Roster limits hurt everyone...

The RFU asked for and subsequently received a ruling from the IRB concerning match replacements that stands to have a profound impact on collegiate rugby unless USA Rugby intervenes.

Ruling with accompanying narrative from the Rugby Committee

The details are a bit sketchy but it basically reaffirms that substitution rules followed in international matches carry down to all levels of adult rugby – presumably collegiate rugby in the US since USAR by-laws dictate compliance with all IRB rulings. So, coaches name 22 man rosters and must pick substitutions from that eligible pool of players. This is terrible news for collegiate rugby and here’s why:

1. A team would no longer have the ability to control a game once they’ve obtained a comfortable lead. Its fairly routine for a coach to bypass his immediate reserves and go deeper into the bench during these instances so as to get the younger, less experienced player some important playing time in the A side jumper. It builds deeper teams and better programs plus enables the coach to show a bit of compasion for the opposition when it just isn't there day.
2. A team would no longer have the ability to insert that special senior player into a match that is comfortably in hand. Every collegiate coach has multiple stories of those uniquely dedicated club members that play for four years but just don’t have what it takes to break into the A side. They show up on time to every practice, they are officers of the club, they wash jerseys and carry water during the matches but just can’t crack that top 22. However, there always seems to be that game during their last year when you have a chance to get them on the field in the second half. The sideline always comes alive and everyone on the field is trying to get the ball in their hands. It’s a program building moment. And, it doesn’t have to be when your team is out front. In 2005 we were able to get some very deserving seniors on the field in a losing effort against Cal and those guys still talk about that experience.
3. In our high school league we have implement what amounts to a mercy rule. If a team is up by 22 at halftime, with mutual agreement from the coaches, the game is called and the second half is played as a scrimmage. That allows the coaches to put kids on the field that wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity plus they are allowed to exceed the maximum number of substitutes. Now, at the collegiate level, we are left with coming up with the same type of solution. However, it requires the consent of both coaches which at times is sure to be an issue at the collegiate level.

Yes, I get it. Its rugby and that’s how it’s played according to the IRB. However, this type of rule clearly is a detriment to the growth of the sport and to programs across the US.

Collegiate All Americans

The selection process has been announced for the 2009 Collegiate All American team and it appears to remain consistent with the 2008 process (Press Release). USA Rugby should be commended for the increasingly transparent process of selecting All Americans. You may not always agree with the selections but you do know how they were selected and who the selectors were. As a player you know that if you make your TU team, have a good run at the NASC then you have a shot. That's all a player can ask for... There's nothing worse than paying all that money to go to the NASC and then get the feeling that the team was selected before you even got there. Not too long ago, many felt like that was the case.

Promotion / relegation and does size really matter?

The 2009 South collegiate men’s matrix has been released (Version 1.0) and some commentary accompanied the schedule concerning promotion / relegation. It appears that there will be an initiative to force promote and relegate collegiate teams based on prior year performance.

So, let’s take a look at an updated listing of collegiate teams in the south ranked by undergraduate enrollment… 2008 Ranking - I've highlighted in red the teams that have changed divisions since 2006.

When you examine this list and then also examine the total numbers in each division, some things jump out fairly quickly.

First, we need more Division 1 teams. Looks like LSU may be heading to the South so we need another team to join them for an 8 team top league game league schedule.

Second, there needs to be a separate competition for small college teams. The disparity of enrollment within Division III is ridiculous. Rugby is at its most popular on campus when the students and administrators can identify with their success. Sure, if Sewanee beats Georgia it is huge back on campus, but if Sewanee gets put out of the playoffs by Memphis or Mississippi State, most are going to wonder what the heck those schools are doing playing Sewanee in a playoff match.

Third, providing quality coaching and non-student leadership on campus has got to improve. You see it every time someone steps up and takes on a program with the right tools in the toolbox. My good friend Jeremy Linne is proving it this year at UNC – Greensboro. Those boys had not won a game in three seasons and were known only for their anti-social behavior. Well, this fall he’s got them to a 3-3 record and his boys are actually helping to coach the local high school teams. He’s gone in and used a proven formula and they have bought into it and are on their way. Closer to home, Scotty McCreight is doing the same thing at Tennessee Tech.

