Are we in danger of the Hooker becoming a dying art?

There are many positions on the field that can be classed as specialised, the back line seem to be able to interchange and are now multi positional players as do the back row have the ability to move between 6,7 and 8. The two roles on the field which are truly specialised now are the scrum half and the hooker, for me the hooker is the more technically specialised.
The strength required to be in the front row is one thing alone, add the the ability to hook the ball and throw the ball at line outs hoping for accuracy. All three roles accumulated to one pivotal role in the team, if your line out or hooking is off key can cost the team dearly. To be a hooker it takes a special person, players such as Brian Moore, Keith Wood, Sean Fitzpatrick, Steve Thompson, John Smit, Graham Dawe and Lee Mears is a list of some of the most influential players on the field.

The scrum has been a major issue in the last few years and with the change of call from "crouch, touch, pause, engage" to " couch, touch, set" seeming to be easing the amount of resets that occur. The one point that has been an issue for many, including Brian Moore who has relentlessly voiced his opinion, is the feeding of the scrum. The feed should be straight down the channel enabling both hookers to compete for the ball while the other members of the pack push to aid the winning of the ball. A non straight feed is answerable to a penalty awarded to the opposing side, yet this is becoming a rare occurrence.

Is it becoming the norm and accepted that the scrum half can feed the ball into his pack and the only competition of the forwards is to attempt to push the other team of the ball, are we losing the hookers strike? Another question regarding this is why are the referees no longer penalising the scrum half for a crooked feed? By the hooker no longer striking for the ball surely this is changing their role, perhaps they're just to become glorified props who throw the ball in at line outs, even their position name will change......if they're not hooking then why have the position named that. Traditionally a hooker has always been a tenacious little scrapper who is there along with their other chores is to mix things up a little, the joy of rugby has always been majority of size or power generally there is a role for everyone, the change in stature of a hooker could mean the traditional hooker again could be lost.

It is totally evident from watching the game that the ball is blatantly being fed, sometimes almost straight to the second row yet the officials seem to turn a blind eye. While watching a junior fixture recently I noticed that it has filtered down through to there, even a scrum half turn to face his pack while putting the ball in, and as in top flight no punishment given. With officials ignoring a fundamental rule in the game young players are emulating there heroes. Around most international and professional games there are cameras showing all different angles and perspectives, while watching the Autumn Internationals they were showing areal views many on the scrum which truly highlighted the feeding issue. A rule is a rule yet the feeding is ignored what does this show the future players of the sport, rugby is a game of respect and discipline but now rules are being forgotten.

If the continuation of flouting the feeding rule would it not be that scrums could almost become an uncontested set piece as in rugby league. Perhaps a little melodramatic to compare the two scrummages, although the hook is seeming to become almost redundant the shove could be the only way to possibly win against the head. With bigger hits and harder shoves will only add to extra pressures upon the front rows necks potentially leading to more injuries, this will force the front row players into extra conditioning putting even more strain on their bodies becoming a vicious circle. With the big powering up of players to be able to withstand the 'hit' will without doubt lead to earlier retirements as their bodies will not be able to endure so much punishment over a length of time.

A large discussion of many for officiating scrums is the fact that many of modern referees are former backs and aren't aware of the workings of the scrum. It's takes a brave man to step up in the front row and I don't believe referees have the knowledge of first hand experience what it truly takes to put your body on the line. Another way of viewing the allowance of a crooked feed would be to allow the ball to leave the scrum as quick as possible, relieving the pressure upon the pack, if this is so then perhaps the IRB should review the laws and amend them accordingly. In all fairness to the referees the scrum is a busy time for him, he has a lot to keep his eyes on: bindings, boring, twisting and all other infringements that materialise during a scrum. A scrum is one of the times that the referee need the reliance of his touch judges to aid his control over the scrum, for the referee to see the crooked feed he needs to be crouched to have his eyes on the ball bindings etc could be monitored by the nearest touch judge to hand. A sense of delegation should be required during the scum situation, this is another thing that appears to be missing.

