There is not a singular risk. In rugby some risks come from intentional foul play or accidents (high tackles, disguised hits on static players players at rucks

There is not a singular risk. In rugby some risks come from intentional foul play or accidents (high tackles, disguised hits on static players players at rucks and mauls, scrum collapses, etc.) Others come from the constant, somewhat controlled impacts that exist in normal play. These can expose the tackler to the impact versus the individual being tackled. Any discussion on this topic needs to recognise how the game of rugby union has changed. It rapidly went from amateur to professional, but took some time for the current level of power and fitness to develop. You had powerhouses like Lomu in the 90s, but from the early-2000s you have legions of Ma'a Nonu level players. Safety protocols seem to be pushed down to the junior game more readily than the adult professional game. Much influence has come from rugby league which arguably has popularised particular styles of play that hadn't been used in union. There is much more that could be written about the historical changes, but it has made a big difference to safety while culturally making it harder to implement changes. Big tackles become what many viewers want to see in the game and this perpetuates both a style of tackling and bulking up that didn't exist before. Line speed is monitored closely and everything to improve this results bigger players moving more quickly which anecdotally results in more serious impacts. Authorities know it, but reducing it makes the game less exciting for TV audiences and there is less money to go around. It's a vicious cycle. There are clear and obvious changes which can be tested in the game, but pushing these through takes a very long time. A concern some have expressed is around impact/tactical substitutions (https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/08/14/grossly-negligent-lions-legends-call-for-end-of-finishers-and-impact-subs-to-make-rugby-safer/ https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/08/14/grossly-negligent-lion...). Adding a bunch of fresh players in soccer later in the game is common. The thinking carried over to rugby. It was attractive because you had chubbies like me at the front of the scrum who could perform higher over 40 minutes than the full 80 minutes. When you are adding huge Nonu-types into a game with tiring players then problems can occur. I can't imagine that changes will happen here rapidly. The junior game becomes an easy place to push changes. The argument is made that children are being protected, but then the changes don't bubble up. Encouraging low tackling under a certain age is good, but tactics need to come along with these rules. Head-on tackles can go higher head-on because you are trying to hold the player up or in place versus taking them down and possibly allowing them a few feet past you to touch the ball down for a try. It's all interlinked. In summary: yes, but it's up to the leaders to drive changes top down at all levels and accept that they may lose some revenue. (I played rugby all through school from 1992 to 1999 in Ireland and have followed local global play since. For all the sides of Nonu see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVpAjSN6Nc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVpAjSN6Nc and then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEKqoOdhM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEKqoOdhM0 - but, many other could be substituted in his place.)