I've already justified my point but you've just ignored it.
The physiology you explained is wrong because you said it impossible for the tackler to keep his opponents hands down. Its not because if you're strong enough you can do it. It causes rolling mauls because this rule makes it easier to tackle, and constant tackling is the main source of the rolling maul. Its being coached incorrectly because tackler wouldn't give away so many frees if it was.
These are all points I've mentioned before that you seemed to have ignored.
You've taken one sentence, and ignored the context of it, then responded to it. That's called disingenuous. You have not responded to the physiology aspect in the slightest other then "if you're strong enough you can do it". It's not to do with strength at all (you also seem to be mistaken that the tackle is completed then slips high, the shrug occurs before the tackle is fully applied, hence the tackler is in a 'weak' position)
If a player attempts to get out of a tackle, and doesn't, and gets head high contact, play on is called, this means the player has had prior opportunity, he needs to dispose of the ball. You seem to just be using a shock jock catch phrase to justify it.
Should we also get rid of push in the back in marking contests? I mean using your logic if the player at the front was strong enough they wouldn't be pushed over so easily.
You see against n you just assume, I never once said that I am an expert in sports science, it plays a role in all sports. But one thing I know like the back of my hand is the sport itself, I have lived it and breathed it as a player and coach for near on 40 years. Now I will say I stepped away a couple of years ago because relating to the young men these days got much harder for me. I could get them to play and work through different game plans but I struggled in the end with understanding their excuses and life is so tough for them World.
Back on point working in sport does not mean you know why a tackle slips high or a tackle that is pinned and held. We all know a very very small minority milks for some kicks but that is just the way it is.
I am not wrong, I just don't agree with you.
You mocked "sports science" and assumed that I was a 23 year old Uni student who had never kicked a ball. Hard to backtrack now.
Working in sports doesn't mean that. Of course. But an understanding of physiology and exercise science is going to be the best route to take. It's scientific in nature, anecdote doesn't trump science (although you haven't actually refuted the science. You've just said you disagree with it)
All of this is also ignoring that their doing the smart thing and tackling the largest amount of mass on the body
The post seems all over the shop, sounds like you just have a problem with young people from it.
If the player tackled can force that tackle high then of course it's a bad tackle.
Again, that's incorrectly working off the theory that the tackle is completed when it's forced high, it's not, when lunging or reaching for a tackle your arms are in a weaker position than the person you're tackling. The shrugs and ducks don't occur once a tackle is fully applied
You want players damned if they do, damned if they don't. Cyril tackles the wrists at times, and cops flak for potential injury, a player tackles higher and gets shrugged and gets flak for "weak tackling"