Rugby vs american football [Archive]

mikenostic

10-15-07, 10:05 PM

Also I like that everybody has the same bodytype.
How big (height and weight) is the average rugby player?

Let's not jump to conclusions, there is a reason why american football players wear pads. If you've ever compared how the players interact with each other, you would see that in rugby, it is like soccer (football), the players are always close to the rugby ball, so takles are not extremly painful. In football, players are very widely spread apart because of the "plays" in the game. In these plays, there are defensive players far away from the football, to intercept the offensive players, the defensive interceptors will run at the offensive player at full speed. Without pads, football would be fatal.

There was even an incident in where a football player suffered severe spine damage because of a tackle. The two sports may look very similar, but they are actually very different.
You are correct.
http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news_5221.html

Take a look at some of these hits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmm8mTpMJPY

And this one on Reggie Bush of the New Orleans Saints. The defender knocks the ball out of his hands.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=8524393

Don't get me wrong, I have a huge amount of respect for rugby. It's an insane sport.
But like Exeter said; the plays are different and rugby players are always close to the ball. They almost exclusively tackle (if I'm not mistaken) whereas American football players tackle and hit.
Do rugby players ever get to 'shoulder tackle' another rugby player, running at full speed?

Gondolin

10-15-07, 10:14 PM

I've seen some pretty crazy rugby hits, but both games are totally different in the way they play and contact each other.

I personally prefer football, but I love to watch rugby.

iceaura

10-15-07, 10:33 PM

The pads, in football, are mostly for hitting with. They are like boxing gloves - they allow harder blows, that would otherwise break the joints and bones of the one delivering the hit.

A hard tackle in football is about equivalent to a 30kph car crash. If you want to know what it feels like, pick up a loaf of bread in one hand and run as fast as you can into a tree. You can wear full football pads. You can't drop the bread.

ashpwner

10-16-07, 11:58 AM

fair enough i can see you're points but i'm not just counting the takels.Have you ever seen a scrum when the ref is not looking lethal there is always a guy with blood spewing out of his nose.

quadraphonics

10-16-07, 01:32 PM

American Football > Aussia Rules > Rugby

mikenostic

10-16-07, 02:34 PM

fair enough i can see you're points but i'm not just counting the takels.Have you ever seen a scrum when the ref is not looking lethal there is always a guy with blood spewing out of his nose.
Have you ever wondered what goes on down at the bottom of a pile up in football?
Eye-gouging, finger bending, sucker punching, stepping on hands and feet, etc.

Orleander

10-16-07, 02:46 PM

I've seen some pretty crazy rugby hits, but both games are totally different in the way they play and contact each other.

I personally prefer football, but I love to watch rugby.

rugby is too compressed for me. It seems like the guys are always in a huddle fighting for the ball.
How many guys have been paralyzed playing rugby vs football?

Gondolin

10-16-07, 05:19 PM

rugby is too compressed for me. It seems like the guys are always in a huddle fighting for the ball.
How many guys have been paralyzed playing rugby vs football?

I agree. I like watching one play at a time. Keeps things fresh and you anything could happen.

I don't know how many have been paralyzed in either. If I had to guess I'd say American football is more prone to paralysis. These dudes just charge at each other head on.

MacGyver1968

10-16-07, 05:26 PM

Without a helmet in Rugby, I doubt you "lead with your head" like in American Football. I would say there would many more spine injuries in football...more missing teeth in Rugby. :)

Gondolin

10-16-07, 05:27 PM

Without a helmet in Rugby, I doubt you "lead with your head" like in American Football. I would say there would many more spine injuries in football...more missing teeth in Rugby. :)

I don't disagree with that at all. I've always wanted to give rugby a try here at school, but I know I will be annihalated. Maybe I should just man up and take the beating... 'cause I really want to play.

Orleander

10-16-07, 05:37 PM

and if you combine rugby with football, what do you get??
HOCKEY!!

Gondolin

10-16-07, 05:38 PM

and if you combine rugby with football, what do you get??

WATER POLO!

ashpwner

10-16-07, 06:35 PM

lol i think were biased thogh lol american football means more to americans were as rugby means much more to us asusies and others...but i find american football spends so much time lining up the whistle seems to go every 5 minutes.

USS Exeter

10-16-07, 07:44 PM

and if you combine rugby with football, what do you get??
HOCKEY!!

Really?! I always thought hockey was a mix of football and soccer.

iceaura

10-16-07, 08:41 PM

nd if you combine rugby with football, what do you get?? ”

WATER POLO! Now there's a rough sport.