So far this weekend we have been shown the changes in the scrum format, even with Richard Cockerill referring to it as a power battle. Where has the technique and skill from the two sides gone? Is it now just about two packs battering each other in almost a brutal and simplistic manner does strength now out weigh skill? A trade can take years to master and in rugby terms a hooker has always been the master of trades but now that trade appears to being lost or even detracted away from. Slowly but surely we are losing simple aspects of the game, through the transition from armature to professional the game has changed. Evolution was always going to happen but do we really want to lose the true aspect and feeling of the game, lets not lose the feel of a game we all love and are so passionate about.

Regardless of your views over the feeding of the scrum it's a very contentious subject and need a serious redevelopment from the IRB and even possibly a step back to the old school. When you have 16 men coiled up with power and pressure built up waiting to make the 'hit' to gain advantage surely is a recipe for problems. A solution that many have discussed is to drop the 'hit' and revert to the two packs uniting, ball being fed in and then the two sides can drive. With a big impact sides can get a forward momentum and allow their side to drive forward, leading to the 'hit' to be more important than the hook and rendering the hooker almost redundant in the scrum.

I've been lucky enough to get some questions to a still practising professional hooker, a Bath and England legend not to mention a true example of what you would class as an classic Hooker......enter Mr Lee Mears.



From watching rugby for many years, I've noticed of late that the feeding of the scrum is becoming very crooked and seems it rarely reaches the hooker, would you say that's a fair point or just a media reputation?
The scrum has evolved with the different rule changes and I do believe that now it is much more of a pushing contest if you are not moving forward it is very tough to lift you foot to strike. The media have picked up on this but I do believe that is a restart of the game ie why should the opposition who have knocked the ball on get the chance to win it straight back. The scrum is now used to tire the big units out to create more space.

Is the new 'crouch, touch, set' a far better way to set the scrum, as the resets seems less than the 'crouch, touch, pause, engage'?
Miles better not sure why the refs ever actually had to say pause?!?!?!?!?!

To me the hooker is the most specialised position on the pitch, playing front row, hooking and line outs. If crooked feeding becomes more of an acceptance do you feel the art of hooking may be lost and in years to come a hooker may be seen as a glorified prop who throws the ball in? For me its the most exciting position on the pitch and is hate to see that lost.
I still believe that the hooker role especially in the scrum is still very vital everything sets around the hooker he controls the height, speed, angles of attack (probably best described over the phone or in person at some point). Plus its tough for props to learn to throw!!!!!

Slightly off subject, were you tempted to offer yourself up for the Autumn internationals as there was a lacking of Hookers available and you more than likely would of got a place? You could of been part of the NZ beating team...regrets or happy you served England well?

It was definitely time to move on, they've got some great young guys coming through and they need to blood them now to get the best out of them in the world cup 2015. I loved every minute of my caps and will still get a buzz every time England beat another country as I'm extremely patriotic and feel more like I helped keep the nation behind our country by being part of its history.

Would love to thank Lee for his input and interesting to hear a view from the hookers side!

One of Bath's finest....an idol and a legend!!

In any child's life growing up you develop a sporting hero, be a football player, tennis, golf, cricket or even athletics. Coming from Bath predominately the majority discover a love of rugby and find a player that they aspire to be like or regard them as a legend.

I grew up through the 80's and first attended the Rec in 1984 when I was a knee high five year old, for me there was one player who stood out a country mile. Not the fastest, most athletic or even the fittest but a man with passion, heart and an abundance of character........Mr Gareth 'Cooch' Chilcott!

1993 saw Cooch bow out of a 16year career playing in the Blue, Black and White where he enjoyed some of Bath rugby's most successful years, not to mention pulling on the red roses crested white shirt of England on 14 occasions.
"It wasn't a hard decision to retire. It was becoming a young man's sport. I don't miss the training but miss the camaraderie"

Even though he retired the game has not left him and through after dinner speaking and working on various rugbying tours the game hasn't lost him.
"After dinner speaking was great as it keeps me in with the sport and helps pay for the odd holiday or two!"

