Alafoti Faosiliva scored his second try of a tense final with no time on the clock as fifth-ranked Samoa downed first-place New Zealand 26-19 to claim its second USA 7s title in three years.
Six different teams have won the tournament since its 2004 debut, making it one of the least predictable stops on the Sevens World Series. Though the Kiwis have won approximately two-thirds of all tour stops over the past seven campaigns, they have tasted victory only twice in America and not since 2008.
Before bumper crowd of 64,000 for the three-day affair, the US dropped pool matches to Canada and Argentina en route to a 1-4 bowl semifinal exit. Booing followed, an unusual and unhappy phenomenon.
'If you look at our games this week, all of the games have been pretty competitive. So, we’re almost there, we just have got to make sure our players don’t lose sight of it and they keep their confidence high and continue to progress', 7s coach Al Caravelli said in a prepared statement.
On Friday the Eagles held a 12-7 halftime lead over the Maple Leafs, but fell 19-12. Fiji comfortably won a 33-19 contest. The Pumas then prevailed 14-12 in a Saturday game that saw no second-half scoring.
Later that day in the consolation bracket, the US notched a pair of second-term tries, by Folau Niua and Peter Tiberio, to down sixth-ranked France 21-5. The hopeful outcome underlined that obtaining and maintaining possession is pivotal. Against France, the US kept the ball; particularly in close-range situations against the Maple Leafs and the Pumas, the Eagles were turned over.
Similarly, in the tournament-ending 14-12 loss to Australia, as in a key play of the Canadian match, the US struggled with kickoffs. The Aussies tactically placed the ball near the sideline, appearing to confuse the US.
The boundary also figured when Maka Unufe sought to round the Wallaby defense. Contrary to USARFU's report that the 'assistant referee had put his flag high into the air claiming Unufe’s foot had felt the grass on the touch line', television replays showed the wing was a yard or more out of bounds.
If the youngster's mistake conclusively stamped the Eagles' weekend as unpolished, NBC's national television commentary helpfully observed Unufe was running into sunlight and may not have seen the sideline at all, instead believing he was inside another marking. Whatever the explanation, the network team was more easily fluent and effective in communicating 7s to an American audience than the International Rugby Board regulars who called the action online at NBC Universal's web site.
One outlet for novices and another for experts: sensible and encouraging.
Among the tournament's other highlights were 28 percent growth in attendance from year-ago figures, and the sister Las Vegas Invitational's expansion to some 20 brackets, including national teams from Chile, Mexico, Romania, and Spain.
In the elite age-grade bracket, the High School All-Americans dropped a 35-14 final to British Columbia. The Bears' 2d side finished third, besting another Canadian province, Ontario, while the USA's understudies failed to reach the semis. Rugby Magazine reported the Americans were understrength; but the embarrassment is no less real.
The tournament's outcomes sees the US fall to 13th place, passed by Kenya, which downed 9th-ranked Argentina in the plate final. 10th-ranked Canada won the bowl over Australia, tied with France in 6th.
The USA 7s and 7s Eagles thus look to be heading in different directions, but few sports businesses long outperform the team on the field.
USA 7s Champions
2012 Samoa 26 New Zealand 19
2011 South Africa 24 Fiji 14
2010 Samoa 33 New Zealand 12
2009 Argentina 19 England 14
2008 New Zealand 27 South Africa 12
2007 Fiji 38 Samoa 24
2006 England 38 Fiji 5
2005 New Zealand 35 Argentina 5
2004 Argentina 21 New Zealand 12
Interesting to see that Kieran Crowley, the 15s Nation Team Head Coach for Canada, was on the sidelines as an assistant coach for the Canadian Sevens team in Vegas. He was there last year as well. Canada is clearly taking an integrated approach to developing their elite player pool and is not gettting caught up in 7s vs 15s arguments.
Posted by: sevens | 13 February 2012 at 11:55
Looks like the tournament has been a great opportunity to develop Canadian rugby!
Posted by: Canuck | 13 February 2012 at 12:11
The Canadian women really out performed the US women as well. Rick Sluggo is now doing for us what he did for Canada...which BTW, made him available to the US after being fired from Canada.
Posted by: women Eagles also going backwards | 13 February 2012 at 12:18
I didn't hear booing after the USA Semifinal exit... just cheers from the crowd. They played well against Aus. Too bad they lost.
I think the booing is just in Kurt's head. He must hear booing for all things USA Rugby 24/7 in his head to write such negative crap all the time. You sheep who write comments on this blog just lap it up because he uses fancy words you can't understand.