I've seen photos from the Olympic match between Russia and (edit - Czechoslovakia was hockey- the water polo match was vs Hungary in 56) Hungary - according to witness reports, you couldn't see the bottom of the pool for the blood in the water. Anybody verify that?

Exhumed

10-16-07, 10:13 PM

Also I like that everybody has the same bodytype. They don't have big fatass defenders and skinny runners, everybody does everything. They are pretty bulky too, specially the legs...

Skinny runners = 215 lb, 6 feet tall? :o

Exhumed

10-16-07, 10:16 PM

i mean in pain wise, id have to go with rugby since they don't were padding like the americans do.

Yeah, but in football the athletes doing the hitting are bigger and stronger, by a lot. You can get paralyzed from football hits.

Football is also probably more painful to watch. More commercials than game time.

Roman

10-16-07, 10:34 PM

rugby is too compressed for me. It seems like the guys are always in a huddle fighting for the ball.
How many guys have been paralyzed playing rugby vs football?

Probably more playing US football, but then, way more people play american football.

countezero

10-16-07, 10:48 PM

Having played both and being that I still play rugby, I'm going to go with rugby over football any day. Rugby is harder to play and much more subtle than football. It's also more enjoyable, if you ask me, because in rugby one gets to "do" everything, rather than learn one task (as is the case in football) and perform that task over and over again in a game.

All this nonsense about harder hits in football is just that, too: Nonsense. Sure a lot of the hits are "harder," but the entire reason they are harder is not because the football player is any more aggressive or any bigger or the football game any more rougher, it's because when they hit someone they get to lead with their helmet and shoulder pads. The pads are only reason there are more serious injuries in football, which is ironic, considering that the pads are supposed to make people "safer," when they obviously don't.

And whoever talked about different tackling is right. The first rugby game I played in I tried to tackle face-first, like I did in football, and I promptly cracked my nose and got a bit of the old claret all over my shirt. I learned to adapt quickly. All in all, though, I'd have to say rugby is the rougher game. It takes me about two days to recover fully from a match. That was never the case in football.

Also for those going on about football, consider that football was started at Rutgers because the school officials were too concerned about the violence of rugby. Consider also that there is no blocking in rugby, every man must take the tackle. And the rugby ball carrier can't run out of bounds to avoid a hit either. The opposite of those rules always upset when I watch football now...

Exhumed

10-17-07, 12:59 PM

All this nonsense about harder hits in football is just that, too: Nonsense. Sure a lot of the hits are "harder," but the entire reason they are harder is not because the football player is any more aggressive or any bigger or the football game any more rougher, it's because when they hit someone they get to lead with their helmet and shoulder pads. The pads are only reason there are more serious injuries in football, which is ironic, considering that the pads are supposed to make people "safer," when they obviously don't.

They do it harder, because they are stronger and quicker. The only gear in football that actually does cause injury is the helmet, when it's used in a certain way which is against the rules. If there were no pads in football players would get too hurt to play.

va'a

10-17-07, 01:20 PM

you could play american football with no pads... anyone who ends up paralyzed is victim to their own or anothers stupidity.

rugby is a continuous game.. no starting then stopping. 80 minutes of heavy hitting, running, wrestling, trampling, thinking etc.. you also have to be agile and mobile and not just a massive bumbling bonehead. play moves in all directions at all times.

im sure it takes alot more to play rugby.

american football is a hype game.. pure american aggression.. take away their pads and the players wont talk as much as they do.

mikenostic

10-17-07, 01:33 PM

Since I was ignored the first time, I'll ask again:
What is the range of size and weight a rugby player can be?

Having played both and being that I still play rugby, I'm going to go with rugby over football any day. Rugby is harder to play and much more subtle than football. It's also more enjoyable, if you ask me, because in rugby one gets to "do" everything, rather than learn one task (as is the case in football) and perform that task over and over again in a game.
I agree, while football players don't do everything, they all must know the fundamentals of football. Tackling is one of them. If you're on offense, and your QB throws a pick, you are now the defense for that play. The offense must tackle the player that intercepted the ball.

All this nonsense about harder hits in football is just that, too: Nonsense. Sure a lot of the hits are "harder," but the entire reason they are harder is not because the football player is any more aggressive or any bigger or the football game any more rougher, it's because when they hit someone they get to lead with their helmet and shoulder pads. The pads are only reason there are more serious injuries in football, which is ironic, considering that the pads are supposed to make people "safer," when they obviously don't.
As for your statement in bold, that's actually a pretty big difference between the two that you somehow think is trivial. Why doesn't rugby allow hits and shoulder tackles? Do you think a rugby player would last that long if they were allowed to place NFL style hits on their opponents w/o pads?
Football players used to go w/o pads. Rules were changed to have pads because too many people were getting killed. Try playing football without pads and see what happens. And are there any 6'6" 320 lb players in Rugby?
Getting tackled by a guy that size is going to have more of an impact than if, say a 6 foot 195 lb guy tackles you.