So, lets find another team ready to take on the challenge of Division I rugby; lets create a separate small college competition and then give those that qualify the choice of either playing in it or playing in the conventional divisions; and lets create a coaching mentoring program to get every college club a coach that has the tools to build a respectable program. Sounds easy enough, right?

Ruck Management

Now that the fall season is in the books there is time to reflect on the effort and quality of rugby that was on display. Probably the single most difficult thing to predict from Saturday to Saturday this fall is how the referee will manage the tackle / ruck during the match… So, lets identify the ideology of the referee as it relates to ruck management.

Pretty much all teams now teach their players to arrive low at the ruck and initially use the player on the ground as some sort of support to “stay on their feet”. You will hear some coaches still complain about this being bridging but I think its pretty clear that its being allowed, particularly since we got that handy little handout at the national tournament (see prior post for details). You can pretty much define a rucking style and a referee’s management by what happens next… What do the next players in support do when they arrive and what happens to the players already there?

For the purpose of this exercise we must also be careful to define “stay on their feet”. It can mean anything from the player’s body not physically beginning on the ground to having the weight of your body on your feet (standing).

Conservative
A conservative referee approach will keep everyone on their feet at all times. So, once that player has secured the ruck, he expect the next supporting players to arrive and also stay on their feet – meaning the balance of their weight is on their feet, not balanced on a player already on the ground (like the tackled teammate). No one should be on the ground except maybe the tackled player.

Moderate
The moderate referee understands that the arriving players may actually force or drive the existing (bridging) teammate past the ball and is OK with that as long as he doesn’t willfully collapse to the ground. You typically see players end up in the push up position either lying over the tackled player or just past them.

Liberal
The liberal referee has little regard to players that ruck past the ball on clearly won rucks. So, once the bridged player is driven past the tackled teammate by support player #1, he simply goes to the ground. Then support player #2 drives #1 past the ball as well and he goes to the ground and/or collapses on top of the original bridged player. In this case, you may see players stacked on top of each other or end to end with their shoulders clearly on the ground. Now that the defending team isn't allowed to tidy up their side of the ruck with their boots, you see this method more and more.

The focus of the moderate and the liberal referee is obviously on won possession so get it moving regardless of players willfully leaving their feet. The players action make it much more difficult to counter ruck and also creates a deeper off sides line so that the attacking team gets a much better launch in the next phase. Since this method is obviously the most advantagous for attacking teams, it is obviously the preferred method of coaching the ruck. The only problem is that if you teach a rucking technique with the balance of the player’s weight off their feet and then you run across a conservative referee, you will have a penalty riddled game.

I had a very interesting conversation with a LSU parent this past weekend and they pretty much explained this very thing to me. I was complimenting the (liberal) rucking style used by LSU and he recounted their experience last year in the West semifinals against Colorado. Seems that they faced a very good Colorado team and brought their liberal rucking style. Unfortunately for them, the game was apparently managed by a conservative referee. This parent definitely wasn't happy with the penalty count and was left with a very clear opinion that it effected the outcome of the game.

Game Management Guidelines - just in time...

Running a bit behind in posting some things and I'm trying to catch up. One thing that I had wanted to comment on and share was the distribution of a document at the 2008 Collegiate national championship captains/coaches meeting. In the meeting that took place the night before the round of 16 competition was to begin, the referees and representatives of USA Rugby distributed and discussed the Game Management Guidelines that were to be in place for the weekend.

Frankly this was a great document and it proved to be extremely helpful. But, here's the question - wouldn't this document be more helpful if we'd received it 12 weeks prior to the tournament rather than 12 hours?

Candidates jump in dairy farm debate

Well, looks like a couple of county commission candidates have jumped into the Cherokee Farm debate in an attempt to save the panorama of Sequoyah Hills. To bring you up to speed – UT has seized the dairy farm from UTK and wants to turn it into a world class research campus. This action basically tossed out the 2001 UTK campus master plan that included athletic fields on the dairy farm site.