Posted by: Tinfoil hats | 13 February 2012 at 12:33
We're just absolutely disgusted that NBC didn't show the entirety of the women's final. We fully intend to send the network a letter citing Title IX, the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, and Lawrence v. Texas. The days of women being left behind are OVER.
Posted by: Women's Collegiate Strategic Committee | 13 February 2012 at 12:35
USA Women finished second in Sevens and are ranked around 5th the world in 15s. How is it that the Women are being left behind?
Posted by: sevens | 13 February 2012 at 12:47
@Women's Collegiate Strategic Committee
Just when rugby is starting to get noticed by broadcasters and sponsors some gadflies with a 1970s equality bent are going to make their life difficult. Well done!
Posted by: Gadfly Gals | 13 February 2012 at 13:06
@ Tinfoil: I clearly heard booing while watching the web broadcast. They deserved it, pretty poor performance. And booing a poor performance isn't a bad thing. It means we expect more from them and are no longer satisfied with a 'gutsy performance.'
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 13 February 2012 at 13:29
The Eagles' poor performance was the talk of the tournament. Everywhere you went people were talking about what to do with the Eagles. Booing your own team is lame, but people are clearly frustrated.
Sevens is a game we should better compete in and we haven't made much progress in the last few years.
The fans were kind to the team, but really frustrated.
Posted by: eagle fan | 13 February 2012 at 13:34
International sports law has sided continually with 'proportional to interest' arguments. The ladies have no merit to their case.
That being said, there was some booing after the Argentina game, but I think that was more at the way it ended than it was at the team.
Posted by: Ladies Ladies Ladies | 13 February 2012 at 13:41
The Eagles were supported really well at the 7's. The fans gave them as much support as possible. This doesn't change the fact that the fans were disappointed in their performance.
Who cares if they were slightly booed or the fans were booing the ending. The Eagles are 1-9 in their last two tournaments and playing poorly with dissension within their ranks.
The Eagle women's team looked slow accept for the one girl on the wing and couldn't pass the ball well enough to link any phases together. Missing extras right in front of the goal, turnovers, lack of skill and athleticism made it hard to watch.
Posted by: eagle fan | 13 February 2012 at 13:58
Canada has put together two good last stops. Hard to see them collecting hardware at our stop. Meanwhile the Eagles are bombing out of the competition with not much to show for their efforts.
Posted by: 7's Fan | 13 February 2012 at 14:07
If women's rugby was any slower it would be called "farming"
Posted by: Skinner | 13 February 2012 at 17:07
I'm pretty sure that the booing was for the ref's garbage call at the end (one of many throughout the weekend), not the US performance.
Still the US did underperform and made many basic errors when it was on the line. There were bright spots, which is promising for a young group, but they were usually followed by basic errors which killed a movement.
Posted by: DaTruth | 14 February 2012 at 05:05
Is Todd Clever (for example) passed over as a NT 7's player, or is he not available due to professional commitments, or are we going with younger players in prep for 2016?
Posted by: anon | 14 February 2012 at 05:42
I dont hear the WNBA clamoring on about title IX...
actually I dont hear the WNBA at all.
they suck just the the rugby WNT...
WNT should not, I repeat, should not be on prime time television.
Posted by: rugbyfan1 | 14 February 2012 at 06:13
Women's rugby is an awful spectacle - the only game I ever managed to get through was a World Cup Final between New Zealand and England - that was good.
But I cannot even sit down for a USA Womens game - just shocking.
Posted by: Bored Boyd | 14 February 2012 at 06:32
Watching women's rugby is awful and in NO WAY should NBC be obligated to show it on TV. If you were at the stadium and saw that mess on the field you wouldn't want it on television either. Send all the letters you want. NBC will only put on the most entertaining games, and right now the WNT has no shot of being on NBC until the 2016 Olympic games. And thank goodness for that. I think they should consider themselves lucky to even be invited to play on the same field.
Posted by: Clay | 14 February 2012 at 07:42
Did you guys feel that way about the 2009 Women's World Cup team, too? I thought the US vs England Final in Petco that went into overtime was pretty good.
Posted by: Love 7s | 14 February 2012 at 08:00
I feel very strongly about it.
You have as much right to play rugby as you do playing football. If you want equality, get your own collegiate football team together - go mess that game up and not ours!
Posted by: Dom | 14 February 2012 at 08:12
Well, if this is any insight as to the attitudes towards women on Gainline, then I think it speaks volumes about who visits this site.
I think the 'equal time on tv' demand is ludicrous, but to go out of one's way to trash the women's game is sad.