I learned to adapt quickly. All in all, though, I'd have to say rugby is the rougher game. It takes me about two days to recover fully from a match. That was never the case in football.
That sounds like the tough guy attitude. I'd much rather wear pads, and avoid taking two days to recover from a match, and be more ready to play the next game, than recieve some injury putting me out for a game, or even the season, that a set of pads would avoid.
You probably ride a motorcycle w/o a helmet and don't wear your seat belt either, do you?
And what level football and rugby are you talking about? I might agree where high school and lower college divisions are concerned, but once you hit higher college programs and the NFL, all bets are off. You know as well as I do that these guys are big, very strong, fast and can hit hard.
I guess you never experienced one of those hits when you were playing football that someone described earlier as 'getting hit by someone running at full speed is like getting hit by a car going 30mph'?

And the rugby ball carrier can't run out of bounds to avoid a hit either. The opposite of those rules always upset when I watch football now...
Uh, running out of bounds isn't necessarily going to keep you from getting hit. I've seen plenty of hits as of late where the ball carrier is on his way out of bounds, even with one foot out of bounds and the defender still pops him just to make sure he doesn't cut back in bounds...and just to send a message that you won't get past them.

american football is a hype game.. pure american aggression.. take away their pads and the players wont talk as much as they do.
I would love to see you get on the field with an NFL player w/o his pads and see how fast you get levelled.

Exhumed

10-17-07, 01:42 PM

va'a

10-17-07, 01:43 PM

Since I was ignored the first time, I'll ask again:
What is the range of size and weight a rugby player can be?

players can be of any size and weight.. theres no regulations. fat boys are expected to run when they have to and little guys have to take make the hits and take them. every player will find themselves at the bottom of a ruck at least once in a game.. rucks usually weigh something like half a tonne..

usually player weights range from around 80 - 130 kgs

mikenostic

10-17-07, 01:57 PM

Almost every American male played football without pads, but things change when your being chased by someone 6'6, 300 lbs, who runs a 4.3 second 40 yard dash, has a 40" vertical, and does insane weight lifting like squatting over 900 lbs, benching 225 lbs ~35 times (Mario Williams). And then there are the Barry Sanders types, 5'8 200 lbs, very fast, yet can squat over 800 lbs. Here is a vid of Barry, one of the guys you grouped as a "massive bumbling bonehead" http://youtube.com/watch?v=pqvU5R2EYeE&mode=related&search=
Did you see Albert Haynesworth (6'6" 320lbs) of the Tennessee Titans jump OVER the offensive line for the Atlanta Falcons the week before last, and grab a hold of Byron Leftwich before he had a chance to hand the ball off?

players can be of any size and weight.. theres no regulations. fat boys are expected to run when they have to and little guys have to take make the hits and take them. every player will find themselves at the bottom of a ruck at least once in a game.. rucks usually weigh something like half a tonne..
Goal line pile ups in football are no different.

va'a

10-17-07, 02:05 PM

Did you see Albert Haynesworth (6'6" 320lbs) of the Tennessee Titans jump OVER the offensive line for the Atlanta Falcons the week before last, and grab a hold of Byron Leftwich before he had a chance to hand the ball off?

Goal line pile ups in football are no different.

they are since they are encased in padding..

if hes 6'6 then i would imagine jumping over something isnt hard.

Exhumed

10-17-07, 04:05 PM

mikenostic, nope, I missed it ;(

va'a you seem biased if you can't understand what is impressive about that.

countezero

10-17-07, 04:10 PM

They do it harder, because they are stronger and quicker.

You obviously know very little about rugby players, who are just as strong and just as quick as football players (watch the WC and notice the size of the people in the skin tight shirts that are now vogue). The only noticeable size difference deals with weight. Put simply, players on the line in football pack on the pounds in order to keep from getting pushed around. Rugby players have to run 80 minutes so they can't be loaded down with such weight. In other words, they're in better shape. But they have comparable strength, agility and speed levels.

The only gear in football that actually does cause injury is the helmet, when it's used in a certain way which is against the rules.