Now with Cooch going solo with VenaTour he's embarking on a new challenge and hitting the sports Travel full on.
"I have been in the sports travel business for over 20 years and it seemed like a natural thing to do. Still going on tours but as an expert and not as a player. Still doing your passion but in a different way to let other people enjoy the experiences."
The idea and premise behind VenaTour is to supply a unique experience for sporting fans and a personal touch, and what a great concept. Have a quick look over their page WWW.venatour.co.UK you never know there could be something that grabs you. Tours organised by somebody whose been there and done it will just enhance the whole trip, its a good touch!

Despite the all this tour organising Coochie still finds time to put his hand to a little charity work, bringing rugby to disadvantaged children. As the honorary president of Wooden spoon and an ambassador IRB kit aid is not too shabby on the charity front.
"I enjoy the charity work decided a few years ago to put my time into just a couple of charities I seemed did a fantastic job in getting kids playing rugby"

The refreshing point about Cooch is that even though he retired a 'few' years ago he is still Blue, Black and White through and through. Due to the professional era of the game now you very rarely get a player who does such a long stint at one club, and a faithful player to one team are few and far between. But this is the progression of the game and to know such a Bath rugby legend still supports the club must be embraced.
"I'm very much still a huge supporter and get there as much as I can. Bath is still my number one team and I'm Bath through and through."
As is now a career for players contracts and offers mean players move on, its the game now and money is part of it, who knows if Cooch had played pro-era perhaps he would of gone? Thank god he didn't!

One thing I think many all love about Cooch is just how damn west country he really is, listening to him do commentary is a delight. With the ex- player contingent of commentators now about I think a resurrection of Coochie Commentary is required!!
"I would love to do more commentating but pronouncing some of the Samoan name could be a bit of a problem."
Who would you rather listen to.....Healey, Dawson, laugh a minute Stuart Barnes or Cooch? I know where my choice, imagine a combo of Cooch and Moore now that would be entertaining.

There are not many characters such as Cooch in the game now and that's a shame, think the closet we've got is Flats and he's gone and retired as well.
In many avid Bath Fans book case they'll have Before and After the lemons and nestling next to that pair will be 'Cooch- Mr Chilcott to you' a fore runner in sportsmen's books. He inspired so many through his years of playing and I hope One day to see another player replicate him but then there is only one Gareth ' Cooch' Chilcott.

Inconsistent RFU

Where to start.......think The word inconsistent is probably the best way forward.

Bath against Tigers is always a fraught affair and is steeped in history. For two clubs who were so hotly contested as the biggest clubs around for a lengthy period an animosity grew and became grudge fixtures, that still is the case and always will be. The latest episode still leads us that way, as It's safe to say the game didn't go to plan. Up to the point where François Louw was issued his marching order Bath had a strong opportunity to win the fixture at Welford Road and take a large scalp on their journey back up the table. Unfortunately this did not come to pass as it appeared Louw's red card saw a collapse of what was turning out to be a good bout between two giants. The decision for Louw's red came from the touch judge as opposed to Mr wigglesworth who was officiating the tie. As we all know everybody is human and mistakes happen and every referee has a bad day at the office, to reduce the impact of these errors we now are graced with TMO to aid the officials. With a lot of regret this combination failed in this instance, where it appeared even the Leicester faithful were in charge. A game that descended into chaos leading to three red cards and three yellow in not an advert the Aviva premiership or RFU would relish.

So how do the RFU resolve this almost farcical fixture? By selecting key infringements and citing the players involved. Or picking some players and citing them, yep that's right the go for the latter!!

From Bath Louw (red) for dropping an elbow, Mears for a punch and Banahan (red) for a high dangerous tackle. Deacon (red) from tigers was pulled in for a punch. No Murphy and Kitchener from Tigers or Donald from Bath all were seen to be involved in the incidents, Donald even receiving a yellow for a punch. So stage one of the RFU's inconsistent citing committee is complete, now on for stage two.

