Forget the Ratchford tackle, as that isn't relevant..

Do you think this technique should be banned? I for one personally think it should be, I feel it's more dangerous than an shoulder charge and the injuries are more serious, but what does everyone else think?

I dont think it should. the majority of the time the players are taking the back of the legs/knees in which is the natural way you legs bend. so for me theres no problems. as a kid I was always told to take the legs and I still do it to this day.

There's clearly an issue when players are held up and somebody comes in and takes a player down by tackling the knee area. Most tackles when they go low can take anywhere in the leg area so you can't outlaw tackling the knees, but you have to look at the extra men coming in to 'support' when a man's momentum has clearly been stopped.

I understand that it could be hard to judge which is dangerous or not, but then again, that's what refs are paid for

I'm getting really wound up with this 'I was always told to take the legs' garbage. Yes, kids are told to go for the legs first when tackling an oncoming attacker. Kids are NOT taught to take the legs while two of your own side hold the attacker in a upright position therefore rendering him a sitting duck.

Ok, so that type of tackle is currently legal, doesn't make it safe. Shoulder charges were legal last year but the powers that be saw fit to ban them as they have the potential for causing injury, this tackle should also be banned for exactly the same reason. Chicken wings were legal at one point as, I'm sure if you go far enough back, were spear tackles!!!

I'm also getting wound up with this 'that is the way that the knee bends so that tackle wont cause injury'. Well how do you control the subsequent fall to the ground? Taking the Ratchford tackle as an example, two defenders hold Ratchford up, Hansen takes his knees, the subsequent fall is ALWAYS going to be in a backwards direction from the knee up. This means that the weight of himself as well as the two defenders drop on the knee joint. This could result in the knee over extending, given that Hansens shoulder is directly behind the knee joint. Even if the shoulder wasn't there the ankle is at risk seeing is its immediately underneath the weight of three bodies with no movement. Of course Ratchford could always try to spin to avoid this crumpled heap but then, with stoods preventing his feet from rotating, the knee ligaments then become at risk.

Whichever way I look at it, going for anywhere in the leg area puts any immediate joints / bones at risk either a) directly from the tackle or b) from the subsequent fall.

This type of tackle needs banning immediately!

Then why were 2 other players going in high then, if the best way is to take the legs? The circumstances are usually as they were on Saturday night. Two men take the upper body of the ball carrier and stop any movement. This is the point where, as any movement or promotion of the ball has been stopped, the referee should call held. The third player then comes in and dives at the leg area, causing the tackled player to collapse and take the weight of all three tacklers to the ground with him.
If there's no problem, then how did Ratchford get a very nasty injury? I suppose that if it had happened to a Wigan player there would have been nothing said, it would just be part of the game.

this, I s going to post this exact post, Wigan going right up to edge of acceptance in these tackles, and justifying their use, when in fact it's something of a lottery where the tackled player ends up, it's been a bugbear mes mine with Harrison Hansen for 3 years now, I've seen him get down on all 4s to get into the knees of players, he practicallylives in other peoples socks.

balls to this, he hit the hip stuff, he was driving his shoulder into a stationary leg, that was bracing against a tackle going in the other direction.

it was all but a ric flair style chop block

harrison hansen shoulder charged ratchford's knees. it was an 'old fashioned' cannonball tackle that was outlawed in the nrl about two years ago.

while I cant condone westwoods old fashioned swinging arm hansens was a potential career ender. he should recieve a very long ban.

Which 2 defenders where holding Ratchford up? I've just watched it back again 51 minutes in and one defender, Mossop is in the process of tackling Ratchford up top. Hansen then comes in and hits Ratchford on the hip/ upper leg. not the knee. You can then see Ratchfords leg get caught in the turf and then he falls awkardly with Mossop on top of him. Hansen went in hard but it was legal as far as the rules of the game are concerned. He was the second man in, not the third as you seem to be suggesting, which is a big difference here. He didn't directly attack the knee joint at any point. Unless the knee joint is in the midrift somewhere.... Watch it again and it's clear to see. I'd agree to an extent that the way Hansen went in wasn't exactly controlled, But his initial contact was not with the knee, I've watched it atleast 10 times now and he hits the hip/thigh area, which happens in a lot of tackles. now unless you want to ban all contact with the legs I don't see what was wrong in that instance.