In football, you're taught to tackle face first. Thus, helmets end up on knees and in all sort of places (legally) where they do damage. You can't tackle that way in rugby (see my story about my near-miss with a broken nose). In football you're also allowed to hit somebody without ever trying to "tackle" them, which is against the rules in rugby. Thus, people in football run full speed and throw their bodies at other players like spears (totally illegal in rugby). Again, that's legal in football. And the power of the ensuing hit it has nothing to do with speed or toughness or anything else. Players can play and hit that way in football ONLY because they're wrapped in padding.

If there were no pads in football players would get too hurt to play.

Bullshit. Less would get hurt. For proof, see rugby, where the players play more games per season, have longer careers at the top level, don't often get career-ending injuries and aren't developing disabilities when they're retired, as has been reported about NFL folks.

Exhumed

10-17-07, 04:14 PM

You obviously know very little about rugby players, who are just as strong and just as quick as football players (watch the WC and notice the size of the people in the skin tight shirts that are now vogue). The only noticeable size difference deals with weight. Put simply, players on the line in football pack on the pounds in order to keep from getting pushed around. Rugby players have to run 80 minutes so they can't be loaded down with such weight. In other words, they're in better shape. But they have comparable strength, agility and speed levels.

Hah. Very humorous. Do you have any way to back up that claim?

countezero

10-17-07, 04:30 PM

Why doesn't rugby allow hits and shoulder tackles?

Because when a player isn't wearing pads such hits are dangerous.

Do you think a rugby player would last that long if they were allowed to place NFL style hits on their opponents w/o pads?

No, and niether would an NFL player, so what's your point? Pads make somebody tougher and enable them to hit harder?

Football players used to go w/o pads. Rules were changed to have pads because too many people were getting killed.

Try playing football without pads and see what happens.

I have. We did it in college. It's a lot like playing rugby.

And are there any 6'6" 320 lb players in Rugby?

There are plenty of 6'6 players (they're typically locks), but they don't weigh that much, because unlike linemen, a rugger actually has to run. Why don't you go to youtube and type "Chabal" in and look at his size and see his hits before you continue on this inane football players are bigger and tougher motiff.

That sounds like the tough guy attitude. I'd much rather wear pads, and avoid taking two days to recover from a match, and be more ready to play the next game, than recieve some injury putting me out for a game, or even the season, that a set of pads would avoid.

No, I'm not posing. I'm just speaking anecdotally. For the record, rugby players play more games per year than football players and typically have less serious injuries. I'm sure you would say that's because football is tougher, but I think it's because football has pads that cause more injuries and make the game more dangerous.

And what level football and rugby are you talking about? I might agree where high school and lower college divisions are concerned, but once you hit higher college programs and the NFL, all bets are off. You know as well as I do that these guys are big, very strong, fast and can hit hard.

Again, I was speaking anecdotally. Following your set of remarks, I could just as easily say pro rugby players hit harder than the guys who just play at the local club like me. But it doesn't make a difference. We're talking about the nature of the sport.

I guess you never experienced one of those hits when you were playing football that someone described earlier as 'getting hit by someone running at full speed is like getting hit by a car going 30mph'?

I got walloped playing football, but I don't think it's a "tougher" game than rugby. Rugby is grueling in a way that football can't be. Part of that is the lack of timeouts and constant running...

Uh, running out of bounds isn't necessarily going to keep you from getting hit. I've seen plenty of hits as of late where the ball carrier is on his way out of bounds, even with one foot out of bounds and the defender still pops him just to make sure he doesn't cut back in bounds...and just to send a message that you won't get past them.

Yes, cite the random exceptions as though that proves something. The fact is the rules are different and QBs run out of bounds all the time. So do other players. That's not an option in rugby. Nor is running behind your teammates to save your own skin.

I would love to see you get on the field with an NFL player w/o his pads and see how fast you get levelled.

What does that prove? And who's copping the attitude now?

va'a

10-17-07, 05:19 PM

mikenostic, nope, I missed it ;(

va'a you seem biased if you can't understand what is impressive about that.

The dude is 6'6 and black.. I would expect him to be able to jump with his long legs and genetic abilities.. it doesn't impress me although it would spice things up in a game.

countezero is making some relly good points and they are consitent.

i don't think you folk understand that rugby is a non-stop game like soccer. you have to keep up with the play at all times, dive into rucks, move piles of men off the ball, make hits, take hits, and a whole multitude of other physical things while ALSO staying alert and aware of every single player around you. you have to read the plays and keep the momentum rolling.. its very mentally exhausting just as it is physically. play can switch from offensive to defensive in a flash and you have to totally rearrange your team position in a second.

every single player has to follow the play. if a back makes a break away run.. it will be of no use if the big forwards dont keep up to secure the ball in the ruck. the game is relentless. all 80 minutes of it.

there are BIG hits in rugby.. eg brian lima downing derrek hougard because he was sent a hospital pass. he also took himself out by having his head in the wrong place in a big hit attempt (because hes now 35 years old.. getting old but still going strong). chabal broke ali williams jaw when ali tried to tackle the beast. chabal knocked out chris masoe with a beatifully executed tackle. watch henry tuilagi run it straight.. he usually runs over one man and the opposition will have to put up a 360kg welcoming comittee to bring him down... there are many moments of pure brutal genious.

check out buck shelford..

