How do you know where Hansen intended to hit?

He bent his back as far as he needed to make a legal tackle around the hips. Ratchfords damage is to his ankle ligaments. I don't know if he was wearing blades but they appeared to get stuck in the turf as he felt the force of the tackle. The cannonball tackle is usually one from the side that hits the knee/lower leg, Hansens certainly wasn't one of those.

-legal tackle or not ,if you watch it back you can actually see the *intent* in his eyes when he went in for that *tackle* on a player who was not only already held in the first tackle , but was also--stationary-- at the time of the second *tackle* !sooner that type of tackle is banned the better imo.

I’m not going to get too involved with the Hansen tackle debate because it doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere and just seems to be divided on which club you support lines, having said that I must say that your “you can actually see the *intent*in his eyes” is the most bizarre reasons for thinking there was any malice intended. I can only say like everyone else if a player does a tackle deemed bad enough to be classed as career ending to another player, that player should have the proverbial book thrown at him. End of.

Go away you strange fellow.

Hanson's effort to grab any part of Ratchford's lower limbs was feeble to say the least & he actually made contact with the shoulder on Ratch's back/hip ,the shoulder then slid down towards Ratch's knees & Hanson's arms missed the legs altogether.