Posted by: Anon | 14 February 2012 at 08:16
Get off the field and back in the kitchen.
Posted by: Al Bundy | 14 February 2012 at 08:56
Title XI reads - "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
USA Sevens, and NBC are not obligated to follow Title IX.
If the product was attractive then it would be on air. Womens tennis is on air. Womens volleyball is on air.
There's a reason that the lines for food and drinks were enormous during the womens games.
Posted by: Hugh G. Reckshun | 14 February 2012 at 09:14
Title IX- for organizations recieving federal funding, has nothing to do with rugby on NBC
Ted Stevens Act- for the USOC and National Governing Bodies, has nothing to do with rugby on NBC
Lawrence vs Texas- invalidated sodomy laws in the US, I have no idea what possible relevance this could have with rugby on NBC
USA 7's and NBC are private companies, and none of these laws apply to them. Please educate yourself before complaining about rules that were never broken.
Posted by: collegenine | 14 February 2012 at 10:00
enough of the silly comments on the lack of womens rights in rugby blah, blah blah....any word who the next eagle coach is?? heard that it is just a two year contract.....talk about setting up for failure....jeez...
Posted by: 7's vs 15's | 14 February 2012 at 10:36
The two year contract is so USA Rugby can parachute a high priced forgein coach in for the RWC after the contact expires. It's a cost savings tactic that also satisfies the demand for a USA national to coach the team. After he fails they bring in the IRB choice who is out of a job at the moment.
Posted by: Screwd | 14 February 2012 at 10:46
7's vs 15's -
Anyone know who the final 4 candidates were that rugbymag was talking about? Are any of them American?
Posted by: Clay | 14 February 2012 at 11:04
Hope they all turn it down when they realize its only for two years.
Posted by: Benjie | 14 February 2012 at 11:06
The new head coach will need a much improved elite player pool to chose from if Eagles results are going to improve. Hopefully, the college conferences will make elite player development a priority in addition to league schedule administration. If the college conferences can run regular elite player (and coach) development camps they can have a big impact improving the national player pool. Conferences can arrange their own reps sides to play against nearby reps sides and senior clubs. If the colleges develop and promote a pool of 500 to 1000 quality players, the Eagles will have a much stronger elite player pool to select from.
Posted by: sevens | 14 February 2012 at 11:21
mike tolkin, paul keeler, dave hodges are the three i know of....all home grown
Posted by: 7's vs 15's | 14 February 2012 at 11:27
Sevens - What is your definition of "quality player" for this 500 to 1000 number you're looking for?
Not trying to nitpick, but college football doesn't even produce that many "quality" players a year. If they did my Browns would be much better.
I do get what you're saying and agree that we should focus on developing top notch high school and college talent. Just saying 500 quality players seems to be a bit much.
Posted by: Clay | 14 February 2012 at 11:29
500 quality rugby players do not exist in college rugby. 50 tops would even be close to being worthy to bring into an Eagle camp and many of those would be not worth a second look.
Posted by: Screwd | 14 February 2012 at 11:34
About 2% of NCAA footbal players go onto the NFL which is clearly very selective. Agree 500 quality players do not exist in college rugby today. Expectations and standards need to improve for schools and conference looking to move beyond "keg rugby." and help our national team perform better. Many schools take pride in producing Olympic atheltes and rugby should do the same. There are 4 D-1A conferences and 15 D-1AA conferences. If each of these developed and promoted 25 player we would have 475 to select a Eagles Development pool of 50. By quality, I mean able to play in the RSL at today's level of play. We need more schools beyond Cal, Life, BYU and a few others contributing to the players pool. Long way to go, but we need to give the Egales something better to chose from. In addition to developing players and coaches in the regions, we need to promote our players as top recruits, all-stars and draft picks are promoted in other sports. Senior clubs and GU's also need to get in touch with the 98% of college football players who do not go on to the NFL.
Posted by: sevens | 14 February 2012 at 11:51
90% of the D1-AA teams are still club sports teams with little funding or facilities access. In D1-A it's not much different. Nearly all the teams have volunteer coaches. We're miles away from your dream.
Posted by: Screwd | 14 February 2012 at 12:11
Ok, I see what you're getting at, but like "Screwd" said, we're miles and miles away from that dream.
I'd say if you could get 10 or 12 college teams to BYU and Cal's level in 10 or so years from now the talent level for the Eagles would be light years ahead of where it is now. And I think they are working towards that now. But in my opinion the other colleges like Ark State, Life, Davenport, Lindenwood, Wheeling Jesuit and maybe a few others like Penn State and Notre Dame cant to THAT level until the high school game expands and gets better in those areas. And that takes more coaches and more specifically more knowledgeable coaches at the high school level.
