Not more violent than your average tackle. It only looked violent because of the size difference and the fact he came at him from behind. He didn't launch into him, he didn't do anything that was unnecessary in the goal of tackling the guy with the ball. He simply ran through him. If you think that was unnecessarily violent, then football might not be the best sport for you to watch. No one in this argument is going to convince anyone else so I'm done pointing out the obvious.
Mate, you've read the rule and still don't see how it's a penalty?
And we can't see the obvious?
Their QB had his ribs cracked and lungs bruised because he was hit to the ribs with a helmet at full speed when the defender could have tackled with shoulder and arms.
The fact that there were other, less "dangerous" or "violent" options that would have had the same result is what brings the flag and the resulting injuries bring the fine.
We all agree that five years ago (hell maybe even just two years ago) it would have been a celebrated hit shown repeatedly on highlight reels, but times and rules have changed.
If you can't see that you should expect to be mystified and pissed off at the refs every single game... well more so than normal. (we all still have to put up with poo like the bogus flag against Keek from the same game)