Colorado Bound!

It's unlikely that there will be any blogging until after Jan 3 - because as of 5 am this morning, I'm bound for Breckenridge, Colorado.

Each year, the same cast of characters convenes over 4-5 days and new years for food, beverage, skiing, snowboarding, snow-shoeing, charades, texas hold-em, sing-alongs, etc. One of last year's highlights was paying Val G. 40 bucks to eat an ENORMOUS vat (I mean enormous) of pickeled whole sardines, without using silverware. I'm not talking Bumble Bee - it was some Russian-manufactured container, and there was at least a pound. It was truly foul, and worth every penny.

This year we've got a 5 bedroom condo in Breck for the 18-20ish of us. Our common thread, of course, is rugby. Most of us played together for the Colorado Springs She-Wolves 5-10ish years ago. Several like myself are ex-military, and of course there are the significant others, non-rugby, who have long ago morphed into part of the extended family.

It's a great reminder to me of how our sport brings people together. Our time on the field together really and truly turned us into a family, as evidenced by the fact that we choose, each year, to spend significant holiday time together.

So enjoy whatever your holiday plans are - I'll be on the slopes!

Random thoughts: Boyles law, pressure, space, and rugby-playing molecules

Have you ever have one of those nagging thoughts that won't quit you? Perhaps its the idle time cause by the rugby off season, perhaps it's some the reading i just did on game-theory, perhaps it's too much celebrity deathmatch.

I have in my head that perhaps we can find a way to problem solve in rugby mathematically. Perhaps we can use the laws that govern gases and pressure, coupled with the mathematics of economics, game theory, and competition, to find ways to score trys. Perhaps I'm insane.

Boyle's Law states, if you remember high school physics, that the relationship between the volume of a gas and the pressure of a gas is constant. There's a bunch of other scientists that piggy backed off of this, did the math, and ultimately the "combined gas law" was developed. Bottom line, when we're talking about gasses, pressure, volume, and temperature are all related.

Here's where I ask you to get in my head for a minute, and picture the following :

Every rugby player on the pitch is a molecule of gas. For the time being lets imagine that there are two types of molecules, which have approximately the same attributes. Let's call them Red and Blue.
The pitch itself is a bounding container.
The temperature, for now, is unchanging.

Back to high school physics: What happens when we heat a gas? The molecules move faster! And, as a result, the pressure increases. If the space is small, and the pressure increases enough, the molecules will start to collide, creating more heat and more pressure.

When i picture this, I can't help but see a rugby team. The blue team has worked it's way down into their green zone. I see that team attacking off the fringes, over and over and over, only to be stopped by the red team on defense.

What would happen if those rugby-playing molecules expanded to fill the available space (limited by the constantly shifting off-sides line)? Less pressure, less collisions, and voila - more trys.

This whole "attack space" thing is common sense, right? We all coach our teams and players to attack space, right?

Let's go back to HS physics. Can we change the volume of our container? We could use a balloon, or some other sort of expansion device, right? How about the pitch? Are there spacial variations that we can identify and apply these laws to? Can we predict where the logical attack point might be in different scenarios, based upon the space available?

There's a paper on the EPRU website written by Lee Smith, former NZ Director of Coaching, titled The Creation of Space at Phase Play, where he specifically discusses different spacial situations, and how pressure is impacted.

Consider these variations:

Lineout at the 50:

• Vertical distance between back lines - 22 meters (10 for each backline, one for the tunnel, 1/2 for each player in the lineout)


• Lateral distance available for attacking - 45 meters (assuming the lineout occupies the space up to the 15 meter mark)


• Minimum straight line distance to the try zone from the attacking #10 - 61 meters (1 meter for the lineout itself, 10 meters back, 50 meters from lineouts)


• Maximum straight line distance to the tryzone from the attacking #10 - 76 meters (from the attacking #10 to the opposite corner of the tryzone, using a²+b²=c² to solve for the hypotenuse of the triangle.
  


• Total strong side attacking Space (a x b) - 2745 square meters

Scrum center at the 50:

• Vertical distance between back lines - 11 meters (3 per scrum for the vertical space each scrum occupies, 5 for the depth of the attacking flyhalf from the attacking scrum.



• Lateral distance available for attacking - 29 meters to the left and to the right of the scrum (assuming the scrum itself occupies the 2 meters horizontally , and that it is dead center of a 60 meter pitch.



• Minimum straight line distance to the try zone from the attacking #10 - 58 meters (1 meter for the lineout itself, 10 meters back, 50 meters from lineouts)



• Maximum straight line distance to the tryzone from the attacking #10 - 65 meters (from the attacking #10 to the opposite corner of the tryzone.



• Total strong side attacking Space (a x b) - 1681 square meters

This diagram illustrates a lineout on the 50, and hopefully makes it clear where all the numbers come from. And before you start, NO, I didn't put down the tackle line, gain line, attack line, etc etc etc. I'm kind of free-wheeling it here, thinking out-loud if you will. Mock if you must.



Here, clearly, are two "yellow zone" situations with significant spacial differences. Again, OBVIOUS. Add the whole extra-man-on-the-right-offensively thing, and the situations become even more different.

So lets look at the match-ups of a less obvious, but more critical situation.

Attacking green zone lineout on the 22 ..

Attacking green zone lineout on the 5 ...

I specifically bring up these two situations because most coaches have some sort of plan - "we" do x from a lineout in the greenzone. These two scenarios, mathematically, couldn't be more different. Especially when you consider how the position of the wings and fullbacks shift as the attack approaches the tryzone.

Attacking lineout on the 22...

• Vertical distance between back lines - 22 meters (10 for each backline, one for the tunnel, 1/2 for each player in the lineout)


• Lateral distance available for attacking - 45 meters (assuming the lineout occupies the space up to the 15 meter mark)


• Minimum straight line distance to the try zone from the attacking #10 - 33 meters (1 meter for the lineout itself, 10 meters back, 22 meters to the tryzone)


• Maximum straight line distance to the tryzone from the attacking #10 - 55.5 meters (from the attacking #10 to the opposite corner of the tryzone.
  


• Total strong side attacking Space (a x b) - 1485 square meters

Attacking lineout on the 5 ...

• Vertical distance between back lines - 16 meters (10 for the attacking backline, 3.5 for the defending back line, one for the tunnel, 1/2 for each player in the lineout)


• Lateral distance available for attacking - 45 meters (assuming the lineout occupies the space up to the 15 meter mark)


• Minimum straight line distance to the try zone from the attacking #10 - 16 meters (1 meter for the lineout itself, 10 meters back, 5 meters from tryzone)


• Maximum straight line distance to the tryzone from the attacking #10 - 47.75 meters (from the attacking #10 to the opposite corner of the tryzone.


• Total strong side attacking Space (a x b) - 720 square meters

Let's put all this aside for a moment.

In order to score a try, we need to get the ball into the hands of a player who can attack. This player must be able to overcome pressure. If he or she cannot, than the player needs enough support to preserve possession and maintain continuity of attack. If we cannot strategically supply the support, then we need to make sure the player gets the ball under minimum pressure. That's assuming of course, that the skills of every player on the pitch are the same.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

Since pressure is directly equated to the number of molecules (players) in the designated space, its clear that attacking close to the set piece = attacking close to the most pressure. Not coincidentally, this is where the most support is.

If we attack away from the pressure, then our attacker is more often then not with limited support. Errors become turnovers.

