Just over a week ago it was announced that Eddie O' Sullivan was no longer the USA Eagles Head Coach. It had been speculated for some time that he intended to leave after the world cup - the rumors that he was looking at other jobs long before the Eagles left for New Zealand had been doing the rounds. Coming as it did, the same day as Martin Johnson's resignation as the England coach certainly looks like a pre-meditated move, as he has now put his hand up for the job at Twickenham. But whether he intended to leave or not is now immaterial - those of us who care about the game in America are asking, what now for us?

In the past two months, nothing much appears to have happened. I'm not sure when, or if, the board or congress next meets or what direction USA Rugby will head as we start another four-year cycle towards to next world cup without a coach. One thing looks certain though, the sweeping changes I think we need are probably not going to happen and the process of replacing EOS is in full swing.

This morning I learned that Bret Costain, President of the Village Lions RFC in New York had set up a petition calling for a change in management at USA Rugby. The items he outlines in the petition are almost identical what I asked for in my blog post of 4th October. This is a very promising development and shows that there are people out there who care about the direction USA Rugby is going and what we can do to maximize the obvious potential we have. I encourage everyone to read and sign the petition, so that we can at least let our voices be heard in Colorado.

To sign the petition, please go to this link.

‘Kicking the ball is a negative way to play the game.’

I’ve heard it said many times before. What they really mean is that by kicking the ball you are doing nothing more than playing forward oriented rugby, a ten-man game and by doing so, you are not allowing your backs to play with the ball in hand.

I disagree. If you possess a scrum half with a good pass, a pack that can win solid phase one ball and a fly half that can kick then you have a potent weapon that can actually create more space for your backs to run in.

The modern game has seen the emergence of the rush defense particularly off phase one ball. Off the top lineout ball is often greeted by a center that rushes up blocking off any outlet beyond your own fly half. Coaches realized long ago, that having opposing lines stood 20 yards apart is a great attacking opportunity and therefore acted to negate this opportunity.

The rush defense normally results in switch moves that come back inside to set up a ruck and recycle ball. Although the ruck does have opportunities, not being able stop the rush defense on phase 1 ball is an opportunity lost. And if you have a fly half that kicks poorly then they will rush up all day long

The basis of my argument for a kicking game is this. If you are able to kick the ball behind opposition centers at the start of a match, then they are less likely to rush up at a subsequent lineout or scrum. Making the opposition defend with a back three that have to stay deep and keeping the centers honest will mean that at some stage, your backline will be able to turn the corner and get round the defense or overwhelm the centers by flooding the midfield with an attacking blindside winger and fullback.

Like most things in rugby, it just doesn’t happen overnight and takes a concerted effort by a team's coach to continually practice it. Making sure you win a good supply of quality phase one ball is your priority, followed closely by making sure your scrum half is giving the kind of service that gives your kicker as much time as possible.

When coaching your fly half, make sure that almost all of his kicking practices are conducted under pressure and it is important he is given a target to aim at. The target should ideally be a circle of cones with a diameter of about 10 yards centered where the opposition 5 yard line crosses their 22. You can build on the drill by getting your scrum half and winger involved and then have defenders fielding the kicks – doing this will benefit your defense as well as your chasing game.

Once you’ve got your fly half putting the ball where he wants it to go, deciding how to attack with the ball in hand once you’ve moved the defenders back and the opportunity becomes available is your next decision.

There are many moves that can be employed, whether it is a miss move putting a fullback outside the defending center or a blindside winger being inserted inside or outside your fly half, it matters not. The most important thing to remember is that the runners are coming onto the ball and at pace. An extra 5 yards back makes all the difference and is very hard to spot by a defender that is already 20 yards away. Practicing the moves unopposed at first is wise to get the timing right but you should then quickly oppose your backs. Defenders with pads, followed wrap tackles then full contact.

