Standardise the following argument/counter-argument, and state whether any premises on the same level are linked or convergent. Include any counter considerations.

Some commentators are saying that the stalking tackle should be banned from rugby league because it is unfair if a player is incapacitated and still open to attack as this places players unfairly at risk of injury.  However, the traditionalist's say that although some players might get injured, the tackle shouldn't be banned since rugby league is a team sport, so incapacitating an opponent in tackles for your team mates is a fair part of the game.  Also, they claim that if you are worried about injuries you shouldn't be playing rugby league in the first place. 

Target Argument: (Some commentators)

1.1 Being incapacitated and still open to attack places players unfairly at risk of injury

1. It is unfair if a player is incapacitated and still open to attack

C. The stalking tackle should be banned from rugby league

Counterargument: (Traditionalists)

[cc] Although some players might get injured

1.1 Rugby league is a team sport

1.    Incapacitating an opponent in tackles for your team mates is a fair part of the game [x1]

2.    If you are worried about injuries you shouldn't be playing rugby league in the first place

C.   The tackle shouldn't be banned

Premises 1 and 2 of the counterargument are convergent.