In order for us to be successful, or players need to learn to recognize space, pressure, and support. We need to learn to look (to use an art metaphor) at the NEGATIVE spaces. Rather than seeing the defenders, we need to learn to see the lack of defenders. We need to learn, like the mindless gas, to expand to fill the container, and to go where the pressure is at it's lowest. And we need to do it fast - before the defense expands too, and everything is equal again.

In Mr Smith's article, he speaks specifically about phase play - where the pressure is even greater, and the quest for space so much more elusive.

It's probably worth noting at this point, that the "pitch map" is to scale. The little dots representing humans are the equivalent of two 1/2 feet wide. Imagine the average human, with about a meter and 1/2 wingspan. You could literally line up 70 people, shoulder to shoulder, along the 50 meter line. When you think about how many players are actually on the field, related to how much SPACE is on the field, it sure seems like mostly space, and not alot of human.

This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as how we can describe the pitch and the game. There's speed and acceleration of individual players, maximum passing distance, passing efficiency, the blind side, kicking - all of it can be described in numbers.

Here's something practical from this little ramble.

At a lineout in the 22, there is 1485 square meters of space on the strong side of the pitch. At the 5, there's 720. The closer we get to the tryzone, the closer the wings and fullbacks get to joining the first line of defense. Conclusion? The closer we get to the tryzone, the greater the pressure, both in terms of space and manpower.

Doesn't it suck to work your way all the way to the green zone, without coming away wiht trys? My suggestion - early in the season especially - spend time specifically coaching green zone attack, closer to the tryzone and further from it. Think hard about the tactics you employ in the green zone, and whether or not the space available merits them. Teach your players how the actions of one group effect space and pressure. Ie, if you drive that lineout at the 5, but get stopped at the 2, is there any space left out wide?

So before all you science geeks and teachers slam me, I know humans aren't gas molecules, and I know we don't behave like we are. I know that varying speeds, sizes, and skills add vast amounts of complexity. I know that weather matters. And friction. And gravity. And i know that human beings, put into a large room, will not expand to fill our surroundings - we will converge upon each other, social creatures that we are, and occupy only a small amount of space.

But I just can't help but wonder, and I KNOW that the people who author XBox and Playstation games think about this stuff ....

These are the ramblings of a rugby-deprived mind. Vacation can't come soon enough. For now, stop drop and roll Paris!!

DEFINITELY NON-RUGBY

So, its the off season and there's less and less rugby to talk about.

So I give you this choice piece of definitly-not-rugby-news from Sept of this year.

A wine bottle? WOW.

http://www.slate.com/id/2149180/

Non Rugby: Rev. Jesse Jackson & Dr. Seuss

This is, absolutely the funniest, thing the Reverend Jesse Jackson has EVER done.

I remember seeing this on SNL a million years ago and had to share when I came across it on youtube.

Collapsing the scrum

So this weekend I was at a Coach Development Program workshop, and over the course of the weekend the topic of "collapsing the scrum" came up. There were some differing opinions and some common ground which I'd like to discuss - it was definitely the most animated discussion of the weekend.

Pretty much all the coaches were in the agreement that we need to coach our players to SAFELY deal with a collapsing scrum. We were also in agreement that first and foremost, we need to teach players to scrum in such a way that collapsed scrums are minimized, and that player do have of control.

What we came to was that there is a "point of no return". Basically, you can apply the best technique, but times will happen when the front row loses control - maybe the opposite is cranking down, maybe it's wet conditions and they've lost their footing, maybe the locks are driving in an position contrary to the prop's health. maybe fatigue has taken it's toll - whatever it is, there is comes a point in many games where the scrum goes down.

Where we disagreed was the "how". Two techniques were discussed.

1. Very slowly, knees remaining bent and binds on the opposite front row and hooker intact, take the scrum to the ground in as controlled a way as possible. Every one stays bound till they are on the ground to keep maximum control.

2. Props release the binds on their opposites, while maintaining them on the hooker till they are on the ground. All players push their legs out straight behind - ending on a "flat on ground, face down" position. Once on the ground, release the binds on the hooker, and if they are uninjured, props roll away from the scrum, freeing the locks and hooker.

We also all agreed at the end of our discussion that whatever technique was used, the principles of "shoulders above hips, spine in line" should be reinforced throughout the collapse. ie, no nose diving!

I've come to my own conclusions after some significant research. A variation of technique 1 is used nationwide in Australia and is referred to by everyone as the "MAYDAY" play. In order for it to work, BOTH scrums must execute on command. The referee knows the Mayday play, and every scrum does (or should). As a result, the referee has control of the situation, and any player OR the ref can demand all 8 players execute on his or her command. What's key is that the players drop to their knees before dropping their upper bodies to the ground, ensuring that the hips are always below the shoulders.

Technique 2 seems to be used more in the UK - and is likely to be more effective when the opposition IS NOT cooperating, and is continuing to drive in an unsafe manner despite protest.

So, if we could get everyone universally to use one technique, that would be super. My decision now is to review both techniques with my players, to ensure they are prepared for every situation.

Its interesting that a google search of "collape scrum safely" brings up a zillion results about spine injuries. Some safety advocates go as far as to suggest that the contested scrum should be banned from the game completely.

Here is a paper from Tom Jones, the NAWIRA regional manager, directed towards referees.
This one, from the AMA, is about cervical spine injuries during the scrum.
This one, from the eMJA (Medical Journal of Australia) about spinal injuries in rugby union.

What do you guys think of these recommendations? What do you teach? Do you teach collapsing a scrum at all? Is there another technique that's worth sharing?

Non-Rugby: Vaulting on Horseback? Cup Stacking?

I came upon this while trolling wikipedia ...

There's a sport, called "vaulting". It involved riding around on horseback and doing all sorts of acrobatic and gymnastic type things. They have mens, women's, teams, age grade competitions, world championships, etc. It seems that the modern gymnastic vaulting and pommel horse events originated on real horses, so that's what these folks do.

It's got to be hard ...

Check out their photo page.

Compare this to the sport of "speed stacking". People basically stack cups, in different formations, as fast as they can. Apparently, on Nov 6th, 81,252 people across the world participated in this death-defying activity, setting a new Guinness Book world record.

The actual "worlds fastest stacker" title is shared by two 13 year olds, one in Germany and one in the USA. They both stacked whatever cup formation is designated in under 3 seconds.

Why aren't those bozo's at the NY Press writing about these guys, instead of harassing ruggers, golfers, and marathoners?

Given the choice between cup stacking (which PS is going to be on ESPN) and vaulting, I think I'd rather watch those folks on horseback.

One-Legged Lineout Lifting

There is a really really interesting paper out that talks about the pros and cons of the "single legged lineout lift". Which I guess TECHNICALLY means "single legged jumper support".

Basically, this research says, though hard to do, a jumper who is lifted/supported by his INSIDE leg, rather than by both legs or by the shorts, has more control in the air and is substantially more mobile. The jumper can use his non-jumping/supported leg as a fulcrum, and move all about in the air, significantly reducing the pressure on the individual lifters.

Additionally, the time that it takes the jumper to reach peak height is reduced. I don't see this become all the rage quite yet, but it's definitely very intriguing..

Here's some interesting photos:





If you check out the paper online, there are images and video of it being done in a match. What's nice is they have some images of it executed poorly (and explain why), and executed well.

My big fear is that I would try this, and because it hasn't been seen, it might be "assumed to be illegal".

Any thoughts on this curious lineout variation? Anyone doing this with their clubs?