One tactic that can work for any team is to stack the mid field area on your lineout or scrum. Having your fly half and centers in a front line across the field with your back three directly behind (ten to fifteen yards), can have defenders in a panic. If they come forward and match up, you simply kick the ball back into the circle we have previously mentioned. Keep doing this, and eventually you will have defenders lying deep, which is when you attack with the ball through the hands.

This tactic was first used by Australia back in the 80’s with the Ella brothers, and it showed that by being clever and kicking accurately, you can create defensive mismatches and create more room for your backs from an attacking scrum or lineout.

The other day while I was recovering from Physical Therapy, with the ice strapped to my leg, I got to think about how many of my injuries and surgeries were a direct result of rugby, and how much is too much rugby in the grand scheme of things. 

Not to go into too many boring details, but for purposes of setting the scene, I have to say that I have led an active first 49 years of my life. Along with a career in the Army leaping on and off, and in and out of, many forms of military transport and equipment, I spent a lot of time mountaineering, skiing, kayaking, sailing and many other pastimes and sports. And of course, I also played rugby as well.

Now it would be really hard to tell what has caused seven surgeries in the past fifteen years - most repairing the damage caused by osteoarthritis. But I do know that in hindsight, I simply played too much rugby and I should have stopped about three years before I did. Again, not wanting to go into too many details, but over the course of about a twenty year period, some seasons I would play two games of rugby a week - doubling up for my club on a weekend and playing in Army matches on Wednesdays.

I have tried to remember fairly accurately how many games in a season I may have played. After the league system was put in place in 1987, a typical league program could mean up to 20 games a season plus several county and cup matches, which soon mounted up especially if you had a good cup run. Then the army matches could go from about 10 regular plus more games for cups. Some years, especially 1988, 89, 97 & 98, I played between 32 - 36 games of rugby a year.

Now, by any standards, I think that is too much rugby. And what really sinks in, is that not once did anyone say to me, "Hey, I think playing that many games a year may have a long lasting effect on your health." It wasn't until my first of three knee surgeries in 1997, that the surgeon (who happened to be a scrum half for Plymouth Albion) told me to stop. And of course, by that time, most of the foundations for my future osteoarthritis had already been laid.

Sure, it was my responsibility and my decision to play that much, and I'm not a huge fan of the nanny state, or wrapping people in cotton wool. But with the dawning of a new era of Sevens, I do think it is a coach's responsibility to advise a player if he thinks he is playing too much. Add the Sevens competitions, to new collegiate leagues, and then possible calls from representative sides - the amount of time a young player is on the field soon mounts up. Add to this, the rigors of training 5-6 days a week and you can see where the problems might occur.

I think mandating how many games and minutes a single player is on the field in any given year is not practical, but there should be guidelines to help coaches advise players. Every player is different and not everyone is prone to long-term injuries, but as coaches I think we need to try really hard to prevent such a situation occurring.

Shocked is all I can say right now with regards to what I have just watched and read about an incident that happened late in the world cup final. Before I write anymore, I'll let you be the judge. The video is at the bottom of the text, and if a better video clip of the incident becomes available I will post it.









Before I try to defend the emotion of the moment Rougerie found himself in and some other mitigating circumstances that might possibly arise, I want to state my own personal opinion. THERE IS NO PLACE IN OUR GAME FOR EYE GOUGING. There, do I make that clear enough?

Sure the New Zealand press said some bad things about how bad France were during the week. Sure, it was a French team who had almost scored the go ahead points in the final with just minutes to go. Sure, it looked like the New Zealanders were just playing keep ball to run the clock down. Sure, Aurelien Rougerie has a pretty good disciplinary record. Sure, Richie McCaw tried to play it down afterwards. Sure, the IRB doesn't want the final remembered for this. 

But, for the love of our game, the IRB must act, and must act now.

Just a year ago, one of the Welsh rugby playing dynasty, Gavin Quinnell, lost the sight in one eye after a game. The player cited was never charged because of a lack of evidence. Even the Gwent police couldn't bring charges because they couldn't prove intent. But everyone knows within the game, that this was the result of contact between someone's fingers and Gavin Quinnell's eye. During the last Lions tour of South Africa, Schalk Berger was yellow carded for making contact with the face of an opponent. To me, his suspension of 8 weeks was not enough.

