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