Ratchfords was just a very unfortunate incident. There was only 1 player in the tackle, Mossop, Ratchford was twisting trying to break the tackle and Hansen came in and hit him in the lower back/hip area. Ratchford collapsed down at the same time Mossop fell over him and Hansen slid down causing his left foot to be planted and unable to move.

I have been coaching for a very long time and you can find no reference point for anyone to demonstrate a tackle to be made by anyone taking a player low when held by other players. The current thinking is to have the first mean in clamping the ball and turning the player, the second man in attacking the other under the ball (normally side on under the rib area) and then the third man coming in taken everyone to the ground together. This then means the PTB is controlled and slow as the tacklers peel off, third man, second man, first man.

The only time the legs are taken is in a one man tackle from the side or behind. And this only happens when the line is broken and shape is lost.

These 'cannonball' tackles are designed to injure players often resulting in ligament problems which are easily career ending. End of and no argument.

Re: Robbo
hansen did not use his arms he used his shoulder to attack the legs of a held up player. regardless of whether he was 2nd or 3rd man in it was a dangerous tackle had he put his shoulder into Ratchfords chest he would have been penalised for a shoulder charge. there is now way you can defend that 'tackle'. I watched it twice if you have to watch it 10 times your just trying to convince yourself it was a fair tackle.

Hansens shoulder hit Ratchford in exactly the same place were Monoghan head hit Richards.

Ok, accepted. I haven't watched the reply, but will do once I pluck up whatever it is that I need to pluck up.

No-one is arguing over the legality of the tackle, or the fact the initial contact was thigh / hip area, even the most downheartened Wire fans aren't (well, i'm not), but the problem we all have is this kind of tackle and its potential to cause serious career ending injury. The fact you make reference to Ratchfords legs getting caught awkwardly in the turf is a direct result of the kind of tackle imposed. If that didn't happen, Ratchfords leg doesn't get caught and the guy remains uninjured, end of!

Of course we aren't suggesting that all contact with the legs should be outlawed but there is a difference to one on one (or even two or three on one) head on collision where at least some preparation can be made for the contact and complete vulnerability where, effectively, you are held still while someone takes your legs from clean underneath you at which point it becomes a lottery as to a) where the contact is made and b) exactly how the 'fall' pans out and c) how many bodies and therefore force is applied to any lower legs joints / bones on impact with the ground.

Monoghan obviously deserves a ban too then.

Are you suggesting that Monaghan viciously attacked Richards intentionally with his head?

You must really get wound up at the dreadful unlawful penalty given as Angel Benny Westwood caressed Blake Green with a loving stroke accross his cheek in an effort to show him just how much he cares for him.....
Two wrongs don't make a right, but the Hansen tackle was unfortunate rather than deliberate. He did not attack the knee's but the leg got caught underneath.
The thug on the field was and usually is, Westwood, despicable player who brings shame to the sport. How do you justify that. Tell your kids its ok if the ref does not see it?

Can you please clarify where I made reference to Westwood or in any way defended his actions?

I suppose the difference is thought that Green played on, Ratchford didn't. Are we not questioning the potential to cause career threatening injury? A punch to the face, as quickly as it happened in the tackle, was never going to end Greens career, Hansens tackle, on the other hand could easily have had that outcome!

Two wrongs don't make a right, but you're talking about something completely unconnected to distract and take the conversation away from a house tactic.

There's plenty of other threads for you to spill your bile over Westwood's swinging arm, this one isn't about it.

So Ratchford might have 'unfortunately' had his career ended?

It was back to the house tactics that McGuire introduced at Wigan a few seasons ago. It was a deliberate attempt to injure a player who's momentum had stopped. Thank he hit the hip, because if Ratchford had been upright as he was half a second before Hansen would have hit his intended target.

Well Ratchford didn't look too bad on Sunday in the Fox and Goose in Wigan in fancy dress singing on the Karaoke

I think it was his ankle ligaments that were damaged, not his throat.

How do you know where Hansen intended to hit?

Was it Solomona who was the victim of a bad tackle to the knees in the CC semi final a couple of years ago ? Protection needs to be given to players joints though by RFL directives if only for the fact that allowing such play to continue will result in an even bigger shortage of players in our game.