Obviously my view differs from everybody else on this as no one has mentioned it but..............why would one professional player tackle another in a fashion that could end a career !

Shocking haven't watched all the match yet but dipped in and I think it's appalling. Not the reason we lost but to loose a second back certainly didn't help

Thoughts!

Because its a snicker bar

If you are referring to hansen it was legal.

Why would a player deliberatly punch another in the face in the tackle?

Correct, the punch by Mr Westwood was terrible...

Just watched 1st half of the replay (can't face watching the 2nd half yet) but why were there no big screens at the match? anyone know why?

Might be legal but doesn't make it right.A punch in the face is hardly going to end a career unlike Hansen's tackle.

Sorry JK, I have to disagree with you.

I might be a Wigan fan, but I watched the tackle as objectively as possible.

The first contact is with the hip, so nothing wrong there.

The damage was caused when the 2 players hit the floor. Hansen accidentally lands with his full body-weight on Ratchford's ankle.
That's why Ratchford came back wearing a "boot", rather than knee-strapping. You can see it clearly during the medal presentation.

It was just one of those things - A pure accident that winds up with a (potentially) bad injury - In this case, either ligament damage or even a broken ankle.
Hopefully Stephan is fine good to go for next season for you guys. Good player.

Hansen hit the thigh nothing wrong with the tackle just unfortunate. Westwood was cowardly. Paul wood gets a mention for using knees on tomkins on around 49 mins.

Goin nursing my hangover now

Tony Smith doesn't think so! And I am more inclined to believe his opinion that most other people's

This is how I saw it too. I was raging at first, then saw it back on the big screen and sat back down.

Hansen's tackle was what they refer to in the NRL as a 'Cannonball' (3rd man in targeting the knee joint). Just as cowardly as a 'Chicken Wing' and could have ended Ratchford's career. He would be facing a lengthy ban down under, but the RFL will no doubt do nothing.

FWIW Westwood should have seen red, but as for all the Goon turds coming out of the woodwork making out he's dirty, they should just look at some of their own players. The high tackle on M Monas by Dudson (possibly McCillorum) in the 2nd half was just as bad, yet funnily enough there's no reference to it.

Except he was second man in and hit the guy in the backside/upper leg. So by your own description it's not what they refer to as a 'cannonball' tackle. You've cleared that one up yourself.

I agree why would Ben Westwood swing his clenched fist at a influential half backs eye socket during the biggest club game of the season.

I'd agree with you If H had actually targeted his Knee, But he didn't. he clearly makes contact with Ratchfords hip, Ratchfords foot then seems to get stuck and Hansen lands on the top awkwardly, Which is what caused the injury imo. no way was H going in with the intention to cause that injury.

McIlorrum was a bad high tackle but something that you see quite often. not quite the same as a pre meditated punch to the face of a defenceless player on the ground.

Westwoods shot was nothing but pure thuggery, add to that Mike Coopers attempt on Richards late on in the game and I don't think Wire can have anything to moan about as far as foul play is concerned.

Climb out of Tony's and form your own opinion.

It was a messy tackle but not illegal. Anyone who thinks Hansen went in to intentionally injure Ratchford is an idiot.

I did wonder what that big square thing in the south-west corner of the stadium was that appeared to show moving images....





Key wording here. Had Hansen 'cannonballed' into the knee or below, he'd be facing a sin binning for dangerous contact. This is because the knee joint only bends one way, and forcing it to do otherwise ends careers.

With hitting the upper leg, the 360 degree nature of the hip joint means that contact from any angle is less likely to cause serious injury.

Ratchford's injury was caused, not from Hansen effecting a tackle, but by the way Ratchford landed as a result of the tackle being effected. Players have landed funny in the past and injury has been caused, its a consequence of playing a contact sport known as rugby league.

i just wonder what the pie eaters would be saying if it was ratchford making the same type of * tackle* on tompkins?

I actually like a bit of biff - RL is a contact sport, players can get a tad over excited (you have to remember most of them are as thick as pige), and moments like the Westwood assault and Hansen's tackle happen...Take that type of stuff out of the game and you end up with a pale shadow of the game most on here love.

For what its worth, I think Hansen's tackle did have a bit of malice in it, but, in my opinion, don't a lot of the big hits that we see, and love, in a game?.... Most players go into a tackle with the intent of making an impact on an opponent - Some overstep the mark (Westwood), some, whether they admit it or not, want to slow down an opponent and lessen his influence on the rest of a game (Hansen).

The one thing that can't be doubted is that Ratchford's injury was the final nail in Wire's coffin - They were already rocking from Monaghan's departure, but that incident totally blew any gameplan they had, out of the water.

As I started the topic that might give you a clue as to my opinion, my comment re Smith was to suggest he agreed with me! and for what it's worth in my opinion it was not intentional but it was dangerous, and should have been punished as should Westwoods! But to me it was a game changer

Initially, watching live, I felt Hansen was way out of order but watching it back on the big screen I felt it was borderline careless rather than deliberate and it was more bad luck, rather than intent, that Ratchford got injured.

Not making excuses, and didn't make any difference to the eventual winner of the game but the one incident in the game that really got my back up wasn't so much Hansens 'hit' on Ratchford, but Greens try. From memory I think it was the one that took them from 2 to 8 points in front. On two occasions before that try Warrington players had to go off/change shirts due to blood. Green scored whilst his face and shirt were covered in blood, by the standards that Silverwood had already set, Green should not have been involved in the play at that point of the game. (I appreciate the circumstances leading to the blood could be used to argue that we got what we deserved).

Smith agreed with you?



If you haven't noticed, RL is quite a dangerous game, there's a fine line between legal and illegal. The tackle was probably just on the legal side, hence why it wasn't punished.

Probably just on the legal side......as conclusive as that?

Probably just on the legal side......as conclusive as that?

Could say the same about Westwood on Green or several other tackles. It's all water under the bridge now, roll on the next meeting at OT eventually we will win it