The IRB has got to set a precedent here. Under current regulations, there are three bands for which eye-gouging sentences are given: lower-range (up to 12 weeks), mid-range (up to 18 weeks) and upper range (up to 24 weeks), with a maximum suspension of 3 years. 

We have to stamp this out, and these high profile cases show, that even with extensive camera coverage, players still do it. What is this telling players in the lower reaches of the game? If they can do it and only get 8 weeks in a Lion's test, I may even get away it. Just like the guy who took Gavin Quinnell's eye?

Rougerie should be suspended for at least 1 year which should be the minimum sentence for contact with someone's eyes.

After putting the coffee on this morning, I quickly looked on the internet to see who had won the World Cup Final. As expected the All Blacks claimed their first title for 24 years. But the score; 8-7? Surely not? As I read the various media reports on line, and watched brief highlights, it appeared right away that the French had not been happy to just show up and roll over as they had in the 1987 final. The real French team had turned up and very nearly broke every Kiwi's heart as they had done so before in 1999 and 2007.

But that score, 8-7! With the game being broadcast on NBC, my initial thought was, what will they think? Will the American public sit and watch a titanic, low scoring defensive struggle? People want points, don't they? After sipping my second cup, and slapping myself about the face a few times for having such crazy thoughts, I started writing this article. 

The question is really simple? Do you think there will be a single New Zealander waking up tomorrow morning (hangovers and all) worrying whether or not the final was a free-flowing try-fest?

Since going fully professional in 1995, there has been this constant battle about trying to get fans in to stadiums to watch rugby union over league, soccer, aussie rules or whatever sport we are in competition with. The argument over whether or not teams should entertain first and win second, appears to have turned into an Australian led battle against the northern hemisphere, with England's dour forward led win at all costs attitude, their main target.

Despite its win, the New Zealand rugby union is in financial trouble. For anyone who watches the Super 15 (or whatever number it is these days) or provincial rugby in New Zealand, the answer is clear. Despite playing some of the best and most attractive rugby anywhere in the world, for the most part, they are performing to half empty stadia.

Ironically, another team lauded this world cup for being a free-flowing attacking side, Wales, has the same problem. Wales also tend to play a high risk attacking game, and during most internationals they pack out the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. But during most provincial games and even Heineken Cup matches, the four main grounds of the Blues, Scarlets, Ospreys and Dragons are generally light on spectators.

Two of the most affluent leagues in the world are the English Aviva Premiership and the French Top 14. And despite the global economic downturn, their teams are still well supported. If we are honest, most bystanders (not me of course) would say the Super 15 is better entertainment than the French Top 14 or the English Aviva Premiership. So the Aussie argument of tries and attacking rugby putting spectators in seats looks like it doesn't hold much water.

Although I'm a huge fan of coaching an expansive and attacking game first and foremost, you also need to development a win at all costs siege mentality. This might mean that, as an old Army buddy of mine used to say on a Saturday night, 'Sometimes you have to go ugly early.'

New Zealand have buckled at every world cup since 1987 despite being favorites to lift the trophy on each occasion and in the process they played great attacking rugby. This time, despite losing Dan Carter, and finishing the final with their 4th string No 10, they have found that dogged determination that every winner of the Webb Ellis Cup has needed to possess.

Despite a French onslaught of Napoleonic proportions, the Kiwi's prevailed. And the looks on the faces of spectators, coaches, administrators and players alike tell me that not one of them cared a hoot, about only scoring one try and winning by just one point. 

It was all about the win.

Its been four days now; everyone has had an opinion, it seems like the entire worlds rugby media has a view on the matter. I wrote the original version of this blog as a facebook note about two hours after the game. Facebook, the sporting blogosphere and all other forms of social media have been buzzing with talk whether the referee of the Rugby World Cup semi-final, Alan Rolland, was right to send off the Welsh No 7 and captain Sam Warburton for his spear tackle on French winger Vincent Clerc in the 18th minute of the game.

