First of all, your "rationality and logic" does not invalidate mine, so the veiled jab in unappreciated. I've not attacked you in any way, so keep it on point. I don't appreciate being patronized just because we have differing opinions.
Second, I disagree about any type of compromise rule. Just like you (euphemistic "you") don't create rules for what "may" happen, you don't compromise the existing game for what "might" happen if a sequence of events occur at some future time. Regardless of what some coaches (disadvantaged by the up-tempo game) are saying, there is no proof that this has anything to do with safety. If it was, then there would be a much louder clammer about cut blocking. Both the play clock and the blocking are part of the game. Players learn to adapt. Sabin, et. al. are looking to negate a competitive advantage that their opponents have used to level the playing field. They're not interested in a fair game, they're interested in winning. Anything they can do to improve their chances to win is fair game to them (and most any coach not named Dodd).
The way to limit fake injuries is to disqualify an injured player for a set number of plays after coming off the field. Currently, that number is 1. But if it becomes an issue (and not until it does), that number can increase until it becomes a hinderance for the defensive player to fake an injury.
I don't have all the answers, but I do know you don't legistlate away a legal strategy just because the opponent may break a rule to negate said strategy. To me that's illogical.
Yet you were proposing a rule change to prevent fake injuries from becoming the natural countermeasure to the uptempo offense by forcing defenses to sit out even longer than one play. That change is even more onerous than the rule change being proposed, since it would likely impact games in which uptempo is not even being used. Any player who gets injured legitimately now has to sit out for a longer time, simply to accommodate a gimmick offense that only a few teams are using? That change seems more extreme and disruptive than the compromise rule change that is being proposed, which allows both the hurry-up offense to be used and defenses to safely swap out fatigued players.