George Kruis was perhaps lucky to only see yellow for the below tackle against Gloucester – what do you think? Have a watch of the tackle and vote in the poll.
Video credit: Habi Aftabi
Loading ... Categories
Watch: should George Kruis have seen red for this tip tackle?
Saracens lock George Kruis was perhaps lucky only to get a yellow card for this tackle at the weekend – what do you think of it?
Loading ...
7 replies on “Watch: should George Kruis have seen red for this tip tackle?”
This tip tackle nonsense is getting out of hand. Yes, by the letter of the guidelines it should have been a red card, but 10 years ago this would be being lauded as a brilliant tackle!
I agree that they should be discouraged, but they should be put in the same class as high tackles: it’s a penalty offence, but let the referee judge whether a particular tackle is dangerous or not. As it currently stands players can be sent off for what is, essentially, a technical offence (Lloyd Williams springs to mind here).
No. Looking at that last replay, he seems to recognise the tip and make attempts to put him down safer.
In my opinion, he hasn’t driven him into the ground.
Borderline IMO. It’s not far beyond the horizontal and the tackler seemed to try and adjust to avoid. Reckless and deserves the yellow but I think the red would be up to the referee’s interpretation – which is what was used.
Must be Sarries supporters because it looked like it could have been a very serious injury if he hadn’t put his arm out to break his fall a very dangerous tackle must be a red.
I’m completely neutral in this case (actually a London Welsh supporter), but I don’t see this as dangerous. For all the fuss that’s made about tip tackles, there are far more injuries caused by perfectly legal play.
I agree that there is a potential for such tackles to be more dangerous than other types of tackle, so they should be penalised, but a card should only come out for particularly bad examples, as is the case with high tackles and no-arms tackles.
This ‘automatic red, but yellow if there are mitigating circumstances’ is nonsense, but under such a regime I’m surprised this isn’t a red card.
I’m sorry, but I can’t see how that isn’t a red card.
Kruis lifts in the tackle, intentionally tips (i.e. the tackled player doesn’t fall sideways, but is rotated by the tackler), drives through with his legs, and then drives the tackled player down into the ground. If the referee is discounting the influence of Halaifonua’s arm, then he must surely acknowledge the strong possibility of his face/head impacting the ground first, rather than merely his chest.
If there is a possibility of head impacting first, then according to the (then) IRB’s directive on dangerous tackles of November 2009, a red card is the automatic first outcome, with mitigating circumstances possibly allowing a reduction to yellow. As far as I am concerned, the possibility that Halaifonua might land on his chest is no mitigation whatsoever.
Ref got it right I think. Halaifonua is not actually driven into the ground. His twisting action puts Kruis off balance and helps both of them out. I don’t think Kruis intentionally lifted him. He’s hit him, and tried to drive him back in the tackle, and Halaifonua has come off his feet.