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. 

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.