USOC Coaching Survey

I subscribe to a USOC mag for coaches, and the most recent issue has some highlights of a survey they did. They asked three questions to a wide range of young athletes from various sports, levels, and ages. The questions, and a link to the answers, is below.

Why do you play sports?

What do you like about your sport?

What do you not like about your coach?

The scrum-half ... by the numbers ...

Sometimes stats amaze me, sometimes they bore me. Work was making me insane today, so I web-surfed in the interest of rugby. I came upon these statistics about the last zillion test matches, and started doing some rugby math ... and had some thoughts ...

In an typical 80 minute international game the followings occur approximately x amount of times:

• Stoppages (total of line-outs, scrums, scrums with resets, free kicks, penalties, drop-outs, pretty much any time the whistle blows) - about 85
• Ruck/Maul/Tackle - about 160
• Trys - 5
  

If you figure that the time for the ref to blow the whistle, set the mark, and facilitate the scrum/lineout/penalty activity takes about 20 seconds, that's 28 minutes we can knock off the playing-time clock, so we're down to 52 minutes.

Every time a try is scored, it takes about 1 minute from whistle through conversion attempt through drop kick. Now we're down to 47 minutes.

And what the heck, lets eat up 3 miscellaneous minutes for referee discussions, explanations of penalties, bla bla bla. That takes us to 44 actual minutes of running, passing, kicking, tackling, rucking, mauling, scrumming, line-outing, and generally participating in rugby.

• At every single scrum the scrumhalf is involved, defensively as well as offensively
• At every single lineout (unless your driving it into the tryzone, and even then, seriously), the scrumhalf is involved. Less so on defense but still somewhat involved.
• Hopefully, if a scrum half is fit, they are involved in most rucks and mauls. Offensively, they obviously are, defensively we count on them to direct the defensive effort of the forwards.

Of course they're not in every single event, but most of the time, if they are not, its because they were actually the ball-carrier.

So lets be conservative - lets assume that our scrum half doesn't kick for touch, but does execute quick taps and penalty plays. Lets assume they are involved in 80 percent of the rucks and mauls and occasionally at tackles.

According to my rugby math, in the course of one single rugby match, a scrumhalf is actively engaged in at least 140 activities, and most of those activities are decision making activities.

In 44 minutes of rugby? 80 minutes with stoppages? This basically means that for every minute of running time, the scrumhalf does two things. If you break it down only to active time, that's one activity per 15 seconds of play.

The really really good scrumhalves don't just put the ball in the scrum, distribute, and direct traffic - they are evasive, they can kick, they are fast, and they are playmakers!

So I guess its pretty darn important that that scrum-half be a big-time leader and a highly competent decision maker. I mean, we all know this intuitively, but looking at the numbers is kind of interesting.

To think all I've been worried about is that darn left handed pass!

The Importance of the Scrum

So last Friday a handful of collegiate coaches got together, and over a brew, discussed several things rugby.

One topic that game up was the importance of coaching position specific skills. The majority of us present considered ourselves "Tight Five Specialists" (so many coaches come from the tight five!!!), which sparked a discussion of how important, REALLY, it is to provide position specific coaching at the collegiate level.

We did not agree. This was nice, as it sparked much interesting discussion.

One coach was of the mind that the amount of time spent coaching the skill of scrummaging should directly equate to the amount of time spend scrummaging in a game. And, since scrums come largely from handling errors (forward passes, knock-ons), a team that handles well will have less scrums. So, the idea was proposed, spend more time on handling and less on scrums.

Basically, the idea was, our time with the team is limited, and should be focused on the activities the players spend most of their time doing on the pitch.

In my gut, I see the point, but don't agree. First phase possession is where it all starts - if your backs can launch off an attacking platform (a scrum moving forward), they will be more successful. If your back row can launch off a neatly executed controlled wheel, they will be more successful.

If, rugby-gods-forgive, your scrum starts turning over your own possession, its really seems to demoralize the whole team.

So I thought to myself, how much time really IS spent scrummaging, and how many opportunities to attack come from a scrum? Looking in my match stats from past games, it seems that there was a low of 15 and a high of 31 scrums in an 80 minute match. Since scrummaging is so closely related to handling, I thought to investigate the pros ..

Guess what I found? According to planet-rugby.com, in this last round of November tests, there was a low of 15 scrums and a high of 28 scrums. That's not any different than collegiate women! I suppose that the handling skills are better, and probablly so is the defensive pressure, which forces errors.

So me personally, I can't underestimate the power or significance of the scrum - no way. I've seen games played where the offense were DREADFUL ball handlers, and it didn't matter, because every single time there was a knock on, whether it was their put-in or not, they got the ball back. It didn't make for pretty rugby, and it sure sucked for the more dynamic, more mobile team, but the scrummaging team walked away with a win. Does that mean I want MY team to be dreadful ball handlers? No. Of course not. I, like everyone, want to minimize the times we turn over the ball.

But we scrum when the OPPOSITION turns over the ball too, and I want to put as much pressure as possible when THEY turn over the ball and WE get a scrum. I definitely don't want to give up that ball, and if possible, I want the win the engagement and get them moving away from our back line before we even start our attack. That means scrum, and scrum BIG.

Seriously, doesn't it put fear into everyone when the team you are playing has solid scrummagers, and suddenly there is a 5 meter scrum in your red zone, on the left side of the field? How many games have been won or lost that way?

Will the new engagement laws change the power of the scrum? I guess we'll have to wait and see. Here's an article about it on Scrum.com - Next year's Super 14 will be the litmus test.

Concern over saftey-first scrum laws.

Non-Rugby: Happy Belated Birthday to Me

Today is NOT my birthday - Monday was. But Monday was a bad, bad day, so I didn't really feel much like celebrating let alone talking about it.

To start off with, I need to take the day off work to go to Trenton, NJ, to face a psycho guy who used to be my landlord. Basically, he's psycho. I broke my lease cause he's psycho, and now he wants me to pay. NEVER going to happen. I already had to call the cops on him twice after he sent these psycho threatening emails. So I wasn't worried about the outcome - armed with printed emails and canceled checks, I was sure the court would rule in my favor. So what happened you asked?

I missed my train. So now, I'm totally the courtroom "no-show", and need to plead with the judge to reschedule our hearing. Lovely.

Next up? Well, I'd been informed that my collegiate rugby team was meeting to discuss the direction of the club are related to the direction of the coach (me). It's not really appropriate for me to discuss in this forum, but seriously, it was just more stress on what's supposed to be a celebratory day.

And how about the birthday itself? Well, there's no traditional family in my life, so sometimes birthdays and holidays can get kind of depressing. My friend Bekah sent me a funny e-card, and my BFF out in Colorado sent me a $50 home depot gift card. I have a good friend here in Philly who planned a real nice little celebration. We were going to go to Pod for sushi (its a really trendy Philly restaurant where sushi rides by on a conveyer belt), but my heart really just wasn't in it.

Instead, we went completely Al Bundy, and it was actually perfect. Buffalo wings, pizza, beer in our pajamas and John Madden Football on my new XBOX 360. I don't even understand football, I have no idea what the difference is between a screen pass and a slant, and honestly, I don't care. We couldn't figure out how to play with two controllers, so I played offense and she played defense. It was really fun, and more importantly, didn't involve a courtroom. PS, we played the Raiders as the Broncos and kicked their asses, then we played them as the Eagles and kicked their asses.

Sometimes you just need to take a time out.

