpit rule.
What I will say is that when you compare the Union rules on it I couldn't get my head around it especially some of those red cards however over the games in Union it didn't appear a massive problem. That said some of those decisions for red from a yellow did appear to be more accidental than reckless when a player was was lower to the ground. Interesting times. Get rid of the 6 again and move the defence up should lower the initial contact speed and promote more flare in attack

Maybe the club could recruit a team of little people

or limbo dancers.