Joining the players from the Bath v Tigers game was Chris Hala'Ufia from London Irish who also received a red for a tip tackle against their fellow exiles London Welsh. Hala'Ufia plead not guilty but gained himself a five week ban, showing this panel were in no lenient mood. Deacon was up first and plead guilty for punching Banahan after his high tackle on Allen, Deacon who already has been hit by a one week ban by Tigers was given the same punishment by the panel.

Next up it was the time for the Bath boys to stand in the dock, Que the next bout of inconsistencies. Banahan plead guilty to a high dangerous tackle and rendering Allen unconscious, an unintentionally high tackle but regardless still high, he received a three week ban. Mears also to the guilty plea for a punch and gained himself a two week ban. Louw was the more interesting as he had his card expunged and no further action to follow.

If to dissect and compare these punishments is where we really see the true inconsistent manner in which the RFU are administering their sanctions.

Mears, Deacon and Donald all landed a punch in the game. Mears two weeks, Deacon one week and Donald left just with his yellow card. Regardless of intent a punch is a punch and equal punishments should be administered, more punches obviously then harsher sanctions, but one punch all punish equally.

Banahan admitted the tackle although Allen ducked into it and Deacon left him slightly unsighted, still accepted what was to come. My issue with this comes from the punishment given to Andy Powell from his trip to the Rec with sale raise this season. Powell hit Day around the neck and earned a quick ten minutes on the naughty step, Powell wasn't so gracious on leaving the field delivering a hand gesture and expletives directed at the booing crowd. So what did Powell get punished for? He was issued no ban for the tackle or reaction to the supporters but given a £5000 fine. Powell was ordered to pay £1000 upfront and the remainder at the end of the season. Not only does a ban punish a player it punishes a club, a fine punishes the player only!!

Louw's red card many would say  was the turning point of the game, dropping a team by a player puts extra strain upon the rest of the players. With Louw having his card expunged it leads to the officials having inconclusive evidence against him therefore wrong decision was made, sadly a decision that changed the game but cannot be reversed.

My own personal view is the RFU need to have set sanctions as to administrating loosely based guidelines. A long hard look by the powers that be in the RFU is certainly required, as we all know the IRB need to do similarly regarding the All Black allegedly leniency!

Time for a shake up!!

Diplomatic immunity Kiwi style?

The citing hearing of Andrew Hore was met by many rugby fans with a cynical view due to an air of leniency surrounding the All Blacks. Sadly this cynical view became all to apparently true as his eight week ban for striking Bradley Davis from behind was reduced to five.

Hore originally was hit with the top end punishment for the cowardly crime of striking Davis, who was totally unaware of what was going on. The reduced ban was then handed out with three weeks deducted due to his- acceptance of guilt, genuine remorse, exemplary discipline record and his conduct during the hearing. There was also the fact of his daily contact with Davis taken into account.

The judicial official said "The act of foul play was inherently dangerous, being a deliberately swinging of the delivered with significant force, causing serious injury to victim who was unsighted." This was confusingly followed up by stating "the player had not intended to make contact with the players head". There is six inches difference in height with the two players so the question is- why was his hand near his head if there was no intention to strike him?

A five week ban would not be too dismissive if not for the menial matches that will be missed. Obviously the square up against England will be missed but the they go into closed season so the ban will follow onto the next domestic season. With this in mind Hore will also miss the three pre-season friendlies, so technically a meaningless ban, equating to a one match exclusion, being the England fixture. Ian Foster (New Zealand assistant coach), Hore and his legal representative stated the pre-season significances and meaningful consequences for the player in accordance with IRB regulation 17. So once again a NZ get out clause meaning they seem to be immune of a serious punishment.