Ruthie Kuhlman and Finbarr Sanders have now both commented on the topic.

I don’t particularly blame the Cherokee Boulevard folks for not wanting athletic fields across the river but why must student recreation be the casualty in all of this maneuvering? Student activity fees were raised on the promise of more recreation activities based in part on the 2001 UTK campus master plan. So, is there a new plan that includes fields for UTK since UT has taken the dairy farm off the table?

Maybe Ruthie and Finbarr can find out if there will be a new plan for UTK that includes space for student recreation. I know that quite a few constituents in the 4th District have paid that activity fee for the past several years on the promise of more and better facilities.

Details and history of this topic can be found at http://www.fultonbottoms.com

An Albuquerque Autopsy - the Balloon Park in review…

Some thoughts and wonderings concerning the 2008 Collegiate National Championship Tournament at the Balloon Fiesta Park in Albuquerque, New Mexico…

For those of you that may not know, for the first time all collegiate teams from both Div I and Div II men and women met in one place to begin the national championship tournament. USA Rugby served as the official host this year and pulled the matches off campuses and away from regional venues in favor of a national “festival” atmosphere.

First the good – I like the idea of being able to catch up with other collegiate coaches and trade notes on successes and failures, what works and what doesn’t, and other issues associated with collegiate rugby. I was able to catch up with some good friends and fellow coaches throughout the weekend. Having USA Rugby in town in force would in theory make things easier to manage. The fields were very wide and in great shape allowing for some exciting wide open play. They got decent goal posts up and for the most part they were straight. National level coaches and selectors got a good look at a lot of players. Albuquerque is a beautiful area, the local folks were very nice and the weather was fantastic.

Now, for the bad…

What’s the score?
Easily the most asked question of the weekend. How an event like this could be scheduled, planned and executed without anyone saying “hey, shouldn’t we get scoreboards?” is absolutely beyond me. This was a $100 problem for each field. Just go get one of those flip chart style (volleyball, etc) score boards and be done with it. Give them to local high schools once the event is over. Seems so simple… This isn’t ultimate Frisbee, we care who wins and by how much – even if it is a hundred.

Scheduling
While it was nice to have all the Div 1 teams in one place, most of the games were played near or at the same time meaning I actually got to watch less rugby this year than in year's past even though there were 10 times more teams. I understand all that same amount of rest stuff but why the heck couldn’t the games have been spaced out a bit more is beyond my comprehension…

Fields
While the fields were good and wide, flat (for the most part) and full length, they only had 10 yard try zones. But, probably the biggest issue was the barriers marking off the fields and the close proximity to each other. The restraining barriers were about 15 feet off the field and featured iron fence posts. That seemed very dangerous and unnecessary considering the amount of space that appeared to be available. The field we played Army on was parallel to the field that Cal and Cal Poly was playing on at about the same time meaning that the headliner match was only about 45 feet away. We had balls flying all over our field plus at one point a cameraman was a good 20 feet on our field filming an interview with some National Guard dude… No kidding… it was halftime of the Cal game and they were broadcasting it live. There he stood right out on our field oblivious to our game. Probably the biggest issue though was a set of bleachers that had been rolled in for the Cal match that were only that same 15 feet from the field. I know at least two players went into those things during the Cal game. Given the available space, it all seemed very dangerous to me.

Medical
By all accounts the medical staff in the park was very professional and proficient with their care. However, we had to have a player transported to the hospital for further evaluation and was surprised that the ER personnel indicated they had no idea that there was a rugby event in town. Also, apparently we were a bit lucky with the ambulance as it was there for another call and wasn't stationed there for the day.

Match Officials
Referees were plentiful and competent but I was a bit confused by the "game management" packet that was given out on the eve of the event. Inside were some directives and illustrations on what would and would not be allowed at the tackle and in the ruck. Some of this had been debated around here a couple of months ago and we received stern notice that a specific type of rucking would not be allowed. Then, what do you know, I open this packet and inside is the very rucking technique in question and it says that its going to be allowed on the weekend. It would have been nice to know that months ago. Wonder which teams did?

