The big collegiate rivalry matches from this past weekend were BYU versus Utah, and Army versus Navy. Brigham Young beat Utah 38-22 in Provo, Utah, and retained the Wasatch Cup in front of over 3,000 spectators. Army beat Navy 33-31 at the Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium in Annapolis - many thousands watched a classic match.

But this Saturday also saw the birth of another trophy that celebrates a storied college rivalry dating back to 1895. There were no military bands to play the national anthem, or any warrior dances before kick off and it wasn't played in any kind of stadium. There was a Color Guard of the Corps of Cadets, the anthem was observed on a portable speaker system and there were between 3-400 spectators who sat on the grass bank.

The game was played in the right spirit, although there is never any love lost between these two teams and it went right down to the wire with Virginia missing a penalty goal attempt with the last kick of the game.

Rivalry games like BYU/Utah and Army/Navy are really a great way to develop the game on campus and raise the profile of the teams to a non-rugby playing audience. Sure, at ACC schools like ours where all the air is sucked out of the room by football and basketball, it is always going to be hard to compete getting to the same level as BYU, Utah, Amy or Navy. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Next year, Virginia Tech will have to take the Commonwealth Shield on the road to Charlottesville to defend it from a UVA team that will be determined to keep it up there. Having something to play for like the Commonwealth Shield can only mean better playing standards, better numbers of spectators and hopefully, better support from our schools.

Learning lessons from the best is something I've always tried to do, and I think that referee's are no different. I heard somewhere that after Paddy O'Brien started putting putting jelly beans in his pocket for a mid-game energy boost, referee's pockets everywhere were bulging with little sugar laden treats! But sometimes, copying what some of the top referee's do isn't the right thing.

The past two weekend's in our first ACRL games, I have noticed that there have been a lot of ball held up decisions. Last weekend, we had one go against us and two in our favor. This week we had one that was scored but given as 'held up'. I know it was scored, because I was about 10 feet away behind the dead ball line. Last week, it didn't have any bearing on the final outcome, but this week, as we lost by a single point, it did. 

Before you start hitting the comments button, telling me that I am whining about losing, I will say that we should have won this game by three or four tries, and therefore the loss is down to us. We failed to put away our chances and allowed the opposition to score a last minute try that won the game. So I am not blaming the referee for our loss - that blame is fairly aimed in my direction.

However, the point I'm trying to make, is that referee's are not getting themselves in to the best position to check the grounding of the ball. Years ago, a very experienced and highly qualified referee friend of mine told me that a referee needs to be in the in-goal area as the ball is driven up to the line, either from the base of a ruck or a maul. That way, he is in the best position to check the grounding of the ball.

I have noticed that quite a few referee's in the Aviva Premiership and Six Nations games are positioning themselves on the in-field side of a ruck or maul as the ball comes to the line. This allows them to have eyes on that side, the short side of the field is covered by the Assistant Referee, and the TMO can be used to check grounding because there is a camera behind the dead ball line.

Well, thats great for Steve Walsh, Wayne Barnes and all the other top referee's. But it is not something that a referee of a D1-AA college game can do when his AR's are two kids with a flag and the only camera covering the game, is the team camera on the halfway line. Just because top-flight referee's are no longer moving to the in-goal area as the ball approaches the line doesn't mean that referee's of our games should do the same thing. 

When a player knows he has scored a try and the referee has not seen it because he was out of position, and you then go on to lose the game narrowly, it leaves a very bitter taste in your mouth.

A couple of years ago I wrote an article about box kicking. I did so in the wake of the Experimental Law Variations that had just become law. The pass-back ELV ruling meant that defending teams were under even more pressure to clear their lines, but didn’t have the luxury of kicking direct into touch if the ball was passed back into the 22. Couple this with the unparalleled rise in defensive organization, and we are seeing fly-halves at all levels of the game coming under increased pressure from flankers and centers rushing up to force them into making mistakes.

Box kicking has never gone away, but there was a period of time when it wasn’t popular because it meant kicking the ball away. But if you watch the game at the highest level, especially in Europe, then you’ll see box kicking has made a massive comeback and the first exchanges of most top-level games are punctuated with an aerial bombardment.

Box kicking from behind a slow ruck or collapsed maul in your half, takes a lot of pressure off your fly half, clears your lines while keeping the ball in play, and can also be used to put an attacking teams back three under huge pressure, turning defense into attack.

Unlike conventional kicking, box kicking is a relatively easy skill to learn and because the ball is usually kicked at a steep angle, it should be hard to charge down. When coaching any kicker, make sure you give your scrum half a target. Start by kicking from a set of cones to another set, 30 to 40 yards apart. Concentrate on technique and stress the importance of getting height on the ball early.