From every corner of the globe, there seems to be consensus that he got it wrong and he should have given a yellow card instead. Having seen it about a dozen times now, I agree that there was nothing malicious about it; he didn’t drive him into the ground and the red card had a huge effect on the game. So, we are all in agreement right? Lets get the rotten eggs and the stocks ready and get Mr. Rolland into Cardiff city enter for the treatment he deserves?

Wrong! I think Alan Rolland applied the law to the letter and accordingly the red card was justified. Sure, it affected the game, but that’s not his fault, he applied the law. Only this summer there was a law clarification about spear tackles. Referees have been told to come down hard on offenders (excuse the pun). Of course, all players and coaches would like to see consistency – during this world cup I have seen several tackles that would have resulted in red cards if Alan Rolland were adjudicating.

So that’s it, tough luck to Wales, stop crying into your Brains best bitter and get on with it. The referee got it right. But, like most people who watched the game, I am still left with a sour taste in my mouth. Anyone who marveled at the Welsh bravery are left asking what would have happened if the Welsh captain had just got a yellow card. Would the Welsh be in the final next week? We will never know. They certainly had their chances.

I think the IRB has to look at the use of the red card at the top levels of the game. I think in these days of citing committees and multiple camera angles, the red card should not be used. I think that Sam Warburton should have gotten a yellow card, and Wales should have been able to finish the game with 15 men. After the game, he would have then been cited and perhaps been made to watch the final from the stand.

I’m sure many will say that if there is no deterrent then the instances of dangerous play will increase. I say no, because the IRB could double the sentence for spear tackles and all instances where a player gets a yellow instead of a red. Hit him in the pocket with missing ten games instead of five. Yellow card him, and let the citing procedure, which is working well right now do its job. But lets finish the game on a level playing field so that we know at the end of it we know that the best team really won.

So the IRB need to act, right? But instead of changing the policy, and trying to make sure there is not a repeat in the final with Richie McCaw receiving his marching orders in the first quarter of the game, what do we hear from Dublin? Noting but praise and back slapping for Alan Rolland and the laws of the game. 

And then we hear that they are looking into comments made by the Welsh coach, Warren Gatland that he thought about cheating after the sending off. With a prop already replaced he could have got a second prop to 'fake' an injury and the Welsh scrum, which was under all sorts of trouble, would have had the luxury of at least 50 minutes of uncontested scrums. The IRB was "privately stunned" and are now "assessing the Gatland cheat claims."

Surely, the red card issue in a world cup semi-final should trump an inquest into what a coach thought about doing!

I know I have only just written about the scrum, but having just seen what the French scrum did to England in the world cup quarter final, I feel the need to recover some old ground. In my defense, despite being from England, I am not a huge fan of what of has happened to English scrum coaching over the past few years. The emphasis on brute force and number chanting are not something I have been using.

The French have always been good at scrum time. But I had always had a preconceived notion that they were just another team that used brute force as a platform, behind which their mercurial backs would would create their magic - all be it, rather erratically.

Some time ago I watched an article on the IRB's TV show Total Rugby, that made me sit up and take note. I wasn't going to be able to build the kind of simulator they had in France here in Blacksburg, but I did take note and still use one very important principal about coaching the scrum. The French sessions on the simulator are very short and intense, and I think even if you have just a basic machine covered in rust, as we have, then you can also take home this lesson.

When I was being coached many years ago, I remember sessions would be long and entail vast periods of time standing around watching other packs work on the machine. I would say generally, that unless I am prescriptive coaching new techniques, which I only do a couple of times a year, then a normal scrum session during the week for my pack will be short but very intense. We get on there, do what we have to do, work extremely hard and then get back to something else.

I read somewhere once that an Australian coach described the scrum as, "not being rock science." The French are showing us that perhaps it is?

I promised myself that until the Rugby World Cup was over, I would keep my mouth closed. But now it is over and the Eagles have concluded their campaign going 1-3, I think its time to open it again!

