Something isn’t right in Buenos Aires

cheers Nobrain. On the general topic of the Jags, I hope the players lift their game, and their attitude on the paddock. I hope their fans hold them to a high standard. Players can take it out on their administration off the pitch. Their fans and the game deserve better.

Thanks Rob C . Very good piece and almost selfexplanatory.

Gday Gents, re scrum penalty tries. This was addressed last year http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/05/01/scrumma-mogram-wallabies-scrum-part-2/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=210&v=ePnNw86B1Lc

That's a fair summary you've made there Harry. For anyone interested this is discussed on the SA Referees website... http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-penalty-try/2830664/

Sorry Harry but I have not seen another penalty try awarded in the entire SR season at the first collapsing scrum . The most common is on the third one. I am not saying it was not the correct call but it has not been the standard procedure .

Nobrain,you can definitely get a penalty try awarded against you after a series of bad scrums, but the point is even one collapsed scrum (if the collapse was clear and stopped an inexorable march over the line) is enough. When it's a series, I think you will find that the ref did not award it for "standing up" or losing a bind. The Kings were marching (8 vs 7) and the collapse was really obvious.

Everything that has to do with rugby depends on him, all reportrs if they want to keep their jobs will never say it but only free people like you and me can do it.

Precisely. And who dares to criticize "Ficha" in Argentina? It is very dangerous!

Morning Rob. I don't like the Kings because of thr reason they are in the comp, I don't like the Jaguares and Wolves because I am selfish and don't want an expanded competition. I don't like Super rugby anymore because it isn't Super. I used to love Super Rugby because I could feed my OCD and my hunger for comparative stats. I used to know the percentage for each team against each over seas franchise. Now it is just a global collection of matches that hase lost its appeal to me.

Thanks Shop, good pointers. I think the Jags will get better as time goes by. Everyone underestimated what it takes for an ARG team to do well in SR.

gday BB. I like the Kings. I like the idea of Kings. I go beyond accepting them. The only thing I didnt like about them is their jerseys, because their numbers were hard to read. And that's been fixed. They are the underdogs. And I always support the underdogs Conversely, Jags, are the overdogs. They have totally under achieved. Now the cracks are appearing. What I find odd, is the Kings have every excuse to bite, redcard etc. So... why is it that international players - who should uphold the game - instead play foul because their expectations are not met? I dont know what to make of the Wolves. In any case, the Kings is the only new team I watch. Because there are so many games, I watch SR like how I used to watch league. Pick and choose. Unlike last year and previous, it would be all games - no exceptions. So there's a few teams I dont watch. The Jags for a few reasons, is one of them

A Saturday, not a Tuesday.

I agree. That I think is SA's best hope and in their best interest. Build from within. This current format does SA rugby no favours. As I mention growing up, I don't think I could have imagined anything better than competition between NZ and SA. But we are served up is a long way from that. But in saying that... playing and watching teams like the Bulls, Shorks, Stormers and Lions in particular has been a genuine pleasure. I am also aware that a combined team doesn't work in SA. In NZ franchises also feel a bit plastic, but at least it has proven to be workable. It would be with sadness in my heart to see SA bow out rather than fight for positive change, but it would be understandable. I think NZ needs this Como for its revenue streams so commercially is forced to continue down the expansion road and in the medium to long term it will serve them well. As always it is a pleasure chatting with you BB as I often feel as much as we support different sides of a coin, we both have similar thoughts and feelings with respect to the kind of rugby we want to see. SA rugby keeps NZ rugby grounded and NZ rugby makes SA rugby to look at themselves and take risks. What anyone does with it is another story :-)

