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.

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.