Once he has mastered the technique and got the accuracy, give him 3 targets A, B and C. As he picks up the ball, call out a letter and have him drop the ball into the appropriate box. Like all kicks, the box kick is only as good as the chase. As soon as you have a kicker with a degree of accuracy, you should progress to having chasers in your practice.

In a game, if you have a slowed down ruck or a lineout that has gone to ground, then the blind side winger should automatically come up flat anticipating the box kick. You’re inside center must also be aware of this option, and if you’re using him as a second receiver, he can be stood flatter ready to chase the kick.

I also like the old fashion ploy of having my open side flanker stand close and flat after lineouts and when a ruck is slowed down. Not only does this give the scrum half an outlet if he needs it, but it also ensures that he is behind the scrum half if he box kicks. This way you have a winger and center chasing hard, with your open side just a step behind.

At the start of a game, in your own half, if you mix up box kicking and conventional kicking from your 10 and 12, you will give the opposition a defensive headache or two for sure. This will in turn mean that their back 3 will have to defend deeper, therefore creating the opportunity for your back line to be able to turn the corner on their centers.

Since the change in law about kicking direct from the 22, defenders are now getting much better at charging down box kicks. To negate this risk, scrum halves are getting forwards to come into a ruck late and are pushing the ball back with their feet to extend the distance between the kicker and the off side line. This seems to work but does telegraph the opposition of what is about to happen.

So now, when your looking for a scrum half, not only should he be able to pass well off both hands and be able to exploit the fringes of the breakdown and set piece, but he must be able to box kick as well. If he can’t, then find one that can.

Before you read this post, you need to watch the video above.

This clip appeared on the Dan Rather Reports show earlier this week and came to my attention after a reading an article on Roanoke.com

I don't think there is anyone that can deny that Daniel Rodriguez does not deserve a chance at playing college football. I posted on Facebook last night, hoping that Coach Beamer gives this incredible young man a chance of playing football in Blacksburg. If there was ever a place that he should be, I think it is here.

Hours later, and after much thought, I find that I am walking a fine line between admiration for Daniel Rodriguez and the hypocrisy of my own views and some of the rules that surround college sport.

Like it or not, Daniel is twenty-three years old. He could be playing college football when he is twenty-six. While current NCAA regulations are in place, he is perfectly within his right . And you don't have to tell me that he deserves this chance! 

But you have to ask, is it right? He will be playing against other athletes who are eighteen and nineteen years old. You only have to look at the video to see that Daniel is a physical specimen. 

In football, I think there is less of a problem than our sport, where I have seen some huge physical  mismatches that border on being a major safety issue. The occasions I've seen this, it has occurred because it involved an ex-serviceman at college in his mid-twenties on the GI Bill, coming up against an eighteen or nineteen year old.

Personally, I think that the physicality of players coming into college football programs from high school out weighs any safety issues playing against ex-servicemen in their mid-twenties. I will even go so far to say that I think that football should be exempt from any age limit and the NCAA should look at this issue on a sport by sport basis.

But than again, I also think that football should be exempt on many things, including Title IX on a head-count basis, but thats for another day!

Authors note - After writing this I have since learned that the NCAA does in fact look at eligibility issues on a sport by sport basis.

Yesterday afternoon, I met a school friend of my wife, who is a PE teacher here in south-west Virginia. My wife and her had just taken my youngest daughter and her niece to watch the Virginia Tech women's basketball team play Florida State. 

She heard that I coached rugby at Virginia Tech and said that there had been efforts in her county's schools to introduce rugby. She was quite strongly against it for many reasons. Some of them involved funding, but at the top her list was the perception that rugby is a violent game, with lots of fights and every player ending up with a broken nose!

Along with others in this part of Virginia, I have been trying to get rugby introduced into high schools. To hear this sentiment from someone in my own house was depressing. I, of course came back with all the tired cliches about how rugby is safe and violence is not tolerated etc etc. But it has left me with the feeling that we are banging our heads on a brick wall.

The worse thing about this, is that we are our own worst enemy.

At the Collegiate Rugby Championship, live on NBC, there was a segment actually dedicated to how tough the sport is. They had many players listing their injuries. Well, I think I understand that it may have been done to get interest from young players that like getting injured or want to be overtly physical. But whatever the reason - putting it on NBC was a huge mistake in my opinion. It may have got some kids interested, but I think it had a huge negative impact on parents, and ultimately, its parents that say yes or no to their son or daughter playing rugby in high school.

There is also the issue of websites that show highlights and video clips. While some do show clips that highlight the positive elements of our game, most keep covering very rare mass fights or players getting sent off involved in fights. One such website recently showed a game in Rumania that was abandoned because all 30 players were involved in a fight that lasted several minutes, with seven players ending up in hospital. What is the purpose in showing this?