So why is it we believe the All Blacks are deemed to be treated like almost untouchable gods? It is evident their playing prowess is spectacular when in full flow, yet creeping into their game seems to go past the normal brute force more to borderline thuggery. Before the Hore case the talk was of kiwi Thompson who originally received a two week suspension for raking his boot over Alasdair Stokosh's head, to see it reduced to only a week. Again that phrase they love to use was called into force 'exemplary discipline record' and there was the reduction in his punishment. Another example takes us back a few years to Keven Mealamu headbutted Lewis Moody, thus being administered with a four week ban. Mealamu and the All Blacks opted to challenge claiming he was 'clearing out a ruck'! This proceeded to a halving of the sentence to being only 2 weeks.

Earlier this season Gloucester flanker Andy Hazell unleashed a wrath of fury upon Mont-de-Marsan replacement prop Sebastien Ormaechea after he alleging he was gouging. Hazell was instantly red carded and pulled up in front of the citing committee. The punishment for Hazell was not just judged on the punches thrown but the intent by using his knee to land a blow to the head. Andy Hazell received an initial 18 week suspension reduced to 16, half a season out for punishment is a lengthy stint and a bit more of a justified ban.

Citing commissions are very sporadic on their decisions and seem very easily swayed and vote in favour of the player. A prime example of this can be shown through the Manu Tuilagi punch on Chris Ashton. The maximum ban Tuilugi could of faced from splitting Aston's eye was 52 weeks, but only received 10. There was further dispensation for Tuilagi due to his age, inexperience and those wonderful expressions 'remorse' and 'guilt'! So Tuilagi's 10 week suspension was reduced to a 5 week ban, with this calculating punishment it meant Tuilagi was free to travel to New Zealand for the Rugby World Cup.

The viewing figures for these matches are in the millions, so these infringements are their for everyone to see. With the consequences been brushed to one side with lenient punishments what lesson is delivering to our children the future of the game. If anybody was to carry out any of these actions off of the field they'd be punished with a criminal record. With such large viewing figures surrounding rugby now children look up to players as if they are gods, but let's not actually give them that status or they'll become footballers.

A concern for me is the vast difference between amateur and professional standards in the punishments. For evidence of this look no further than a fixture between Keynsham RFC and Oldfield Old Boys RFC where a brawl broke out. During this scuffle a Keynsham player Jack Weston ran in and unleashed two blows to an Oldfield player Ben Staunton's jaw. Weston was awarded with a red card and Staunton received a yellow for his part in the fracas. An inspection of Staunton's and deemed to be OK so played on after his 10 minutes in the bin, later in hospital its was discovered his jaw was broken. The difference now becomes apparent between the amateur game and professional, as Jack Weston was arrested for the punches, following his arrest Weston was then sentenced for six months imprisonment. On sentencing the judge said 'It's important people realise the consequences of their violent actions'.

The punishments seem so inconsistent and almost indicate a professional player is borderline immunity for their actions, yes its a physical and powerful game but administer punishments that will deter and make players think more of their actions.

Will Lancaster re-discover his faith?

Has the day finally dawned where Bath's pocket rocket Tom Biggs gets to don the white of England and sport the Red Rose for his country?

The avid fans at Bath have been championing Biggs to take a role on the wing for England, and now with his call up to Pennyhill could see this finally come true. When Biggs joined from Falcons the Bath supporters realised Bath had signed a very talented player and have been wondering when his full English call up would come. This season especially has seen a huge turn in form from Biggs, not just his pace but showing there's more to his game than just a speedster. The best way to describe him is a well rounded wingers who punches well above his weight, no matter the shape or size he will hit a tackle with a force that would stop majority of players, many of which have been try savers.

It was Lancaster who initially spotted the talents of Biggs taking him into the academy at Leeds, and sending him on the road to the player he is now. So does he still see enough in him to release him on the international stage, and what a baptism of fire squaring up against the All blacks.