Competitive vs Social

This is a topic that many of you probably deal with on a regular basis, and one that will be with us for a long time. I have my own personal reasons for pondering, if anyone has any insight, please share away :)

Is your club (or you ..) competitive, or social? Is it possible to be both? How do you define each, and, how to you reconcile things when your teams goals are in conflict with your own?

I've always taken that stance that whatever your goals are, daily, weekly, and long term preparation must map to those goals. The coaches role is largely to guide preperation in a way that maps to goals. In other words, if the team's goals are to "be competitive", preparation, decisions, and actions must give the team the best possible chance at success. How this relates to the win-loss record is obvious - competitive teams generally want to finish out a season with more w's than l's, but thats certainly not the bottom line. Sometimes, a team moves into a new division, or seeks out opponents who are significantly stronger in order to become better, and "success" is measured in different ways - did you play as a team, improve communication, get new players hard game experiences, work on decision making, focus on ball retention etc.

The bottom line IMHO, is that a competitive team sets goals, does whatever preparation is necessary to achieve those goals, at at the end of the day reflects, as a team, as individuals, and as coaches, on how close you came to achieving said goals. Action plans are put into place, goals are set again, and the whole process starts over. This process takes place at practices, at games, during the off season - continuously. So, if we could sum it up in one word, it's my believe that being competitive means being accountable. Not just doing what you said you would do - but preparing to do it, trying to do it, assessing how well you did it, and preparing again. Being a competitive team is hard - you've got to learn to give and take criticism, and you have to be willing to take action to improve your performance in a way that bet suits your team. You've got to be willing to let the player who DOESN'T prepare sit on the sidelines. This applies to us as coaches as well ... you have to make and own hard decisions, and YOU have to be accountable to the team.

So how about being a social team? Any time that word is thrown around, partying and drinking come to mind, but I don't think that's an accurate assessment of what social rugby means (seriously, doesn't everyone celebrate in some way after a well played match?). I think that a team that defines themselves as "social" probably is more concerned with the relationships between players than the performance of the players. Selections are probably focused more on participation than performance, and accountability is measured differently. The raw experience of playing a super fun sport for the pure joy of playing is what is sought as an ultimate outcome, and the social networking and membership in a club is valued as much as time in the gym, on the track, or at high level camps. As a coach, your priority is inclusion and the "enjoyability" of the experience.

I do not suggest that one is better than the other, nor do I suggest that the two cannot find common ground. There are "social" players on competitive teams, and there are "competitive" players on social teams. There are teams that manage to be competitive, yet still have a strong social culture. NY immediately comes to mind - as recent National Champions, with a zillion Eagles in their ranks, clearly they are competitive. But, they are tremendously supportive of their less accomplished players, and I've repeatedly seen the zillion Eagles running water out to their Developmental players. This in my mind, is a terrific example of a team culture that's managed to do both.

I'm interested in hearing about anyone else's challenges or experiences finding the balance between social rugby and competitive rugby.

The holy grail of coaching, would certainly be to run a team in such a way that competitive goals are achieved AND every single player, regardless of skill level, has a positive experience. Saying that such a task is easy would certainly be naive. There will aways be the big game, that the whole team has been preparing for, and the one player with the golden heart who's just not ready to take the pitch at a game of that level. We have to build a culture that is strong enough to withstand those situations, and is strong enough that every player, top of the roster to the bottom, feels valuable. That takes a lot of time, a lot of communication, and a lot of commitment.

And what happens when goals are in conflict? As a coach, what do you do when your personal goals are different then your teams goals? How can you influence the teams goals, and should you try? I guess it all goes back to being a pusher. What if the team, as a whole, doesn't want to be pushed? Can you make the relationship work? Should you?

The Two Man Drop = Power Up?

I game upon this article from the RFU by googling "long body ruck".

The Two-Man Drop - Producing lightning-fast recycled ball .

Since the topic sparked so much discussion, I thought it would be worth posting here. At the core of the paper are these ideas:

Use this techniques when more dynamic options have been exhausted.
Put TWO bodies in between the poacher and the ball carrier.
Never let one player go to ground together, always two!

Our MNT Head Coach, Peter Thornberg, is quoted along with Eddie O'Sullivan, the Irish MNT coach.

Why do you do it?

Coaching is hard, that there is no doubt. Those of us who do it and love it obsess over every practice, every email, every conversation. We watch video, design workouts, scour the web. Very few of us get paid, rather, most of us wind up spending most of our money.

For many of us, job decisions are influenced by rugby. I wonder if it will be easier or harder to get to practice? Will I be able to travel weekends? What if there's a tour, will have enough vacation?

The more you do it, the more you get sucked into coaching even more. We do camps, select sides, college, club, high school. If you are still an active player, two days a week you practice, two days you coach, and every Saturday you scramble to meet all your rugby obligations.

So why do why do we do it? Rather, why do you do it?

Here's my story, and why, I think, I do it. Bear with me, I'm in a mood today.

I started as a "player coach". That was ehhh..... ok at best. As a player coach, you're emotionally invested in the outcome so your perception of things is very skewed. Everything you see, say, and do is from your view on the pitch, wearing whatever number you wear. As a hooker, I had no clue what the backs did, all I knew was that it sucked to come out of a scrum or a ruck only to see the ball on the deck. Little did I realize that, had we forwards created a more effective attacking platform, the backs would have had less pressure and therefore more time been more successful. Hindsight's 20-20.

At the high point in my rugby career, I suffered the hooker's worst nightmare - two severely herniated disks. Playing career OVER, DONE. Coaching career begins. At that time, I coached because I didn't want to let go, I didn't want to stop being a part of it. My friends were still playing, I was socially so immersed in the rugby lifestyle that I could not comprehend life without it. I loved the game, but I loved belonging to that group more. Lesson learned, that's the wrong reason to coach. When you become a coach, you suddenly have to be objective. You have to watch. You have to give feedback, sometimes unwelcome feedback, to your BFFs. You have to participate in selection decisions, and sometimes that means telling your BFF that awsome college kid #2 would be a way better choice at flyhalf. Lets just say that the experience forced me to reevaluate who I am, how I identify myself, and how I measure the fullness of my life. I learned the difference between "rugby friends" and "friends".

Many years have gone by and I've grown as a person and as a coach. I learned that coaching someone I'd never met before was challenging and rewarding. I learned that I can contribute to another individual's world in a way that I never could before. I learned that I could take all my personal life lessons, and through the vehicle of sport, use that knowledge to help others be successful.

I also learned that some young players are hungry for someone to give them a path. They are faced with many different challenges and decisions, and in some cases they constantly question their self-esteem and self-worth. Even those from the most stable and loving families are looking for ways to make their mark on the world. They are looking for ways to become stronger, better people. They are looking for someone to ask them to make hard choices, commit to training, and be accountable for their actions.

Granted, some of them don't want any of this, and some of them already have PLENTY of self-esteem. I will always struggle with how to reach those players.

So I guess what it comes down to is that I coach rugby because I want the women of the world to be STRONG. I am terrified that our society of anti-bacterial soap, political correctness, law-suits, and religious conservatism is turning our young people into something I just don't like. I'm worried that in a time of real crisis, 30 years down the road, no one will make a stand. I'm scared that the weak will have no champion and that the poor will have no voice. I'm scared that heartfelt compassion and empathy are being replaced by "sensitivity training".

So, when I run into a player who who works hard, asks questions, takes risks, and displays courage and passion, I become truly excited to coach, whether she has the "supporting genetics" or not. When there are 30 like minded players, it's a dream come true.

