Today Cal faced off against the Utah Utes, probably the next best team in their league. Utah came out looking pretty fit- a lot of tough big guys. The game began with a defensive battle- neither team moving the ball a lot, and both teams kicking in preference to running it downfield (which is unusual for Cal, IMO). After about 15 minutes of play, Cal opted for a 3 point penalty kick instead of keeping it in play (another atypical Cal call). We made the 3 pointer, and then in short succession we made 2 tries to go up 17-0. Utah came back with a try of their own, followed again by one of ours and then another one of theirs. Somewhere in there they also scored a penalty kick, so at halftime we were up only 22-17.

But the 2nd half has been ours all season, and so this one proved as well. Once again we started with a 3 point penalty kick almost immediately, followed by a couple of tries. However, this is where Utah dug in, and they began to move the ball themselves - they were especially strong in the maul, and kept the ball going downfield for several extended series. But through a few Utah miscues we stole the ball at key points and converted for our own scores. Utah scored a try at the last moment and missed the conversion, for the final score of 51-29.

We seemed to be evenly matched in the line outs, while Utah had a perhaps a slight advantage in the scrums. But as I mentioned before, they were REALLY good in the mauls. In the 1st half it seemed to me that neither team was very sharp- it was almost as they were playing in oatmeal. Utah also had a lot of bad bounces after kicks, which tended to set them further back in the field. Cal's play in the 2nd half was sharper than in the first, and we had some great runs, and one beautiful pass over the head (think of the last lateral from The Play). But I think Cal adopted the wrong strategy, as we kicked the ball away a lot: I think our team speed was better than the Utes, and I suspect we could have run at them with greater success. Instead, we gave them possession a lot, and once they got the ball it was hard to get it back.

Great coverage. Thanks for posting!

:bravo

according to the official website:

http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-rugby/recaps/033013aab.html

chalcidbear;842107864 said:

---

Today Cal faced off against the Utah Utes, probably the next best team in their league. Utah came out looking pretty fit- a lot of tough big guys. The game began with a defensive battle- neither team moving the ball a lot, and both teams kicking in preference to running it downfield (which is unusual for Cal, IMO). After about 15 minutes of play, Cal opted for a 3 point penalty kick instead of keeping it in play (another atypical Cal call). We made the 3 pointer, and then in short succession we made 2 tries to go up 17-0. Utah came back with a try of their own, followed again by one of ours and then another one of theirs. Somewhere in there they also scored a penalty kick, so at halftime we were up only 22-17.

But the 2nd half has been ours all season, and so this one proved as well. Once again we started with a 3 point penalty kick almost immediately, followed by a couple of tries. However, this is where Utah dug in, and they began to move the ball themselves - they were especially strong in the maul, and kept the ball going downfield for several extended series. But through a few Utah miscues we stole the ball at key points and converted for our own scores. Utah scored a try at the last moment and missed the conversion, for the final score of 51-29.

We seemed to be evenly matched in the line outs, while Utah had a perhaps a slight advantage in the scrums. But as I mentioned before, they were REALLY good in the mauls. In the 1st half it seemed to me that neither team was very sharp- it was almost as they were playing in oatmeal. Utah also had a lot of bad bounces after kicks, which tended to set them further back in the field. Cal's play in the 2nd half was sharper than in the first, and we had some great runs, and one beautiful pass over the head (think of the last lateral from The Play). But I think Cal adopted the wrong strategy, as we kicked the ball away a lot: I think our team speed was better than the Utes, and I suspect we could have run at them with greater success. Instead, we gave them possession a lot, and once they got the ball it was hard to get it back.

---

and in fact has won some narrow victories against Cal at the Collegiate 7 Championships. If there is going to be a in conference rivalry, it probably will be from Utah, as opposed to say Furd.

Yes, right now Utah is probably the best placed to be a natural rival to Cal, but I think the rugby collegiate scene is still fluid, and we have no guarantee the Pacific League will be around after a couple of years. In the meantime, St. Mary's is still a natural rival, and if Matt Sherman has some luck across the bay, we may see a resurgence from the Furd. But if you are going to talk about rugby 7's, then everything changes. IMO rugby 7's is a completely different beast than rugby 15's. And although Cal has dominated the collegiate scene in 15's since at least 1980, I am not sanguine that we'll be able to do so in the 7's. The 7's game is much more wide open and I'm betting that any early advantage Cal has from our experience in the 15's will be quickly negated as more and more other schools take up the sport. Which, when you think about it, is a good thing for the sport.