Shelford next played for the All Blacks against France, though he had been selected to play Australia but withdrew due to injury. It was during only his second test for the All Blacks that he suffered a ripped scrotum after being rucked by a French player, which left one testicle hanging free. He also lost four teeth during the ruck. After discovering the injury to his scrotum, he calmly asked the physio to stitch up the tear and returned to the field before a blow to his head left him concussed and he left the field and watched the remainder of the game from the grandstand where he witnessed the All Blacks lose. - wikipedia

that shit is true..

relentless.

Exhumed

10-17-07, 05:26 PM

The dude is 6'6 and black.. I would expect him to be able to jump with his long legs and genetic abilities..

This is where I stop reading.

ashpwner

10-17-07, 05:54 PM

but to be honest you say american football i so much harder sport when in a ruck you ever thought of what happend to the man underneath?

ashpwner

10-17-07, 06:27 PM

plus a scrum colapse can be fatal

countezero

10-17-07, 06:38 PM

I doubt if many of the rugby critics here have sat through an entire match, let alone played the game Ash.

ashpwner

10-17-07, 06:39 PM

yea fair enough... but still it a dangerous sport

USS Exeter

10-17-07, 07:50 PM

When I was in Rome, I sat and watched an entire rugby game on TV; New Zealand Vs. South Africa. New Zealand won, of course. It was just as exciting as football, but then again had no strategy. In rugby, there might be an overview on what the players would do, but in Football, every play is strategically thought out.

countezero

10-17-07, 09:25 PM

va'a

10-17-07, 09:36 PM

Hate to break it to you, but speaking as a fly half, I can attest there is plenty of strategy in rugby, it just doesn't seem obvious to the newbie because there aren't as many set pieces as there are in football.

i second that.

once you understand the game a little bit and are familiar with the different sections of play you will see that there is a lot of strategy involved and every match provides a different challenge.

iceaura

10-18-07, 12:00 AM

. Rugby is harder to play and much more subtle than football. It's also more enjoyable, if you ask me, because in rugby one gets to "do" everything, rather than learn one task (as is the case in football) and perform that task over and over again in a game. - -
It takes me about two days to recover fully from a match. That was never the case in football.. - - -
Consider also that there is no blocking in rugby, Sounds like you never played much football- one thing over and over? Recovery from a real game in less than two days ? Blocking means some people don't "take the tackle" ? That's not serious football.

All this nonsense about harder hits in football is just that, too: Nonsense. Sure a lot of the hits are "harder," but the entire reason they are harder is - - they get to lead with their helmet and shoulder pads. - - -
- - - Pads make somebody tougher and enable them to hit harder? Yes, the players hit harder, because they can - the hitting surface is padded, allowing the delivery of a much harder blow. That means the person getting hit gets hit harder - including blocks, btw, which can be very hard hits.

Yes, cite the random exceptions as though that proves something. The fact is the rules are different and QBs run out of bounds all the time. So do other players. That's not an option in rugby. Nor is running behind your teammates to save your own skin. "Saving their own skin" is not why,or how, runners use blockers. Are you sure you've played actual, organised football? It's to make more yards. All of the blockers and all of the blocked are hitting, of course. Running out of bounds can be to avoid taking a hit (one of those serious hits that make football a more violent sport, and also can cause fumbles) sometimes, but more often is a consequence of being knocked out of bounds to prevent yardage, and is also done to manage the clock and use or use up game time efficiently in tense situations (both in running out and knocking out) - a considerable subtlety missing from rugby.

Look, aside from my brother, who played more rugby and more football at a higher level than I did, and whom I quote: "Rugby is a stupid, clumsy sport. It's like slow hockey", nobody I know disparages rugby. It's jsut that if you look at the OP, or at posts like this
you also have to be agile and mobile and not just a massive bumbling bonehead. you can see that some people here don't know shit about football. That's all.