For quite a few years now, it has been the policy of USA Rugby’s administration to pursue an Eagles first policy. Their aim being to concentrate the majority of their efforts towards the national team in an attempt to  'make America fall in love with rugby'; making the Eagles the showcase through which we promote the sport. Millions of dollars in IRB funds and Cipp dues have been spent in this cause.

I think the national team is very important to the game of rugby in the United States and I cannot fault the effort of the players and coaches who represented our country in New Zealand. But I do think its time we started to ask whether USA Rugby are leading us in the right direction. We have not improved on the world stage despite the investment and have come nowhere close to fulfilling the true potential that is obviously there.

The first week of this new semester, the Virginia Tech rugby players, coaches and team spent $2,150 in team and individual Cipp dues for the right to play rugby under the administration of USA Rugby. When I sat down and thought about it, I was left scratching my head. What do we actually get for this substantial sum of money each year, and ultimately, why are we paying it to an organization that is failing to produce results.

i will leave it to the reader to ask if it is worth the benefits we get for being dues paying members. To be honest, there is nothing there that we cannot either get ourselves or don't need as a collegiate rugby team. The insurance is the biggest benefit but leagues and conferences could get this themselves. The biggest benefit we have felt from sponsors so far is from Adidas and Motel 6, and these were gained through the ACRL League Commissioner and not USA Rugby.

I do believe that we need a National Governing Body for our sport, and I would normally be the last person to speak out against our NGB. But the fact of the matter is that collegiate rugby is being sold short and it sure does feel like we are just funding a failing policy of Eagles first, and over inflated wages for a CEO and national coach.

The threat of the USCRA forced USAR to appoint a collegiate director. But it really looks like his hands are well and truly tied behind his back by the Board. The debacle surrounding the National Sevens tournament in December showed a distinct lack of enthusiasm from USAR towards the collegiate game.

To be honest, now that the USA national team is finished at the world cup, I hope that there are sweeping changes at USA Rugby. I hope that we can get a new Chairman of the Board. I hope we can get a new CEO for half the price of the last one. I hope we can get a national team coach from these shores, again at half the cost. I hope that the Board allows the Collegiate Director a little more autonomy that permits him to make decisions that affect the collegiate game without having to wait for the rubber stamp of a board whose focus always seems to be elsewhere.

I hope that once the new personalities are in place we make a complete U-turn in policy and make inter-scholastic rugby our No 1 priority. I hope USA Rugby finds a marketing agency that is commission based whose job it is to find the finance and sponsorship to fund our national team; then hopefully our National Sevens team can become full time as well. USA Rugby needs to hire the right person whose job it is to act as an employment agent for our best and brightest players. His job would be to find professional placements for Eagles players.

At Virginia Tech we are in the middle of an infrastructure improvement program. We have already paid for new posts to be installed and are now trying to raise funds for a new scoreboard and seating. I feel that the $2,150 Cipp dues we paid this year would have been better spent here in Blacksburg rather than being squandered on a failing national governing body.

I'm afraid I will not be posting another blog for sometime. Playing too much rugby in my formative years is taking its toll and on Monday I'm having hip replacement surgery. I will hopefully be back in about a month or so.

November 2009 I, listened to a podcast talking about the scrum and then wrote an article for American Rugby News. In the article I talked about the influence, New Zealander Mike Cron has had on the scrum in the modern game. I wrote about the fact that in Bill LeClerc, the Eagles had a 'Cron Disciple.' Someone who would surely work the same magic for our national team as Cron has done for the All Blacks and many other teams over the years. Alas, Le Clerc doesn't seem to be with the Eagles anymore and our scrum is struggling.

This morning I read an article that the Canadian forwards (during the run up to RWC 2011) had been coached by Cron and that he had solved most Canadian scrum problems! Having watched the Eagles scrum struggle for several games now, the news that our arch-rivals are using Cron is galling to say the least. I'm not mad at either Canada or Mike Cron - the Canadians are doing what they need to do to be competitive in this area of the game.

