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?