For myself and many believe he could well be a breath of fresh air in the England squad, going back to having a rugby brain not just bulk. I'm hoping Lancaster doesn't release him back to Bath and allows him the crack of the whip he deserves, although I'm still dubious that Lancaster will continue with the same personnel. When looking at the big picture and not wishing to isolate a player (but I am) what really is Ashton at the moment bringing to the table other than a reputation?

Lancaster had faith once let's hope he has it again!

Is the Blue, Black and White Fortress back??

Back in Bath's hay day the Rec was seen as a fortress, all clubs feared to play the mighty Blue Black and White as it was nearly impossible to gain a win.

Under the control of Gary Gold's regime it would seem it's once again gaining that prowess. The spirit and passion displayed by Bath including the United boys has been empowering this season. The only loss conceded under Gold at the Rec has been against Saints, and let's be honest the game was there for the taking on that occasion.

Against Quins they defended and chased down every kick administering and absorbing pressure. The likening to a fortress was even more apparent as due to the flooding it even had its own moat! It was a scrappy yet dogged performance and Bath were the worthy victors. From every home game this season the majority of supports have felt hope and belief back in their hearts that Bath will soon be back amongst the big boys and deemed as a force in the premiership.

Positivity is rife on a home fixture and we now hope That Gary Gold can transpire that into the away matches. For some reason at the moment Bath have a slight Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde about them. The spark seen at the Rec seems to be absent when on the road. From watching the home games it is evident the move forward in which Gold is taking Bath and that will surly soon filter through to all games as opposed to just at home.

I have personally been quite negative in Bath's away losses, but this leads from the frustration of the heart shown at home. Performances such as Agen, Exeter and Quins shows the type of performances they can potentially play, this is why so many pull their hair out after games like London Welsh.

By turning the Rec back to the fortress it once was shows we must stick by Mr Gold and take the occasional loss and revel in the victories, hoping the later becomes more prevalent.

Does size really matter?

Now I know where most of you may of thought I was going with the title but minds out of the gutter now, the question is about the English rugby team!

Aswell as an avid Bath fan I'm also a passionate Englishman and the general rule that to play for England you must be 6'+,built like a brick outhouse and run like Usain Bolt worries me we're becoming a one directional team.

Where has the little jinky runs to find space gone? Its all crash ball running straight trying to puncture the opponent's defence. English rugby is almost starting to resemble a glorified variant of rugby league, take the tackle recycle and continue, only you get more than five tackles but eventually kick the ball away!

It's wrong to compare the two but I'm going to anyway but amateur and professional rugby are almost two different sports. The brilliance of rugby was regardless of your shape and size there was a place on the park for you. Slightly rotund you were a prop, small guy punchy slight mental disposition your a hooker (Brian Moore), big old lofty one second row, short a*** who can run through others legs was a scrum half and so on but you get the point. Whereas now normally lining up in the White shirt bearing the proud Red Rose the only one prominently still with that prowess is the scrum half.

Yes having big ball carriers is good a two man tackle draws space, if the ball is quick, but somebody with quick feet to back that up surely is a bonus. Different varieties of players makes it harder to defend against. Looking at this as a size comparative exercise would the likes of Jason Robinson, Jeremy Guscott, Phil DeGlanville or even the Underwoods get into the current line up. Yes OK different era's but they are huge English stars and to many hero's. They had talent in abundance, so why in this day and age do we depict you have to be a big lad over talent to get picked? What is this teaching our future players in minis and juniors rugby?

Sharples was possibly the only squad member who went with the Michael Flatley dancing feet but has now been released back to his club. A baffling thought I've struggled with, and I've mentioned it before, why isn't somebody of Tom Biggs ilk in the squad? Somebody with pace to burn, can turn and track back but also tackle anything that moves. Biggs is a guy who punches way above his weight and plays with passion, can we say the same about Chris Ashton? But due to Biggs size he is again and again overlooked.

For my own worry that talented children will look at the English team (hopefully not in purple) and think 'I'm not big enough to represent my country' and lose interest in taking the game to the next level. We could lose a generation of talent and see rugby turn into an elitist sport rather than the welcoming game it is.