Zakariya04

10-18-07, 01:43 AM

hey All,

I dotn understand American football so i can not possibly comment on which one is the best!!!

~~~~~~~
cheers
zak

countezero

10-18-07, 08:45 AM

Sounds like you never played much football

I played football for about 10 years, does that count as a lot or a little in your book?

one thing over and over?

Yes, one thing over and over. Watch football. Play it. If you're a receiver, you practice one set of skills over and over, which you then replicate in a game. The same goes for a cornerback or a lineman. That, for me, was one of the worst things about football practice. The sheer monotony of it. Rugby is totally different. Everyone plays offense and everyone plays defense, so they have to know how to perform all of the games skills.

Recovery from a real game in less than two days?

This is purely anecdotal, so take it or leave it: But I was never sore after a football game the way I am now after a tough rugby contest. Never. Part of that is probably down to the fact I played safety and receiver in football, but I'd reckon the guys on the line in football aren't sore as a rugby front row player...

Blocking means some people don't "take the tackle"?

Exactly, they don't have to take the tackle if someone blocks for them. Sure, at some point they get tackled, but my entire point is that in football you get to run behind other people who protect you. That's not an option in rugby.

Yes, the players hit harder, because they can - the hitting surface is padded, allowing the delivery of a much harder blow.

And the receiving surface is padded, allowing for much better absorbtion, so the hits in football aren't "harder," practically speaking, because the effects are nullified. Again, the only thing I think pads achieve are freak or career-ending injuries. Other than that, their purpose seems cancelled out.

"Saving their own skin" is not why, or how, runners use blockers.

First, I don't think I ever used that term. And secondly, yes, I understand what the purpose of blocking is. But its tactical purposes don't change the fact that players are running behind other players to avoid tackles.

Running out of bounds can be to avoid taking a hit ... more often is a consequence of being knocked out of bounds to prevent yardage, and is also done to manage the clock and use or use up game time efficiently in tense situations ... a considerable subtlety missing from rugby.

Rugby doesn't need such subtlety because it isn't dictated by the clock and an arbritrary set of downs. Also, the tactical instances you referenced are not what I was talking about. I was talking about how people tip-toe out of bounds to avoid tackles.

Look, aside from my brother, who played more rugby and more football at a higher level than I did, and whom I quote: "Rugby is a stupid, clumsy sport. It's like slow hockey", nobody I know disparages rugby. It's jsut that if you look at the OP, or at posts like this you can see that some people here don't know shit about football. That's all.

Well, I know "shit" about football, and I think rugby is superior in nearly every facet, except perhaps the speed of the game (I also think your brother's remarks are ridiculous. Clumsy? A lineman in football is the epitome of clumsy). In that regard, football is more frantic and has more quick bursts. But of course, football also has numerous breaks in play, which rugby does not. So the tempo between the two is different. How one appreciates that difference is a personal preference.

I also think you've completely misread this thread. There are plenty of people here upset because their Holy Grail of Football has been attacked and are running off at the mouth about a game they've never even seen on television.

mikenostic

10-18-07, 09:55 AM

Because when a player isn't wearing pads such hits are dangerous.
No, and niether would an NFL player, so what's your point? Pads make somebody tougher and enable them to hit harder?

These two statements right there is more on football's behalf than rugby's.
That pretty much sums up why pads are worn in football. You said it yourself. :D

There are plenty of 6'6 players (they're typically locks), but they don't weigh that much, because unlike linemen, a rugger actually has to run. Why don't you go to youtube and type "Chabal" in and look at his size and see his hits before you continue on this inane football players are bigger and tougher motiff.
Be sure you know what I meant before you speculate. Because if you reread the thread, you will notice that I asked how big rugby players are...twice. Why? Because I did not know what the range of their dimensions could be. I did not want to make speculations before I knew how big rugby players were. Thanks for totally taking it the wrong way.

No, I'm not posing. I'm just speaking anecdotally. For the record, rugby players play more games per year than football players and typically have less serious injuries. I'm sure you would say that's because football is tougher, but I think it's because football has pads that cause more injuries and make the game more dangerous.
....

I got walloped playing football, but I don't think it's a "tougher" game than rugby. Rugby is grueling in a way that football can't be. Part of that is the lack of timeouts and constant running...
I agree totally. Soccer and are also played with limited stoppage. I actually hate the frequency of stoppage in football...because they always go to commercial when they do. :mad:
The grueling that you are talking about here is about stamina/endurance.
I agree, football will never be as grueling as rugby in that sense.

Yes, cite the random exceptions as though that proves something. The fact is the rules are different and QBs run out of bounds all the time. So do other players. That's not an option in rugby. Nor is running behind your teammates to save your own skin.

