That's nonsense. It assumes that the tackler has much more control both mentally and physically over a high speed collision than any normal human could possibly have. This isn't a situation where there are several seconds of grapple to process thoughts in. It's not a predictable head-on collision where he can prepare in advance. He's reacting to a fast, elusive man. He's simply trying to bring him down. He has almost no time to think, let alone position his body in the cynical way bring alleged.
I've made that sort of tackle dozens of times, and have been tackled like that dozens of times. It's a tackle. That's all it is. We need to be able to distinguish between the outcome of a tackle and the intent behind a tackle, as they are absolutely not the same thing.
Just consider, for a moment, the implications of what you're saying and what this ludicrous decision implies: that the tackler is always in full control of the collision at all times, and can choose exactly where his body ends up when reacting in a split second to a high-speed collision. If that is the case, then why would a tackler -ever- miss a tackle? Why would a tackler -ever- get hurt themselves? Why would a tackler -ever- require assistance from a teammate? Because if they are always in full control, none of these things would -ever- happen.
We're through the looking glass here. Rugby League is an intense collision sport. The human body is breakable. There is no way we can avoid injuries like this without abolishing the tackle altogether. We need to accept risks if we play. That's rugby.