From what I understand if a player is held upright by two defenders, any additional defenders contact must be above the knees.

It doesn't matter if that contact is from the front, side, or back.

So which one was a cannonball then as the first contact of this one (which everyone keeps bringing up) is clearly on the hip/thigh.

I cannot believe the usual Wigan suspects are even trying to defend this. The very idea of a player is launching into that kind of tackle, regardless of specific point of impact, appals fans of seemingly all other clubs; but the likes of Wigg'n just don't seem to get it.

Explain why it is appalling to tackle a player at the hip please?

Soon you'll be suggesting players shouldn't tackle across the chest because it's too close to the head.

Here's a tip; watch Rangi Chase's cannonball that he got banned 7 games for, and then watch Powell's completely legitimate tackle. One is highly illegal, the other isn't. There is a line, as with every tackle. Take your faux outrage somewhere else.

All teams do this, I hate any late tackles, but this was above the knee.... Saddo is as usual in anti-Wigan-bile mode, have a day off muppet.

Contrary to the rabid knee-jerkers, making contact below the waist when a player is held isn't automatically a 'cannonball'. Many, many teams coach the 3rd man in to take the legs, but 99.9% of the time this simply means wrapping the legs up or making contact at the hip/waist to complete to tackle.

The actual law appears to beA defending player, in effecting a tackle, makes dangerous contact (either direct or indirect) with the supporting leg or legs of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle and who is deemed to be in a vulnerable position, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.'"

Agreed, outlawing contact of ANY sort isn't the solution, it's the ones that do the damage at the knee joint whether that be a 'canonball' hit at speed or indeed one that involves less force but is clear can/will do damage because of how a player is standing/being held up.
Yesterday at the KC there were a fair few tackles from third man in to bring the player down which in itself is common place, of which one was maybe on the very borderline of having potential for injury but players didn't react as far as I could see and no penalty.

What we do want is clear and concise re-iteration to the players AND coaches as to what is/isn't acceptable so they are in no doubt as to where their responsibilities lies. the RFL need to continue to be pro-active in their approach to keeping the sport as safe as it can be (not just be reactionary when a situation like Chase's comes up.) whilst ensuring that we do not remove all aspects of physical contact which some on here seem to want,

I think the one everyone keeps bringing up was the one on Tilse, not the one you have shown.

We have to stop the players using force in these situations. There's no need for it. All they need to is wrap up the legs, there's no need for any force. If they want to use force then they should go waist or higher to avoid injury. For me, when held upright, the ball carrier is in a vulnerable position like a kicker and should be afforded some protection. If they just wrap up the legs then there's no issue.

It's not about "eliminating contact", if you want to make significant contact then get there as first or 2nd defender and put a good shot in.
It's about eliminating sh|thouse contact that isn't necessary, is only designed to injure, and is cowardly.

It wasn't as bad as Chase's. Or anywhere near as bad as the chicken wing tackle he did on Crabtree earlier this year. That was bad, the way he kept pushing at the joint to apply more and more pressure. How he only got 2 games for that is beyond me!

Grow up. I started the thread and didn't mention any of the Wigan tackles, or Wigan as a club at all, so not sure why you feel the need to be so aggressive in defending it.

I don't care where the hit is if below the waist, what direction it's from or what the current rule is. I want any sort of impact on the legs when the upper body is held banned. It is the responsibility of the tacklers to ensure the player isn't maimed during the tackle. With spear tackles, it's the tacklers responsibility and the rules are clear. Why not with these types of tackles? Again, I don't care what the current definition of a cannonball tackle is, it's pretty clear it's dangerous and very soon we're going to see a player lose his career or his mobility and the rules will be changed.

Just change the rules so that if the upper body is held, you can only grab the legs. Put the responsibility on the tackler to ensure the upper body isn't delivered to the floor in an unnatural direction. I'll discuss the Powell tackle while you are so keen to claim it's okay. In that situation, upper body is held. Powell drives into the thighs, as mentioned it's not a classic cannonball because it's not on the knees. But it still drives the legs forward and the upper body cannot follow as it's held. So you risk the situation of the upper body collapsing down and ruining the knee joints or worse still the spine. On this issue I'm not campaigning against Wigan, although it was Maguire who brought it to this country and Wane has a responsibility to eradicate rather than continue to coach it, because other sides do it as well. It needs to stop before the severe injury, not after it.

Can you not see it would be a good idea if these kind of challenges weren't happening?

I'd like to see a ban on all intentional contact with the legs of a defender who is held standing up.

It completely eliminates the risk and it will also speed up the game.

I was always told to get good shoulder contact to ribs/kidneys if a man was held up in the tackle. Time to go back to this way of deliberately trying to injure an opponent?

What level did you play at?

He played for Wigan