I couldn't agree more, with a few caveats, and I'm someone who has enormous problems from brain trauma incurred playing rugby. The worst problems are from repeated sub concussion blows. These still happen all the time in a rugby match. The law changes might remove 5-10% of these? Barely better than nothing, but if you then conclude that rugby is now "safe" for brains due to your law changes it is now probably more risky to potential players, mainly kids whose parents allow them to play.
I think the only positives surround post concussion syndrome (basically feeling mangled for 1+months at a time) and 2nd impact syndrome. A guy like Tom Curry is still playing, but everyone knows the risk given his concussion history. He's at high risk for PCS IMO given he's had 5+ documented concussions. He's still playing, but at least people know this is risky behavior.
It's still a farce though when a Wales player can be visibly knocked out and then allowed to carry on playing. There's no foolproof "test" the physio can do when they come on either. He may feel completely fine and be 100% responsive, but that doesn't change that he was unconscious two minutes ago.
All and all it's mostly a farce and issuing huge penalties to players who accidentally hit someone's head will make no material impact on head trauma. It is trying to lay blame on "bad actors" for what is actually a systemic problem. It's completely unfair to the players who get banned, fined etc., as well as the fans.
It'd be like designing a road that is completely dangerous, with random giant potholes, lanes that suddenly end, poor signage, but then throwing the book at drivers who crash. Then declaring, because of your harsh penalties, that the road is now "safe."
Sorry to read that you'd had your own personal experiences here mate - but glad to know you're still loving and advocating for the game.
I disagree with a fair bit of this however. The examples of Tom Curry and Botham are interesting too. Tom Curry is likely receiving a lot of specialist advice we're not privy too - and while I'm not an expert in this, I know in the UK there have been examples of players being medically retired, and their playing registration cancelled (Referee Nic Berry's playing career ended this way). All this to say he's probably being monitored and not there quite yet, despite his apparent risk, but when he gets there the decision will likely be made for him.
Botham on the other hand I'm questioning what Doleman thought he saw, purely because there are several cameras that an independent doctor sitting on the sideline monitors for such incidents. I can't fathom that in all of the stoppages we had around that moment, that the doctor wouldn't have seen what Doleman thought he saw (either him KO'd or the hit that apparently caused it) - but again, can't be sure. Not a dig at Doleman either, I think he did the right thing by stopping the game - but he would be looking at a 1000 things at once, head and eyes moving so may have not processed what he thought he saw, correctly.
I also don't think it's a farce to ask defenders to just aim lower to avoid accidental head contact, which is the main contention of the Kerevi hit and why his Red Card was upheld. If Kerevi was just a fraction lower, it would have be completely safe - and he agreed this in his hearing.
Head Injuries are a very real, existential threat to the game - whether it be a litigious threat, or parents determining that it's too dangerous for their kids to play. Rugby needs a credible defense when the games leaders are forced to front a judge (which will happen).
To use your road analogy, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that rugby is safe, or somehow even safer now we've introduced these heavy penalties. There is no reasonable way to completely fix the road so we're just asking people to slow down to avoid the giant pot holes here, as the only other option is to completely close the road entirely.