Contact sports (rugby especially) are the ideal place to create and build character. Its a controlled, relatively safe environment where you have to operate as a team, make decisions, defend your mates, and confront danger. Its a place where you learn that preparation results in performance. Its a place where a woman can go, in a few short months, from a place of low-self-esteem and negative body image, to a place of confidence and power.

Playing sports, especially this one, is one of the few ways that a woman get get the life skills and tools previously reserved only for men.

And it never fails, every single season, I learn a boatload about myself from the players I coach. They influence me and force me to grow in ways I never imagined, and I thank them for that. And trust me, when I make a stupid mistake, they make me pay.

So I guess that's why I coach - I want to change the world. Call me crazy, call me idealistic - I'm a Sagittarius, that's what I am.

So why to you coach? What motivates you to come back day after day, week after week?

Non-rugby: Mr T playset

Some things are so ridiculous that they need to be shared.

Mr T Playset

Coaching the Tackle - Through and Gather

I had an opportunity to work with USA Women's 7's Head Coach Julie McCoy some this summer. She spends some time on Sunday working on the details of the tackle.

Jules has been using "fat mats" to help players develop explosive power. It keeps the body from taking a beating, elevates the fun level, and really lets the players push hard. The entire tackling session was about two hours, and leads into an extensive session on footwork - how to be in the position to MAKE the tackle, how to finish the tackle in a position to poach, and how to poach as you are coming off the ground.

This particular clip is about 4 minutes, and addresses the act of "gathering" a player, rather than simply wrapping. To do this correctly requires significant explosive upper and lower body power.



In this particular session, the key take aways I had were :

• Tackle through, not to the player. Never reach with the arms, rather, drive through with the shoulder.
• Gather the player to you with the arms.
• Finish the tackle in a wide-based, split-leg position to enable the follow up poach.
• Power is generated by extending the hips
  
• Use explosive lifts - jump squats, snatches, etc, rather than traditional squats to develop physical skills.

And I really want some fat mats.

Women and High Performance Coaching

I was purusing the Sports Coach UK site, and came upon an interesting (though not necessarily easy to read) article about an initiative in the UK called the Women into High Performance Coaching (WHPC) programme.

Basically its a program which, over three years, strove to prepare women coaches for high performance coaching positions. In the UK (as in the US), there are mechanisms in place to provide gender equity in sport for players (ie Title IX), but there remains a shortage of women in high performance coaching Positions. They mention that despite gender equity among players at the Olympic level, only 1 out of 10 Olympic level coaches is a woman.

The document in it's entirely is here.

The study was conducted in co-operation with the Women's Sports Foundation and the governing bodies of Rugby Union, Rugby League, Cricket, and Football (Soccer).

The 20 coaches who participated all had received some sort of certification, with 13 at Level III or IV (probably the equivalent of being a Level III Coach or Coach Instructor here in the US).

After the program was over, follow up was done to see if this "high performance training" opened any doors or created any opportunities for women to enter High Performance Coaching. Most of the coaches responded that they were continuing to coach at the same level than they were prior to the three year program.

The document in itself is 57 pages, but there's lots of very interesting statistical info.

It seems to me, as a casual observer, that the real issue of gender equity in coaching is related to the idea that men can coach men or women, and women generally just coach women. Now, I realize I might be opening up a can of worms, but I don't mind :) . There are a couple of male coaches out there that I know advocate and welcome qualified female coaches into their mens programs, but for the most part they stand alone. I've personally been at co-ed camps and participated in the coaching of men and boys, but it's always been something that had to be elevated.

I know that some of the top women's coaches (USA level) have been invited to coach high level men as guest coaches, but really that's where it stops. So I'm curious .... are there any women out there who are in HEAD COACH positions at clubs, universities, high schools? What will happen first ... a female president, or a female Head Coach of a Men's National Rugby Team? When all things (coaching skills etc) are considered, is there an inherent difference between women coaching men, men coaching men, women coaching women, and men coaching women?

Don't be shy ...

Running up the Score

I spent some time this Saturday on the other side of the fence. Gridiron football, that is. A friend of mine plays in a rough tough league so I watched a game and then adjourned to have lunch with these football players. Lucky for me, their coach was there and I was able to pick her brain.

Despite all the obvious differences, there are bigger ideological differences in respect to the game, what sportsmanship is, and what it is to show respect to your opponents. They had recently played in a match and received an ass kicking (ps, there are some very athletic women out there playing rec football). The other team, every single time they went on offense, tried to score. This, apparently, was a bad thing, and this wasn't just one person's opinion. From what I could gather, once you've sufficiently run up the score, the appropriate thing to do is just take a knee on offense and run through the downs. When I asked why, I was told "why risk someone getting hurt when the game is essentially already won?". This practice of "taking a knee" is apparently pretty standard in all levels of football.

Now of course I had to share the rugby way of doing things (sidebar: My friend Bekah, also a rugby person, was with me, and I could FEEL the tension rising as she anticipated what sort of incident-causing-comments I might make. I believe I did a wonderful job keeping a meaningful, non-judgmental dialog going)

I told them that in rugby, every second on the pitch is a privilege, and shouldn't be wasted. Games like this are an opportunity to work on things, and the losing team now has an opportunity to work on defense. We can play all our subs. We can try to develop aspects of our game that need work. Bottom line, I said - Saturday's a rugby day, and we want to spend every available second playing rugby.

So then what about the team getting their ass kicked, they said? Isn't it unsportsmanlike to embarrass them like that? Well, personally I think its unsportsmanlike to ever take it light on your opponent. We've all been on both sides of the 80-5 game. If you were on the winning side, don't people who normally never get a chance for glory suddenly find themselves in the tryzone? Isn't it a time where maybe you can see that rookie #3 has amazing foot skills? If you were on the losing side, wasn't it amazing to score that one try?. If you were on the losing side playing against some really amazing players, doesn't it feel great to have shared the pitch with them? And, if you're on the losing side, even though you got your ass kicked, don't you walk away feeling as if your team, together, has faced something really hard, and come away tougher and wiser?

So ... it's an interesting difference between us and them. I know I don't speak for all rugby players or coaches, but to me, "taking a knee on offense" is about the same thing as handing the ball to the other teams #9 at the next scrum down saying, "Here you go - why don't you guys just play offense for the rest of the game?".

Would anyone ever do that?

Laws of the Game: Sealing? Bridging? Flying Wedge?

The post on Coaching the Seal solicited a couple of passionate comments.

Personally, i think the wide range of styles implemented on the pitch is one of the greatest things about our game, and I especially enjoy watching matches where one team implements a different set of tools and strategies than the other.

I thought I'd do a little research as to how the Laws of the Game directly relate to this issue. I'm but a lowly emergency b-side ref, so if there is a Big Time Referee out there who can give us some insight on the topic, feel free to chime in.

The complete 2006 Laws of the Game can be found at the IRB web site .

It seems there are a couple of laws that come into play when more than just one player winds up on the ground in a ruck situation.

Law 16 ... Tackle: Ball carrier Brought to the Ground
Law 17 .... Ruck

OBG is absolutely correct regarding rucking with the head above the shoulders. It is explicitly spelled out in Law 17. HOWEVER, its unclear if the player sealing would qualify as a "rucker". Since they are not involved in the act of "rucking", it seems like they would not.

The following images depicts the behavior by support players that is explicitly forbidden at the tackle (I snipped these from the complete Laws of the Game)...






Compare this to this screen capture from the video:



Hmmm. Neither of these photos, nor any in the Laws, seem to map exactly to what Kathy's coaching in the video. Maybe it's BRIDGING. Yeah, that's it!