I think the main problems for the Jaguares are mainly based on their own expectations and obviously the lack of understanding of how Super Rugby functions. In the first few rounds they looked like a team who was desperate to prove to everybody that they belong in this completion and now it looks like they don’t even know each let alone have a game plan moving forward. It is quite interesting to read the comments from their own supporters in the Argentinian media; the expectation placed on this team is quite unrealistic from some of their supporters/media, with seething comments made towards under performing players, most of them acknowledge that Aus,NZ and SA are teams are above the Jaguares however the general feeling is that they are quite tired of the “Learning curve phase” I read an interesting interview with their scrum half – Landajo(?) in which he basically stated coming into the season they were overexcited to be in Super Rugby and definitely underestimated how the comp is played, yes they knew about the travel, pace, etc. but what they didn’t know or prepare for was that a lot of Super Rugby teams DO play with structure, mixing flair with strategy, he mentioned that it is easy to assume(By watching SR highlights) that all the rugby is played from end to end with lots of offloads and wonderful tries scored at either side yet teams do kick and play for possession and know how to grind out games; something that they need to bring into their own game. In my opinion having only one Super Rugby team is actually detrimental to their development; they need two teams to be able to create different cultures and styles of play, they are starting to become very predictable and good teams will exploit that and with the Pumas also; I think their whole squad for the June series is the Jaguares plus Cubelli

Sadly what the rugby powers want and the public seems to be two distinctly different things. I have been hoping for the end of Super Rugby for a number of reasons, one of those are familiarity breeds contempt, and I think for that reason alone Super Rugby has run it's course. Unfortunately steve Tew doesn't seem to think so, and SARU are too dense to realise that whilst the New Zealand players are learning how to cope with playing physical teams we in turn are not lerning or taking away anything from this experience. So I will continually live in hope that Super Rugby comes to an end, and South African rugby can in earnest start healing and re inventing itself.

BB, to what extent am I suggesting? Certainly enough to not be too concerned how it played out in terms of watering down the competition or what it meant for others. Forr what it is worth, inmho it only became an issue for many when it was realised that to balance out the numbers there would be two other teams and a conference system which focussed more on local derbies. But expanding the format hasn't kept players in SA or brought any back which was a suggestion made by some. But the competition has been biased to favour SA teams at the pointy end of the season, so maybe the SARU in their negotiations thought this might get some interest when it came to the finals. And just because it favours SA teams doesn't mean teams don't deserve to be there. Anyway it is a bit of a shambles and SA is probably the biggest loser in the reformatting, even though much of it came about as a result of their insistence and stipulations, If SARU did not want a replay of the Currie cup, then they shouldn't have forced in a sixth representative team. I am not saying a franchise model works in SA, such is the politics and belligerence of various competing parties. But that unfortunately from where I sit appears to be ithe hurdle. How do you change if you can't change. In my view demanding 6 teams is ludicrous, when at least two of the teams are making up the numbers. When have SA teams dominated the competition in the manner NZ teams have. Which to me suggests they have little ground for demanding a sixth team. And if they were going to insist they should never have agreed to the terms as they currently stand. Personally I would have been happy with SA and New Zealand competing with our Australian brothers playing with the Jaguares and Subwolves.... With a finals that included all. But that is not the model and I am not running the show. Now I fear that horse has bolted and it will be too long before that opportunity comes up for review. Having your priorities wrong when sitting at the negotiating table means you will end up more compromised than might otherwise be the case. So as I started, I have sympathy for players caught in the crosshairs of flawed negotiations, planning, politics etc. But suggesting the public might go a bit easy on the Kings is rather a lost cause, when it is merely a response to decisions made by others. Finally, this is just my view and not necessarily anyone else's. No anilmals were hurt in the writing of this.

Match fixing somehow worth investigating? My Argentininan tennis coach in London suggests 'everyone is dodgy!'....especially in South America.

What is the difference with the three scrums at the Sharks 5 m in BsAs when they faced Jaguares? In SA one attempt and in Argentina not even three attemps and end up with so rare penalty against the Jags?

A wolf under a sheep skin?

Interesting reading and commentary - particularly from Argentina fans. The assessment of Pichot stands in stark contrast to the eulogies being penned about him in the last week or so following his appointment to World Rugby and as the potential long-term SH candidate to take over the chairmanship of the organisation.