Posted by: Clay | 14 February 2012 at 12:39
To state the obvious, the women have a much better chance of medaling. Likewise, I'd rather watch Stanford W vs Penn State W anyday before thier male counterparts.
However, the USA women's team was boring to watch. Poor handdling, slow, and lack of imagination. Glad it wasn't on tv, YET. Give it time, but it wasn't a good product.
Posted by: Not a hater. | 14 February 2012 at 14:51
In my opinion women's rugby is never very interesting to watch. Tennis, volleyball (beach and indoor), track & field, golf all are good when it comes to the woman's game. Basketball, softball, soccer, rugby, etc. no way.
Posted by: Gadfly Gals | 14 February 2012 at 15:42
Didnt watch the Mia Hamm/Brandi Chastain world cup Gadlfly? Well it doesnt matter, because the rest of the country did.
Despite what some of the people on this board think about women's rugby, if you had any sense and could think long-term you would fully support the women's 7s program. What's one of the biggest obstacles to rugby in America going mainstream? The perception that the game is inherently dangerous and that it is "football without pads." Whatever dreamers want to believe, the USA Women's 7s team is far more likely than the men's to win gold at the 2016 Olympics. Americans love winners no matter what (see aforementioned women's world cup example) and if the USA team is successful, millions of Americans will have tuned in to watch them. And what better way to dispel the myth that rugby is more dangerous than other contact sports than to see women playing it with the same rules??
And if that happens, 11 women rugby players will have done more than more for American rugby in general than everyone who has commented on this board has done combined. Does the on-the-field product have to improve? Yes. But as we draw closer to 2016, the track, volleyball, water polo etc athletes will hopefully come to rugby looking for a way to Rio.
Would I go out of my way to watch a random women's rugby match? No. Do I support them as part of the rugby community. Yea, because I'm not a moron.
Posted by: college | 14 February 2012 at 17:29
too funny. womens rugby debate.
why isn't womens NCAA rowing on national tv...womens lacrosse, womens field hockey, womens hockey.. . . . . .. .
it is not good to watch -
same reason that 50 tv shows every year do not make it out of pilot or get cancelled after afew episodes...
in general, you are all five steps ahead....
we are not even crawling yet...we need to crawl first...
then think about walking...
then walk....
Posted by: rugbyfan1 | 14 February 2012 at 18:17
Well said College - Women's rugby is horrible to watch right now but the women's game is really the only way we are going to make anyway headway under the current climate.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | 14 February 2012 at 19:32
@college
Nope. Could care less. I do see that women's sports are on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and the networks multiple times per week. Not sure they have a beef that their extremely poor rugby team's game wasn't broadcast in its entirety last weekend. The reality is that Title 9 has held men's rugby back by at least 2 to 3 decades. No Olympic gold by the women in rugby 7s will bring that back.
Posted by: Gadfly Gals | 15 February 2012 at 01:06
With all due respect, and I am speaking as the most rabid rugby man I know, the gains in women's athletics since Title IX has been worth any harm it has done to rugby's progress. "The number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports had increased by more than 450%"
Though I would argue that the keg on the sideline attitude adopted by most rugby clubs before, during, and after the passage of Title ix has had way more to do with the lack of progress in rugby.
Women are more than half the population. I'm sorry you don't think they deserve the same opportunities to participate in college athletics even when their participation doesnt bring in money.
Posted by: college | 15 February 2012 at 01:41
@college
You're a self hating rugby man. Drop the keg on the sideline trite argument. My position about women's rugby doesn't depend on the constant depiction of their sport has butch lesbian biker looking chicks who play rugby even when that is the stereotype they need to shed.
Posted by: Gadfly Gals | 15 February 2012 at 03:00
No, your position is that you have no interest in watching women's rugby and you blame Title IX for the delayed progress in men's rugby. I told you that you are short-sighted and wrong respectively.
Trite? How about accurate. Men's rugby has made great progress over the last 10 years despite Title IX being in full force. Why is that? It is because men's college rugby decided to get more serious and adopt a varsity-like approach.
Hopefully both stereotypes are shed in 2016. In all likelihood, only the women's team will have the chance to create some buzz as they advance towards a gold medal. So that, despite my otherwise limited interest in women's rugby, is why I support the program.
Posted by: college | 15 February 2012 at 04:33
@college
Which of the lady Eagles are you dating? Valentines Day is over your can stop trying to earn brownie points.