A text search of the entire 180 page PDF document did not reveal the word bridge or bridging anywhere in the document. Is there no longer a reference to it? Is bridging no longer illegal? Anyone know?

I WAS able to find the term "Flying Wedge" under Chapter 10, Foul Play.

‘Flying Wedge’ The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.

Penalty: Penalty Kick at the place of the original infringement.

Interesting stuff, these laws.

All Tournament Team

In recognition efforts of the 93 players and many coaches, assessors, and administrators who competed in the MARFU U-23 LAU All Star tournament this weekend, the following players have been named to an honorary "All Tournament Side". Great job everyone.

1. Brittany Robison, Kutztown
2. Winnie Chao, University of Virginia
3. Kathleen Brady, James Madison
4. Sandra Carretero, Kutztown
5. Ashley Keen, Drexel
6. Lindsay Wick, Brandywine Women
7. Sherri Villa, American University
8. Emily Tunney, Philadelphia Women
9. Erin Rideout, Mary Washington
10. Laurie Bryan, Virginia Tech
11. Courtney Ayling, Kutztown
12. Kerriee Shuey, Shippensburg University
13. Rachel Winters, University of Virginia
14. Allison Hunter, University of Virginia
15. Sara Miller, James Madison
16. Kelly Schumann, University of Virginia
17. Lisa Hrunka, Shippensburg
18. Nicole Coffineau, VTech
19. Julia Swavola, James Madison
20. Kerryn Winiesky, Kutztown
21. Katie Welter, Georgetown
22. Elizabeth Walsh, University of Delaware

This weekends LAU tournament ...

So this weekend was the MARFU U-23 Collegiate All Star Tournament (LAU Round Robin). I thought it would be interesting to blog about the process from my perspective. I'm now starting my second year as the MARFU U-23 coach, and have a clearer vision of how I want the program to progress. All the TU coaches probably have different processes and outlooks, this was mine ...

Three teams competed, representing VRU(Virginia), PRU(Potomoc), and EPRU(East Penn). PRU entered two teams since they were the host union, so there could be a Saturday game and a Sunday game, and teams would only play one game a day. We were in Baltimore and it was cold.

This event is NOT a tryout for the MARFU U-23 team. It is however, the first of several events where players can be seem. I personally really wanted this event to mean something, so selected an honorary "all tournament team", and we will be inviting players to compete in another event as part of the MARFU U-23 Developmental team.

So all day, Saturday and Sunday, was spent watching players. I had a small army of volunteers who were dedicated to this task, and all I can say is THANK GOD. There were a total of 93 players present, and that's a lot. So here's how the process worked ..

First I get the rosters from the LAU coaches via email. I look for familiar names, scan the birthdays, etc (u23s need to be born 1984 or earlier to be eligible). I look to see who's name I don't recognize. Then, when I get to the pitch, the team managers give up match rosters with jersey numbers.

Next i get all the "assessors" together. I try to get folks from every LAU, but it's hard. This year the Philly Women really helped out by sending some of their senior level players to watch, so whenever possible I asked them to watch players from OTHER unions, since they are familiar with some of the EPRU players. I split players up by positional groups - back triangle, back row, inside backs, tight five, etc. Each of the assessors gets a form where they can track the activity of their assigned players. I was fortunate that some terrific notes were taken by all the assessors. Thank you Ginger, Deb, Angie, Mancini, Roshna, Eileen, Bill.

I must add that late in the games there is the crazy scramble to keep track of players, because folks are going in and out, and all jerseys are getting traded. The coaches are busy coaching, and not thinking about random assessor #2, so we go insane trying to figure out who were are watching. If I had my way, at these types of events there would be 30 jerseys, and every player would wear the same jersey all weekend. That would be EASY!!!!!!

At the end of the game, we all have a caucus on the field and i ask everyone to give me a 1 minute data dump on the players they watched. Then we get another pair of rosters and do it again.

By the time the second game kicked off, the temperature had dropped 10 degrees. By half, it had dropped another 10 degrees. By the final whistle, another 10. It was COLD. No matter, we still have a caucus. As soon as we're done, I hunt down the LAU coaches and invited them to a meeting so we can brainstorm about players, do the probables/possibles thing, and also identify some candidates for a scholarship to one of Julie McCoy's Footwork Camps.

We check into the hotel and proceed to the tavern for a much needed beer, lots of appetizers, and some wonderfully heated debate.

This is the part of the process that is the hardest, the most interesting, and always the most emotional. We sat down as a group, and as step one, went through all 93 players with the goal of saying SOMETHING. Whenever we get to a particular coach's players, there's always this slightly perceivable tension. Everyone loves their own players and I'm no exception. So whenever we dialogue about the "favorites" you can just see the coaches itching to say lots of positive stuff, but holding back just to not seem impartial. Eventually everything that needs saying gets out. PS Gabe, I'm still mad at you.

Another thing that's tough about this process is the positional thing. Just like on our clubs, players don't always play where they "project". For example, on a club team the player with the greatest chance of making the national team might be playing 8, but the reality is, she won't make the national team at 8, but she might at 1 or 3. Well, what if you have lots of really good 1 & 3s, but she lights things up for you at 8? Do you do whats best for the player in the long run, or whats best for the team (and all those other really good 1s & 3s) in the short term? There are no easy answers, and every single situation is different.

Other things that come up are related to age. There might be a young player on a very steep learning curve who "projects". There might be an older player who is better right now, but is unlikely to advance further the LAU or TU play. Who do you take?

And then there's the school thing ... players from lesser DI, DII, and even DIII schools often are the ones who get the most from select sides, and who bring stuff back to their teams. A lot are player coaches. Some of these players, if they were playing with one of the Big Name schools and a Big Name coach would be insanely good, but they find themselves struggling because they don't play surrounded by high level players, and they don't play competitive matches every weekend. We have to find a way to get them exposed to what they need.

Anyway, we spent a good portion of time hammering things out, and at the end wound up with about 30 names of players that would get invited to a Developmental event. Some of these players are not actually developmental players, but are more seasoned TU select side players. Their presence is necessary to keep the standard as high as possible for all the new faces, and to work on their leadership skills.

Since MARFU is such a hotbed of collegiate rugby, we can count on several of our teams participating in Collegiate Nationals, which means there are lots of spring conflicts. That actually works out OK, because it opens up lots of spots for these developmental players. They'll get prepared through the developmental events, and be in a better position to compete with the top D1 players once the open camp rolls around.

Anyway - my companions and I checked out this fun dueling piano bar down on the waterfront (in Baltimore), and then I left them to their fun while I went back to the hotel to get some sleep. My throat was starting to get sore and my voice was going out. Sunday there were more players to watch. Late in the night I couldn't sleep - I always have a hard time at rugby functions. I was doing spreadsheets in my head, and kept trying to figure out all the "what ifs". IE, what if players x, y, and z are going to nationals and can't come? What about players d, e, and f? What if I was wrong about player x? So, to settle my head I got up, dug out my laptop, went through the lists again, and added 8 more names, positionally mapped to the players I knew were unlikely to be available. In addition, I put together the list of "players to watch", for Sunday, based on input from coaches and assessors. Whew!

So Sunday the two PRU teams played each other. There was more possession this time around, so we got so see some players do things they didn't do on Saturday. (if you've got a great wing, but she never gets the ball, no one will ever know she's a great wing!).