I just got back from the game.....a 5 hour trip not made any easier by a larger than usual number of slow drivers in the left lane (on two lane I-5). One thing that should be noted about the game was Cal's defense at the goal line. My gosh, they made some stands that were really impressive. I think Chalcid is right about Cal's speed vs. Utah. Where Utah was really good, as Chalcid noted, was in the mauls. I don't know the final stats, but I also think they will have been more successful in the set scrums. This was NOT the Utah team I saw a few weeks ago vs. UCla. This Utah team was much bigger, and much more aggressive than the team that they fielded against UCla (I posted a report about that game). Some talented Cal underclassmen got playing time in this match, and as I have said before, the Cal Soph-Frosh roster is ripe with very good rugby players. This team should be very solid for some time. With this victory, the Bears are champions of the Pac rugby conference. And while I agree that Utah is likely to be the best Pac competition in the short run (no pun intended), I caution everyone to watch out for UCla. If they can get some beef in their pack, they are definitely a team that is on the rise. And no one should forget that it wasn't all that long ago that Stanford was a powerful rugby team as well. Eventually I believe Stanford will come back, if they put their minds to it. That, of course, is the big "if". Meanwhile Cal has a good game coming up in a couple of weeks against a very fine St. Mary's side. Just for the sake of comparison, here are the results of the Gaels games against common opponents: (I am not including the final score of their game against UC Davis because Cal's game against the Aggies was shorter halves because it was played in the UCla tournament) St. Mary's 75 Stanford 5 (Cal defeated Stanford 176-0), St. Mary's 59 Penn State 10 (Cal defeated PSU 100-0). St. Mary's also defeated San Diego State, which has been reputed to be pretty good (and has trained with the Navy Seals in the past). The Gaels will "bring it" to Strawberry Canyon and I encourage anyone who wants to see a high quality team that excels both on the field and off (note their academic honors), come to the Cal game against St. Mary's on the 13th of April. Win or lose, you will be very proud of what you see!

I would like to add that Coach Clark put in Danny Barrett in the second half and his strength and speed made a difference too. Danny seems to have some Colin Hawley speed mixed with a little Louis Stanfill in him. I hope he can make the jump to playing with the Eagles (7s or 15s) or overseas.

chalcidbear;842108130 said:

---

Yes, right now Utah is probably the best placed to be a natural rival to Cal, but I think the rugby collegiate scene is still fluid, and we have no guarantee the Pacific League will be around after a couple of years. In the meantime, St. Mary's is still a natural rival, and if Matt Sherman has some luck across the bay, we may see a resurgence from the Furd. But if you are going to talk about rugby 7's, then everything changes. IMO rugby 7's is a completely different beast than rugby 15's. And although Cal has dominated the collegiate scene in 15's since at least 1980, I am not sanguine that we'll be able to do so in the 7's. The 7's game is much more wide open and I'm betting that any early advantage Cal has from our experience in the 15's will be quickly negated as more and more other schools take up the sport. Which, when you think about it, is a good thing for the sport.

---

It looks like the US and collegiate US are moving towards 7s, probably in part due to the Olympics using the 7's format. From my limited experience watching 7's, it seems like is a very different game, which like basketball, a great player to two on a team can dominate. From this standpoint, it evens out the advantages Cal or Utah (or St. Mary's) might have currently with their more developed programs.

Your observation about the increased emphasis on 7's is valid. However, I don't see any way the 15's game will go away. Frankly, I'm not a fan of 7's, and I know many former players and fans who agree. 7's, to me, is like watching indoor football vs. the regular outside game. The 7's game is too short to be much more than a tournament based competition, and the character of the game doesn't lend itself to as broad a participation as the 15s game. But it is less costly to produce a 7's team than a 15's team, and thus, it will allow smaller schools to be good at a fast rate. Nothing, however, can take the place of the full scall rucks, mauls, and scrums that represent the strength part of the rugby game that so many of us enjoy. Both have their place, and I am hopeful that the media exposure of the 7's game will be good for the game of rugby overall.

I agree with you when it comes to 15's versus 7's - I love the former and am only somewhat interested in the latter. However I'm not sanguine that 15's will survive a surge of 7's. First of all, fielding a club of 15's is undoubtedly more expensive than one of 7's, and with Cal's dominance, I suppose not too many schools are looking to have to get through the Bears to get to a NC. Second of all, with two 40 minute halves with unpredictable timeouts, 15's does not fit well into a TV format. In contrast, 7's with two 7 minute halves fits wonderfully into a TV broadcast system.

So, with less expense to field a team, coupled with the possibility of raking in TV money, I expect collegiate rugby 7's will quickly surpass rugby 15's in this country. Can the 15's game hold on once that happens? I can hope, but I'm not holding my breath.

I really hope you are wrong but I am afraid you are right, at least in the USA. 15s is a much more interesting game to me. I like the comparison to Arena Football. I just finished watching the Tokyo 7s and after watching the 6 Nations, there was no comparison, 6 nations won.

I do have to say, those 7s players are amazing with what is demanded of then to get through a game, not to mention a tournament. By the end of a tournament, they look like the "running" dead.

Would you really pay good dollars to go see a single, individual miniature game of rugby? I come up from L.A. for the rugby games because I feel there's value to coming up to watch two 40 minute halves of good, full, well rounded rugby. If you offered me only two short halves to watch an individual game, I would definitely not come up and pay money to watch that. The only format the 7's game works for is a tournament format. And for my money, I would only consider traveling and paying my money for an event such as PAC tournament or a championship tournament. 7's is a good game, designed for somewhat smaller and faster rugby athletes. But 15's is a GREAT game, allowing for small, and larger players of differing speeds and skill sets. If I'm paying good money, the choice between 14 minutes of mini rugby vs. 80 minutes of full rugby is a no brainer. I sure hope it doesn't come down to that!!

TomBear, I am in complete agreement. 7s are for those with short attention spans. From what I have seen (televised), the best 7s feature at least two speed guys, one really big and one even faster more slightly built. In 7s a team seems to score when the other team has a breakdown in its offense and the other team takes it all the way back!