Posted by: Screwd | 15 February 2012 at 08:08
Oh yea. Any time i start typing she goes down. Thats why my posts are so long. Do you think any current US women's player will even be on the 2016 team? I would bet against it. And seriously, does anyone disagree that the us women are going to be the ones with the chance to "capture the hearts and minds" of olympic viewers? Unless the men's program starts getting some serious athletes, they are not going to have a chance. Let's remember, that most of the teams in the 7s series arent using the best rugby athletes at their disposal. Those guys playing pro in 15s competitions will be coming back into 7s come 2015 and will replace many of the 17 year olds a lot of 7s teams are playing with now. We can't even compete with those young teams now with our veteran team. One of our more notable players is Test, who was a practice squad player for Oregon football. That level of athleticism is not going to get us to the pedestal.
Being realistic, I see the men, at best, qualifying for the olympics (assuming the Americas gets 2 bids because Argentina is going to make the same leap with the full use of its talent) and then not get out of pool play. How long will pool play last you think? 2 days max? 5 matches for the team to force its way into the national conversation? If they dont do well they wont even make a blip on the radar of the American audience, and a huge opportunity will be lost.
The women's team, while not the most exciting gender in rugby, have the better chance to make a drive towards gold and have a chance to make an impact comparable to that women's soccer team. If you seriously cant see that, you are blind.
Posted by: college | 15 February 2012 at 09:23
This comment would likely get me skewered, but probably not by the dozen or so people who read and comment here. The reason the USA women's soccer team captured America is because they are suprememly athletic and many of them are attractive. As politically incorrect as it may be to say this, many of our women's rugby players are not physically attractive. This turns off spectators, both male and female. And it cannot be disputed that their level of athleticism pales greatly in comparison to elite women's basketball and soccer players. I do not expect the women's Eagles to come even close to capturing this country the way the women's soccer team has done, even if they win a gold medal in 2016. That doesn't mean I won't be rooting for them, but it does mean that many other casual sports fans (but non-rugby fans) simply won't care about them.
Posted by: The Ugly Truth | 15 February 2012 at 10:33
@TUT,
I doubt looks, good or not, on the women’s team will affect the level of support they receive...it's just that the women’s brand of rugby compared with men’s is so vastly inferior, the only people willing to watch it is family and other female players...and that is a mighty small number, relatively speaking...
Posted by: 7's vs 15's | 15 February 2012 at 11:04
When faced with the same poor management at USAR and the inablity to win varsity status on their college campuses, the women have the advantage of being able to play the sexism card. The reality is it has nothing to do with sexism but many women are comfortable playing the victim to get the resources they want. I'm not a fan of the strategy especially if it takes resources away from the Men and the Men are forced to subsidize the Women's game. The Women are doing much better than the Men and they do not need a subsdiy.
Posted by: sevens | 15 February 2012 at 11:19
The only reason the women's Eagle programs are at all competitive is because women's rugby is not played at a much higher level in the rest of the world than it is in the USA. I would say that the women ruggers in the USA have it better than most of the rugby nations when it comes to the number of players, coaching, facilities and attention they are given by USA Rugby, NCAA, sponsors and broadcasters. Yet, that is not enough to have more than their competition. They want the same as the men.
Posted by: Gadfly Gals | 15 February 2012 at 12:22
I know this thought process has flaws, but...
91 teams in qualification for men's world cup, and the US had the 16th best record in the group stages (82% did worse).
19 teams in qualification for women's world cup, USA finished 5th (73% did worse).
Something about a big fish in a small pond? Yes, the women have a higher chance of medaling, but neither of our national teams are doing anything particularly impressive right now
Posted by: collegenine | 15 February 2012 at 14:08
Barbara Streisand.........
(sorry, still have that song in my head from last weekend)
Posted by: Leviathan | 15 February 2012 at 15:01
It's odd how the argument that women should take an equal seat in internationaly rugby competition cause they can.
In 1975 USA Rugby focused it's efforts to create a men's national team before there were significant numbers of players and coaches in youth and high school.The women's game leaders are doing the same strategy.
I would focus on a decade-long strategy of making rugby available to girls ages 6-17 before any further complaining of TV access or funding. Every woman's team-college or club should start a mini rugby program-not high school yet, and bring rugby to girls.
Why does the women's rugby community not do this?
Posted by: Welcomed as a coach | 15 February 2012 at 18:46
Women's rugby is too busy complaining about sexism to actually do anything productive about growing their sport and making it into a watchable product.
Posted by: The Ugly Truth | 16 February 2012 at 08:34