Flaps_50! writes:

Because the computers don't know actually know the relationship
between yaw, airspeed and allowable rudder input/structural load and
they are not required to.

They can be programmed to know this. And much of the reputation of Airbus
rests upon its implicit and explicit claims that their heavy computerization
of their flight decks somehow makes aircraft safer. But if the computer isn't
even programmed well enough to prevent something like this, how can it be
making the airplane safer?

Neither do most pilots when they step on the rudder pedals. Think
about it...

It would be tough for a pilot, but not for a computer.

There's a fundamental contradiction between claiming on the one hand that
computer-enforced limitations on control movements can prevent structural
damage, and then claiming on the other hand that computers should not be held
responsible for that enforcement. Either they protect the airplane or they
don't. If they are only creating the illusion of protection, then they need to
go.