Filming
I don’t know of a Division I club that doesn’t film their games. Heck we’ve been known to film practices in the past. Plus, since we all played at the same time, we would have had to have a second camera just to film our opponent for the next day. No provision was made to assist teams with filming which seemed short sighted. Teams were going out to Home Depot and buying step ladders just to have a decent vantage point for filming. How hard would it have been to put up some scaffolding at each field? Again, that seemed to be a $100 problem.

National Guard
There was a presence but not really an overbearing one. Some feared it would be a huge recruiting event which it wasn’t. Not really an issue or a benefit from what I saw. But, since the National Guard is probably $1M into it with rugby sponsorship of the collegiate game, their presence was probably a bit understated. The sad part is that those that were opposed to all teams being in the same location from the beginning tend to blame the National Guard.

Media
Much has been made by the (only) two articles that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal about the event. One seemed to painfully be focused on the women’s anti-social behavior associated with the sport and the other seemed content to focus on the women’s NCAA initiative. What a missed opportunity… Of course, with the climate that exists with USA Rugby on this issue, I’m not surprised. That’s a topic for another day.

And finally, cost…
It cost us $18k just to get a traveling party of 40 to Albuquerque. In 2007 it cost us $9k to get 45 to Penn State and in 2006 it cost us $9K to get 50 to West Point. Obviously, keeping teams on their own side of the country so they can bus the trip is a financial benefit for the participant. The sport will soon price teams right out of the competition if this isn’t addressed at some point. That’s also a topic for another day.

Bottom Line…Interesting idea and it had potential but opportunities were missed. One thing is for sure, men’s and women’s competition doesn’t really have any business being in the same venue. Like it or not, for the most part, it is a different sport with a different set of social values. The reality is (IMHO) that the division I men’s game is the marquee athletic competition so if USA Rugby is serious about promoting rugby as a high performance sport, that’s what they should market. Get the Division I event back on college campuses and focus on controlling travel costs for the participants by regionalizing (and even expanding) the competition.

Another Puzzling Management Decision

USA Rugby decides to put all 48 collegiate teams in one location and play it at a balloon park big enough to run 8 fields at one time. So, we’ll get to watch a lot of rugby while we’re in New Mexico, right? Well, here’s the schedule…

Friday, April 18
1:30 pm: NRU #2 (Dartmouth) v Pac Coast #2 (BYU)
1:30 pm: So Cal #1 (San Diego State) v South #1 (Arkansas State)
2:00 pm: Pac Coast #3 (Utah) v West #2 (Air Force)
2:00 pm: Midwest #1 (BGSU) v MARFU #2 (Kutztown)
2:30 pm: Pac Coast #1 (Cal) v South #2 (Tennessee)
2:30 pm: NRU#1 (Army) v So Cal #2 (Cal Poly)
3:00 pm: MARFU #1 (Penn State) v Midwest #2 (Univ of Minnesota)
3:00 pm: West #1 (Colorado) v Pac Coast #4 (St. Mary’s)

Saturday, April 19
1:30 pm: Pool B Championship qualifier match
1:30 pm: Pool B Consolation match
2:00 pm: Pool D Championship qualifier match
2:00 pm: Pool D Consolation match
3:00 pm: Pool A Championship qualifier match
3:00 pm: Pool A Consolation match
3:30 pm: Pool C Championship qualifier match
3:30 pm: Pool C Consolation match

What reasoning could have possibly been used to schedule all the matches at basically the same time each day? There’s absolutely no way for any division 1 team to watch another division 1 team play since we’ll be consumed with either preparing, playing or debriefing our own teams. Is there a concern that one team will complain because their day 2 opponent got more rest? That’s never been of particular concern in prior year events so I can’t image that was a determining factor. Over the years, one of the added highlights of the national tournament trip has always been the ability to watch other teams play. We’ve actually made connects with future opponents at the national event.

Why couldn't these matches simply be lined up and timed so that teams could watch other teams play? Another perplexing decision from USA Rugby…