This weekend I saw an Aviva premiership game between Leicester and Sale. Five minutes in there was a clash of heads where two Sale players collided at a ruck. One was unconscious, the other had a bad cut on his head. Leicester were attacking and looked likely to score. But the Leicester scrumhalf, Ben Youngs, saw that the injury had happened and stopped play himself, when all he had to do was pass the ball out and Leicester would have scored.

I have looked everywhere for a clip of this great act of sportsmanship. Yes, you've guessed it, I can't find it. But I can find plenty of examples of where we are deliberately shooting ourselves in the foot by broadcasting the less parent-friendly elements of our game.

It was announced on Christmas Eve that the California Golden Bears will not be participating in the USA Rugby Division 1-A competition this spring. The official press release and a Q&A style interview with Cal Head Coach Jack Clark can be read at their website.

Several rugby blogs have exploded over the past 48 hours - most people are shocked and dismayed at the decision. I have had a few emails from within our rugby community and other friends from further afield that have expressed mixed opinions. Most were stunned by the timing and many are asking how will this will effect collegiate rugby going forward?

From a personal standpoint, I was happy with the news. It further shows the level of legitimacy with which the new college conference system is gaining. And I believe it is another step towards collegiate rugby being able to make more and more decisions for itself that are right for the college game. If the best collegiate team in the country wants in to this system, then who are we to argue?

It does raise many questions though - What about nationals? What about teams not in a conference? Who is responsible for the running of these conferences? And there is always the question of money?

When the College Premier Division was being floated I was very happy because it allowed those teams within traditional school conferences, like ours, to organize themselves. For the most part it has been a success - those conferences that are thriving all have  stakeholder involvement at every level. Some have gained sponsors, partial sponsors and now raise their own dues rather than giving them to Territorial and Local Area Unions. The secret appears to be that success is garnered from within.

Well thats all fine and dandy for the likes of us who are settled nicely in the ACRL. What about the smaller schools, especially those that have got strong support and in some cases varsity status at their university? If we all corral ourselves in ring-fenced conferences, what about teams like Life, Arkansas State or St. Marys. Or the new kids on the block like Davenport, Lindenwood or Wheeling Jesuit? 

Conferences should not be forced into accepting anyone but for the system to be successful there has to be a league or conference available for every team from D1 down to D4 - a place for everyone that wants it. It is going to be hard work, and next to impossible to make everyone happy - but somehow we have got to make it happen. I see no reason why parts of the CPD cannot function as conferences in their own right.

I know my view on nationals is going to raise some hackles; there are some of my own club officers who disagree with me. But I think, at this moment in time, we should relieve USA Rugby of this responsibility and they should be halted for now. I know this would be terrible for those student athletes who will miss out on the chance of nationals while they were at school. I understand that its easy for someone like me, who has never been to nationals, to say that it should be shelved. 

Nationals are a massive strain on resources for USA Rugby and for teams that have to pay thousands of dollars to travel there. This money can be better utilized within individual teams and conferences. If an external organization like USA Sevens came along and wanted to buy the rights then great - I'm sure a mutually beneficial deal could be struck. I'd love to see a repeat of last years Cal-BYU game - with some of the revenue coming back to the collegiate game. Some kind of cross-conference bowl games might work as well. But at the moment, while the re-shaping of collegiate rugby is taking place, nationals should stop - they are not furthering the cause of collegiate rugby.

Where money is concerned, I think its time that collegiate teams stopped paying Cipp dues to USA Rugby. Without nationals, why pay between $2-3,000 a year? It should be left up to conferences to seek their own sponsorship deals, TV rights and player insurance if needed. USA Rugby doesn't seem to be doing a great job of raising money at any level - the lack of CPD (D1A) sponsorship is testament to this. So you have to ask, would the conferences do any worse themselves?

I'm not against having a NGB, every organized collegiate sport needs one. If we were sure that revenue from the hundreds of universities was being used for the benefit of the game, I'd be happy to pay dues to it. But right now, there appears to be no accountability and no budget for the college game.

Lets be under no illusions here, Cal made this decision for the betterment of rugby at Cal. They believe that their future is best served in a conference with other schools from within the PAC 12. But isn't this what every coach or administrator is doing at their school right now? 

Cal's decision shouldn't effect what other teams still in the CPD are going to do. Although there might be some travel involved, but I see no reason why a conference that involved Life, Arkansas State, Davenport, Lindenwood, Jesuit Wheeling and any other new varsity type team, couldn't be formed? It would take some organizing but you have some great leaders and coaches there that are mostly full-time, and this conference would surely rank as one of the best in the country. Again, the success could come from within?