In 2007, USA Rugby sent out DVD's of the sessions that Mike Cron and other New Zealand coaches conducted in San Diego for the US National team and coaches. The sessions on the line out and scrum were conducted by Cron. I was won over by both so much so, that I still use most of the techniques he showed. The thing that I find hard to understand, is why USA Rugby has not dusted out their archives made these sessions available to all coaches that want them. Its a great resource, I wish we would use it.


Here is the original article from 2009:

"I’ve not written too much about the scrum mainly because its one area of the game in the USA that we have real expertise at the top of the chain. Having listened to Bill LeClerc on ARN’s Rugbytalk 105, I am in no doubt that we have someone in place that is taking the right approach to the way that we should be coaching the scrum. Openly admitting that he is a Mike Cron disciple, made me sit up and take note right away!

I sometimes feel that coaches down at the coalface don’t get access to people like Bill; he does teach around the country in clinics, but he’s never going to get to everyone. So I wanted to write an article that listed some of the things he was talking about that really are at the core of the Mike Cron doctrine where the scrum is concerned.

A correct mental attitude towards scrum time is wrapped up in what he calls ‘Social Loathing’. A way to demonstrate this is to get your players in a circle and start clapping one after the other as hard as they can. Go round the circle quickly until they are all clapping then get them to stop. Asking the first guy you got to start clapping if he was clapping as hard at the start as an individual as he was as a part of the group at the end, visually explains social loathing. Statistics show that some players look upon the scrum as a rest; challenge your players not to be social loathers and your scrum will improve right away.

Make sure your players understand the principles of the scrum:

1.     8 people working in the same direction at the same time.

2.     The back 5 exploding their power through to the front 3.

3.     The front 3 win the race over the centerline.

Set up and body position are so important. Don’t be in a hurry to build your scrum until everyone has good body awareness. Keep the feet narrow, knees behind the shoulders, shallow back and keep the scapula locked. It is important to tilt the pelvis back before getting down into position.  If possible, get the players into the right position then get them to practice the set up in front of a mirror. After you have checked their set up, get your players to now go against each other in pairs, going up and down with one hand on the floor for support to start with.

The pressure to keep a purchase on the ground comes through your body; keep the pressure through the balls of the feet and curl the toes. A good drill to get better purchase pressure is have your players on their knees, bind and come up together on their toes only – do it with one arm on the ground again, then as they get better, bind with both arms.

When we start to come together as a unit, the coach needs to make sure the sequence with which we do it, is drilled home and happens the same every time. It starts with the loose head binding on the hooker; the hooker then binds on the tight head. The hooker binds on the props shoulders; try to avoid the swept-wing airplane wing effect by binding too far back. The hooker takes control and should run every scrum – he’s the one that ensures distance and alignment. The pack binds in 3 groups, front row, middle 4 and then the No 8. Get the pack practicing this sequence by moving around the field from cone to cone. Get the hooker to make the referee’s calls.

I like to work on a two-cadence in all aspects of the scrum. On every engagement at the hit, we ‘sink then load’. When the opposition puts the ball in, the hooker calls ‘and now’. On our put in, as the hooker’s foot comes forward for the strike, our players sink, and then drive as the ball comes in.

Many teams like to put the ball in as the engagement is made. This might work for the first few scrums but the other team will soon figure this out. A better way is to sink and load as normal, but instead of load, we drive because that is when the ball comes in. So it becomes, hit, sink and drive.

One of the best methods to increase a player’s strength in a scrum is to get him to brace his tongue in the roof of his mouth. Some players will give you a strange look when they first hear this but there is a great way to demonstrate the difference it makes. Get a player to lean forward in a strong position and then push him back on his forehead. You can do it with just one finger. Then get him to brace his tongue in the roof of his mouth and then try again to push him back - your players will be convinced.

It’s very hard to write a short article that covers everything people like Bill LeClerc and Mike Cron teach. If you cannot get to one of their sessions, fear not, there are many of Mike Cron’s video’s on You Tube."