What does that prove? And who's copping the attitude now?
No attitude here. I'm discussing, given my knowledge of both sports, the physical aspects of either. I know much more about football than I do rugby, but I'm not totally clueless about rugby either.
Have I mentioned anywhere that I think rugby is a pussy sport? Nope. Quite the contrary. I have much respect for rugby. They are both very rough, very physical games. But in football, you do stand much more of a chance of getting a serious injury than rugby. But in rugby, you stand more of a chance of getting less serious, but still nasty, injuries.
How frequent are injuries like Kevin Everett's in rugby?

countezero

10-18-07, 10:44 AM

That pretty much sums up why pads are worn in football. You said it yourself.

Perhaps, but I think you should refer to my comments about pads nullifying any of the added impact they bring, because everyone is wearing them.

Thanks for totally taking it the wrong way.

If I did so, that's my mistake. However, I think when your attitude was rather obvious: You did talk about how long rugby players could last versus NFL players without pads, and who could take hits, etc. From those sort of remarks it seems to me you're slightly preordained to favor the football over the rugby side of this debate.

But in football, you do stand much more of a chance of getting a serious injury than rugby. But in rugby, you stand more of a chance of getting less serious, but still nasty, injuries.

I readily admit there are more serious injuries in football than there are in rugby, and I've said as much. I'm not sure this make football the "rougher" game with "harder" hits, though. Taking extreme cases and trying to argue general trends is not all that sound, logically speaking. For example, people can die skydiving, but nobody in their right mind would try to argue it's more physical than football. As I've said before, I think the injuries in football are because of the pads, not because how hard people are hitting each other.

ashpwner

10-18-07, 10:51 AM

speaking as a prop i can tell ya when a scrum collapses on ya you are fucked ....

mikenostic

10-18-07, 11:01 AM

If I did so, that's my mistake. However, I think when your attitude was rather obvious: You did talk about how long rugby players could last versus NFL players without pads, and who could take hits, etc. From those sort of remarks it seems to me you're slightly preordained to favor the football over the rugby side of this debate.
If I conveyed those comments as such, my bad. I think it may have been a lash out at all the pro-rugby people that think rugby is a rougher sport, solely based on the fact that they don't wear pads...the 'tough guy' mentality that I mentioned earlier.
For example, I know you remember Roethlisberger's notorious motorcycle crash that could have killed him, right?
Well he wasn't wearing a helmet (I can't understand for the life of me why). And it seems to me that he wasn't because he thinks he's a tough guy. Stuff like that doesn't tell me that you're tough, it tells me you're stupid.
Count, can you tell me why rugby players don't wear pads, when common sense would tell you that even simple, light boxing-practice type helmets and maybe something like a light armor vest (like motocross racers and downhill mountain bikers use) could save all kinds of needless petty injuries in rugby?

As far as the 'see how long rugby players would last..', I think I worded that wrong. I meant to say 'see how long rugby players would last if they played with football rules (i.e. hitting/shoulder tackling at speed) with no pads. But that would also apply to football players themselves if they didn't wear pads.

Injuries like Kevin Everett's and Trent Green's would be much more common.
If you played football for 10 years, then you probably know a bit of history about it. They switched to helmets and pads for a reason.

As I've said before, I think the injuries in football are because of the pads, not because how hard people are hitting each other.
I can only agree with this statement where the helmet is concerned. The only other pads that really could cause damage are the shoulder pads, simply because of their size. I think I'd much rather take a hit from someone like that where we both were wearing pads. I would not like to hit someone w/o wearing pads.
Do you think Trent Green would still be alive(or at the least, not a vegetable) when he tried to cut block that defensive lineman, that kneed him in the helmet as he was going down, if he wasn't wearing a helmet?
He recieved a concussion for that and is out for the season.

countezero

10-18-07, 03:20 PM

I think it may have been a lash out at all the pro-rugby people that think rugby is a rougher sport, solely based on the fact that they don't wear pads...the 'tough guy' mentality that I mentioned earlier.

I'm sure there probably is some mentality on both sides of the issue, but I can promise you, I'm not espousing it. I do think rugby is more physical than football because rugby involves less padding.

Count, can you tell me why rugby players don't wear pads, when common sense would tell you that even simple, light boxing-practice type helmets and maybe something like a light armor vest (like motocross racers and downhill mountain bikers use) could save all kinds of needless petty injuries in rugby?

They don't wear pads because it's tradition and the laws of the game make it illegal. Boxes could wear pads or wrestlers, but the physicality of those contests would be affected, too. The day rugby players put on serious padding is the day the brutality and physical part of the game dies, and the game itself warps into something else.