The final game between EPRU and VRU was a barn-burner. It always is. The two teams played completely different games, with the VRU moving the ball very quickly away from the point of contact, trying to quickly exploit vulnerabilities, and the EPRU going vertical as much as possible, trying to suck in players and take it a meter at a time. The final score was 15-10 VRU, but I think everyone had their fingers crossed. At the end of both games the selectors again quickly caucused, to say what we learned about the "players to watch".

I fell asleep about 80 times on the way home (thanks for the ride Ginger), and lost my voice completely. All in all it was a tremendously productive weekend.

Non-rugby: Campaign for Real Beauty

I saw this a couple of weeks ago at work - we've been talking quite a bit about viral marketing and consumer-generated content. Anyway - it's quite disturbing and speaks volumes about why young women do the things they do in the name of beauty ...

Support Skills: Rucking part 2 - Coaching the Seal

One technique that has become popular in recent years is the "seal".

The essential difference between this and more traditional techniques is the role of the very first support player. Providing the she arrives to the ball carrier BEFORE the ball carrier has been brought to ground, that initial support player plays an active role in ball retention and ball presentation, rather than just stepping over the player and driving.

The technique can creates controversy because of it's similarity to bridging (which is illegal). When executed poorly, the technique can also bring penalties for "diving over" or "making the ball unplayable". On the flip side, this technique provides a very fast clean ball to the scrumhalf, provides greater ball retention than other methods, and allows for more go forward options and dynamic play.

The following footage is of Kathy Flores, WNT Head Coach, and Candi Orsini teaching this techniques as part of a joint camp between the Eagles, MARFU, and NRU in the spring of 2006.

Thanks to the WNT for their permission to present this footage here.



Though out this session, a few things got my attention.

An attempt to step (evade) the defender was presented as standard.
Keeping the feet moving and going forward was a next best option.
The decision to go down was presented as the BALL carriers decision (ie, not support telling the ball carrier to go to ground, but vice versa).

Support Skills: Rucking Part 1

I received this a while back from a friend who is currently in a player coach role:

I've been working with forwards on rucking. They are still having trouble getting their spacing and speed correct and recognizing where to go. Is there any particular drill(s) that you can think of off the top of your head
that you could send me to address this issue. I did do some of the drills we have discussed in the past. I know we discussed that rucking is more than one issue and rucking is not always the problem.

This seems like a great topic to dialogue about. Since it's the off season, let's go for it!

Personally, I see rucking as technique which is part of a the larger set of SUPPORT skills. We can't truly address the issue of rucking without the larger topic of support, and of course we need to distinguish between offense and defense.

Offensive Support consists of actions taken by a player or players to

• maintain continuity of attack


• preserve options


• maintain go forward


• maintain possession


• minimize the impact of errors

So - when support fails, several things typically result starting with the most severe:

• Penalty turnovers


• Turnovers


• Slow Ball


• Sloppy Ball


• Loss of continuity

So, as coaches, when we approach rucking, its important to put whatever games or drills we use in context and to ask a lot of questions:

What are we trying to accomplish by rucking? Do we just need good possession, or do we need quick ball? Do we want to attack off the base or are we moving the ball away?

Did the ball carrier get behind the defense? Is the tackler still on his feet? How many players are in support of him? Where are we on the field? How much time to do we have?

What is the defense doing? Attempting to poach? Stepping over the ball? Piling bodies in? Kicking at the ball? Are they contesting the ruck at all, or are they loading everyone up on the fringe?


Sounds like overkill? More penalties happen at the ruck than anywhere else. More turnovers occur there. The team that has the ability to attack effectively through multiple phases of play will always be more successful that the team with a well-rehearsed first phase only plan. In order to get those multi-phase tools to our teams, we must develop outstanding support skills. Those support skills should be learned and practiced by all players, regardless of the position they play.

As to the ruck itself, of late it seems there are a few primary techniques out there. Over the course of the next few days I'll try to get some video examples of each:

• The link/leach/seal



• The long body ruck



• The traditional "driving over" ruck



• Hybrid approaches

So - the floor is open for discussion. How do you coach the set of support skills we describe as "rucking?"

Righteous Indignation - Veteran's Day

So this post is delayed (obviously) and decidedly non-rugby related. Saturday was Veteran's Day. I guess some banks and such took of on Monday, but for the most part it was but a blip on the radar. That's why it's taking me so long to become indignant! Until I looked at the Circuit City flyer in my mail box, I didn't even know it happened!

Well, Veteran's Day pisses me off. I'm a veteran. The only time I've ever HAD Veteran's Day off was when I was in the service. And even then we pretty much always dressed up in our finest to put on a parade for the civilians in the morning, so only had a half day.

So, I call for nationwide legislation. ALL VETERANS SHOULD HAVE VETERAN'S DAY AS A PAID HOLIDAY. Is it too much to ask????

Old Friends - Congrats Albany & Raleigh

Had to shout out to my friends in Albany (I did a stint with them a couple of years ago - they are an awesome bunch of women). They just returned from the DII Women's Club Championships, where they lost the final to Raleigh but made everyone very proud. There are great photos of the whole tourney online.

I'm a pusher

I'm a huge fan of Tina Fey - Mean Girls cracked me up. When I found out that my team only sent one rep to LAU Select Side tryouts, I wanted to know why. Internally, I wondered if maybe I was being too much of a "pusher" - I could just see that scene in my head, where Tina's character is trying to get Lindsey Lohan's character to join mathletes.

The answer was "I just wasn't really into it". So I wonder - do I/we push to hard? Enthusiasm is a great thing, but is it possible to be too enthusiastic? Isn't it part of our charter as coaches, to inspire, motivate, etc. Push? What do we do when our players "just aren't as into it" as their coaches?

I realize that not every player is destined for national glory. HOWEVER, I believe that it's very hard for a team to excel if at least a few of the players aren't on that quest for personal excellence. True, the bigger institutionally supported, financially stable programs like PSU, Navy, etc manage to excel year after year without a massive select side presence. But they also play top notch rugby week in and week out. Those players, by virtue of being part of those programs, are already on the quest for personal excellence. That's not who I'm talking about - I'm talking about the other 90% of programs.

We don't have a pitch. Our scrum "sled" is really just a piece of metal that we would prefer stays chained up to a fence. We don't have access to an athletic trainer. I've had players take a cab to a match because we never seem to have enough cars on game day. Don't get me wrong, the school supports us all the way - but the resources are limited and must be shared across all the clubs. For us, having those few players aspire "beyond their school" has helped to set the high standard for other players. A few go out, get great coaching, play at a faster pace, at a higher level, and osmosis takes over. Suddenly the whole team is faster, more intense, more driven. Is it a coincidence that the only schools who've beaten us in our league over the last two years have lots of select side participants?

So what's the secret? I don't want to change who my players are, but I can't help but want to change "what they want". Any ideas how to inspire without being "a pusher"?

Concussion Toolkit

I recieved this from Ellen in Columbus Ohio.

It's the Coach's Concussion Toolkit, from the Center for Disease Control. Good stuff - a must have for coaches.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Coaches_Tool_Kit.htm

Thanks Ellen, I've also added it as a link in the Coach's Resources sidebar.

LAU All Stars

This weekend are the LAU Select Side tryouts in my union (EPRU). Details are on the EPRU web site. We've got a new head coach this year, so I'm excited to see what he brings to the program.

