Erm. No. No, those two points run absolutely opposite to what should be assumed in rugby per it's laws.
Firstly, the defensive player has a duty of care. Right - agreed? Fundamental tenet of the game for the past century and one of the first things you learn playing organised ruggers, right?
Secondly, rugby's rules are overwhelmingly outcome based. Again, this has always been the way it's been reffed, even if the examination of those outcomes has much changed.
Now with that in mind, consider that what the defending player can do does not come down to the very moment he did endanger the opponent, it's in the entire run up to it - he's not well placed to make a covering tackle, he leads too high, with his shoulder and back turned and therefore has little scope to execute a tackle in the correct technique - @Lewis there is no fucking way he could have wrapped. The correct tackle (if any) in the situation would be aiming under the ball, looking to rip, or wrap on the ball itself preventing placement and supporting the diving players movement to the ground whilst preventing the ball going over the whitewash.
If you watch Rugby Union every week you'll see similar situations managed well by the tackler regularly.
You'll also see reds and yellows with less frequency, but where a similar outcome to that on Saturday occurs. It's pretty consistent.