I think its time that we took charge of our game and moved forward. I think, rather than shouting from the rooftops about Cal's decision, those that have a stake in the game should plan to make it happen for their own team and conference, as Cal appears to have done.

Santa Claus has already read this post and offered me a place to hide for a week or two!

I've experienced being part of a close-knit group before - belonging to organizations where the bonds of friendship and comradary run deep is just the legacy of many years spent in the military and time around rugby clubs and teams. But the tragic events that started last Thursday and culminated yesterday with the funeral of Virginia Tech police officer Deriek Crouse have left me with a new sense of what it is to be a part of a family much bigger than one person or one team.

Tragedy struck the campus here once more, but the feeling you get from those in the Hokie community, here in Blacksburg and from around the world, is that there is a renewed sense of pride and collective strength. One that is even stronger than before, one that is only born out of the kind of adversity that our community has had to face.

Although this strength has come from within, support from the wider community has again helped enormously. The sight of 30 Virginia Military Institute cadets ready to stand with ranks of Hokie students at the funeral was uplifting. They were joined by the bikers of the Patriot Guard, there to drown out the vile noise of intolerance that had threatened to violate such a solemn occasion. Almost a thousand police cars were on campus. Police officers came from as far away as Canada. Most police forces from within the state were present, as well as police from our ACC rivals at the University of Virginia and Wake Forest University. The procession from Cassell Coliseum to the cemetery stretched for miles.

Thousands of Hokies attended a candlelit vigil on Friday night. Hundreds bombarded the editor of the Daily Press after an insensitive article was run on Friday, which has resulted in the article being removed from their website. Students immediately set up an account for the family of officer Crouse, that after just 5 days, now stands at over $85,000. Nearly a thousand students had promised to stand in silent protest with the VMI students and the Patriot Guard at the funeral. Social media has been awash with messages of solidarity and support.

It was a tragic event, and I can only imagine the emotions felt by those who were here in 2007. But the family that is Virginia Tech appears to even stronger than before, and one I'm very proud to be a part of.

Yes, they are all of players carrying the ball wearing a USA Eagles shirt, and yes, they are all of Eagles playing for the Sevens team in the Sevens IRB World Series. Correct on both accounts. Anything else that is striking or that stands out? Besides the fact that I got the photographs from our friends at Rugbymag.com?

What about, that in all three cases, the ball is being carried in one hand?

Anyone familiar to my ramblings will be only too painfully aware that I am a great believer in coaching players to use clever footwork before contact. What you do before contact is directly linked to what kind of ball is produced after it. I still strongly believe that. And we can have a discussion (as a good friend of mine and I have just done via email) concerning the merits of carrying the ball in one hand or two until the sun goes down. But unless your name is Sonny Bill Williams, you are not going to be able to consistently pass the ball out of the tackle if it is in one hand.

Some players may lose the ball if its in two hands and I get the argument (thanks Pat) that there are occasions that some of your ball carriers are better served by keeping the ball close to their bodies, especially when driving forward to set up a ruck as part of your game plan. But thats in fifteens!

Despite the obvious embarrassment that Monsieur H's son is probably feeling right now. I think its right to remind ourselves that nobody, including coaches, are permitted to enter the field of play during a game. Law 6.C is quite clear. Only doctors and replacement players can enter the playing enclosure with the referee's permission. The only exceptions to this are, for the doctor or medical staff who can attend a player while play continues, and for coaches to come on the field at half-time to attend their players.

I have only broken this law once, and that was when I heard the snap of a bone; one of my players shattered his femur. It seemed to be the right thing to do at the time, as the medics were on the other side of the field and it looked like the referee was about to faint. But I broke the law of the game and could have faced sanctions.

We all need to remind our players (and fathers) that whatever happens on the field, under no circumstances should you rush on and join in. Harsh sanctions should be given out to anyone that comes on the field without the referee's permission - especially  to get involved in a fight - as Monsieur H will be finding out soon pretty soon.

Referee's also need to be reminded that they are the sole judge of law and fact - but only in the playing enclosure. Despite what they think of some verbose spectators or coaches from the sideline, they cannot do anything about it during a game. Some seem to think that they can award a penalty for someone continually critizing a referee from outside the playing enclosure. Or that they can give a red or yellow card to players, or coaches on the sideline - they cannot. What they can do, and should do in all such situations, is include it in their match report. Cases of referee abuse or anyone entering a playing enclosure without permission are dealt with severely.

I like to think that a lot of this kind of thing can be dealt with by having everyone involved in your team understand what is acceptable, and what is not. Obviously, that is not the case in some parts of France.