Despite the fact that my assistant coach and myself are both heavily involved in All Star activities, it's always a challenge to get our players out. When I was a player, I was never the "amazing athlete". I was the one who trained hard, listened to everything the coach said, and perfected a couple of specialty skills. I played my way up to the Territorial level, and hung onto a spot for several years, but never made it any further. Bottom line - I was just never THAT good.

I suppose that's why it frustrates me so. When I see some of the athletes that are in the collegiate rugby community these days, I'm amazed. There is so much raw talent, athleticism, etc. These young women, athletically, are a whole new breed. It's hard not to watch them and think "wow, if only I had those genetics when I was playing .... " .

I guess the reality is that All Star play isn't for everyone. I've got one truly amazing, gifted player, just born to play rugby, who's repeatedly told me that she just likes playing with her friends. It's taken me a while to accept that, and to "give up" encouraging her to play select sides, but finally i'm realizing that everyone's motivation for playing is different, and that ability and desire are not directly related.

However, I DO have 3 or 4 players who will be trying out, and I'm excited for all of them. Three of them have never tried out for an All Star team before, so I wish them the best of luck! We have over 30 women's college programs in our EPRU, so there could be alot of competition. Last year about 45 players showed up, hopefully there will be alot more this year. I feel pretty confident for them, though - all of them have the skills to compete for a position, so it will be a matter of who does what on that particular day.

IF any other EPRU'ers are reading this,visit the site for tryout info.

Work Rate - What is it, how do you use it?

We coaches throw around the term "work rate" alot, especially when we're talking with players. Sometimes it seems like an easy answer for every selection question ...

Player: Hey coach, what do I need to do to get into the starting lineup?
Coach: Well, I'd really like to see you up your work rate.

So what is it? Simply put, it's how hard the player works on the pitch, from start to finish. While I was working with the former girls U19 coach, I was first exposed to a statistical method for calculating work rate (thank you Karl!). I did a little tweaking of my own, and present to you the result (im sure it's still quite imperfect).

This method requires a full statistical analysis of a match, preferably using video. Then i use an algorithm that awards points for the following actions by a player:

• Ball Touch - 1 point
  
• Link - 1 point for the first action at a breakdown
  
• Ball Running - 1 point
  
• Tackles - 1 point for each Level 1 tackle, 2 points for every level 2 tackle (no gain or loss by ball carrier), 3 points for a level 3 tackle
  
• Poach - one point
  
• Kick - 1 point
  
• Pass - 1 point
  

This gives you a raw number reprentative of a player's workrate during a particular match. If you go a step further, you can determine a players "effective" workrate ...

• Missed Tackle - minus 2 points
  
• Knock, forward pass, or other handling errors - minus 1 points
  
• Turnover - minus 2 points (only 1 point if the result of a minor infraction)
  
• Penalty - minus 2 points
  

Here's a screenshot of some stats I did after a match my team played last year (click to enlarge) ...



I've only included players 1-9 here, and have removed their names. As you can see - it's a telling story. Taking the time to do these sorts of stats really helps you get a total picture of a players performance. When meeting with players, you've got lots of hard data to identify a plan for improvement. This sort of data is also helpful for selections, WITH CERTAIN CAVAETS:

• From game to game stats vary widely, through no fault of the players. If in one match, you play a team that loves to attack the fringe, your tight forwards will have more opportunites to tackle, poach, ruck, etc than they might in another game. If you play a team that loves to go wide, your wings will find themselves working harder and your forward's stats might drop off.
  
  
• You've got to exercise caution when comparing positionally. For example, the scrumhalf will always have a high work rate, as long as she's doing her job. They have the opportunity to touch the ball more that other players, so the stats will reflect that.
  
  
• Make sure you annotate how long a player was in. Some players may have a high work rate for 40 minutes, yet when you look at them for 80 minutes, the numbers don't change (this is player who "paces" him/herself).
  
  
• Stats are a great tool for positional assessments - which lock is working the hardest, which prop, which wing? Is there anyone who's where they need to be, but not being effective (WR vs EWR?) Is it better to split halves between two particular players, and therefore get a higher EWR over 80 minutes?
  

Anway - those are my thoughts on Work Rate. There are several commercial packages out there to help you with statistics, but I don't have any. If you decide to try it out, drop me a line.

thanks!

Match Day: How much coaching is too much coaching?

I've watched hundreds of rugby matches, and every coach has their own particular style .

Here are a few diverse examples ranging from maximum coach involvement to minimum:

• Two coaches on either sideline, communicating by radio to call each and every phase of play , offensively and and defensively, verbally communicating with captains and decision makers non-stop.
  
  
• The coach who yells non-stop, positive, negative, pretty much everything there is, moving up and down the sideline with the play.
  
  
• More reserved, the coach who moves up and down the sidelines, dialoging at stoppages, words of encouragement here and there. On-pitch meetings during injury stoppages and in the try-zone (when a try has been scored)
  
  
• Occasional try-zone only intervensions.
  
  
• Use of messengers (ie coach doesn't personally address players during matches, rather, he/she uses trainers, subs, or water carriers to convey information)
  
  
• Silently watching from behind the try-zone. Half time adjustments only.
  
  
• The international coach, in the stands during a match.
  

What's your preffered method and why? Do you believe that you, personally, adhere to the method you prefer?


--- Coach

On your mark, get set, Go!!!

About Me:

In this corner of the world, I'm a rugby coach. Over the past 10 years I've worked with women's clubs and colleges. I've been lucky to help out with our U19 and U23 National teams, and I believe the age grade programs are our future.  In 2009 I was the head coach for the Collegiate All American Women, and my view on development of our younger players was cemented.

I started playing rugby myself back in 1982, at the State University of Stonybrook. Back then, if you showed up at a game, and the team was short, someone would just throw you a pair of cleats, and you'd play in your first game. No CIPP, no NCAA, no CDP. A coach was usually someone on the guys team, preferably with an accent. Things have changed.

Coaching is serious business now - you better have a coaching resume and current certifications at a minimum if you want to coach, and you need to know about more than just the position you used to play.

I've coached in Colorado, Albany, Westchester, and Philadelphia.  I was privledged to be the head coach at Temple University, the Philadelphia Women, and with the MARFU U-23 Side, and I was an assistant co.   Life often brings you back full circle, and that's what it's done to me.  I'm back in Colorado coaching the Glendale Raptors, and it's beyond amazing.  Rugbytown USA indeed.

---

Enough of rugby - pictured below are some of my favorite things...

This is Ewing Ranch, lot 143. It's 40 acres and it's one of two lots we own. It's located in the heart of the San Luis Valley, equidistant from Mineral Hot Springs, and the Great Sand Dunes. That's Colorado, in case you haven't guessed.  My partner and I are currently developing the property into the "Colorado Sports Ranch", a seculded place for elite athletes to train at altitude (7600 feet!).



Pictured below are Tawanda (left) and K2 (right).  The are no longer with me, having lived to the ripe old ages of 15 and 16 respectively, but it feels nice to still see there pictures here.  We have a new dog family, featuring Billie (12 year old medium sized brown dog),  Simba (K-2's doppeganger with brown eyes), and Max (a lord-knows-what puppy of unbounded energy).  Add to those guys two horses - KC and Baby, and an assortment of cats and we've got our hands full.

---

About My Blog:

In the great sport of rugby, coaches of the world (well, at least coaches in my world) could use a forum to dialogue about our experiences, exchange ideas, vent, and just plain blab electronically.

Though my personal experience is limited to the female gender, this blog is not intended to be gender specific.

While this is MY place to do that, I'm hoping others might get some of it, and I might get something out of others.