For the record, some padding, which you touch on, is allowed in rugby. Scrum caps, which are basically a lot like the initial football helmets, are allowed. Some light shoulder vests are, too.

I meant to say 'see how long rugby players would last if they played with football rules (i.e. hitting/shoulder tackling at speed) with no pads.

I don't think this matters. If people didn't have pads, the way the game is played would change. It has to, from necessity.

Injuries like Kevin Everett's and Trent Green's would be much more common.

I don't think so. See the above.

If you played football for 10 years, then you probably know a bit of history about it. They switched to helmets and pads for a reason.

They did. But over time, the helmets and the pads have gotten to big and they have become weapons that deal out just as many injuries as they protect. Again, there are less serious injuries in rugby than football.

mikenostic

10-18-07, 03:33 PM

I'm sure there probably is some mentality on both sides of the issue, but I can promise you, I'm not espousing it. I do think rugby is more physical than football because rugby involves less padding.
I would say it's more physical by mere reason that the plays last much longer and everyone spends more time a lot closer to one another than in football.

They don't wear pads because it's tradition and the laws of the game make it illegal.
I did not know that pads were illegal in rugby.

Boxes could wear pads or wrestlers, but the physicality of those contests would be affected, too. The day rugby players put on serious padding is the day the brutality and physical part of the game dies, and the game itself warps into something else.
I can see that. Football being a living example of how the game would change where tackling/hitting a person is concerned.

For the record, some padding, which you touch on, is allowed in rugby. Scrum caps, which are basically a lot like the initial football helmets, are allowed. Some light shoulder vests are, too.
I did not know that either. But that's exactly what I was referring to. The initial football helmets were another example I was thinking of. Just enough padding to prevent little injuries but not enough to allow the person to enhance the intensity of the hits.

They did. But over time, the helmets and the pads have gotten to big and they have become weapons that deal out just as many injuries as they protect. Again, there are less serious injuries in rugby than football.
Do you think that the pads' ability to deal out just as much punishment that they absorb was intentional? Or do you think that the only intent of bigger pads were to protect the wearer; and them being able to be used as weapons was just a by-product?
Because surely they could make the helmets outer shell a little bit softer to where the person getting hit doesn't endure such an impact (which might also make them lighter); and softening up shoulder pads where they would not only serve the same purpose, the might also be lighter, smaller and allow more articulation.

iceaura

10-18-07, 04:23 PM

I played football for about 10 years, does that count as a lot or a little in your book? It is way more than I would have figured from the odd perspective you have on the game. Such as this:

Yes, one thing over and over. Watch football. Play it. If you're a receiver, you practice one set of skills over and over, which you then replicate in a game. The same goes for a cornerback or a lineman. That, for me, was one of the worst things about football practice. The sheer monotony of it. Rugby is totally different. Everyone plays offense and everyone plays defense, so they have to know how to perform all of the games skills. Granted, the skills in football require a great deal of repetitive practice to master, but that does not mean there is only one of them per position, or that the set of them is small - or that the physical skills are paramount.
All football positions must learn to block and tackle, for example - which is several up on any rugby position right there, blocking being more than one skill.

“ Originally Posted by iceaura
Recovery from a real game in less than two days? ”

- - - but I'd reckon the guys on the line in football aren't sore as a rugby front row player... I can guarantee you it takes more than two days to recover from a serious game of football played on the line.

“ Originally Posted by iceaura
Blocking means some people don't "take the tackle"? ”

Exactly, they don't have to take the tackle if someone blocks for them. Sure, at some point they get tackled, but my entire point is that in football you get to run behind other people who protect you. That's not an option in rugby. I don't follow the point of this. Ballcarriers in football get hit, hard and repeatedly, almost every time they carry the ball. Blockers in football also hit and get hit. What is your point?

“ Originally Posted by iceaura
Yes, the players hit harder, because they can - the hitting surface is padded, allowing the delivery of a much harder blow. ”

And the receiving surface is padded, allowing for much better absorbtion, so the hits in football aren't "harder," practically speaking, because the effects are nullified. In the first place, taking the hit on the pads is certainly best, but not always possible - and delivering the hit to the midsection or the back is quite common. In the second: nullified ?! That's silly.

“ Originally Posted by iceaura
"Saving their own skin" is not why, or how, runners use blockers. ”

First, I don't think I ever used that term. And secondly, yes, I understand what the purpose of blocking is. But its tactical purposes don't change the fact that players are running behind other players to avoid tackles. First, I quoted you from the post I was responding to. Second, tackles are not avoided - they are inevitable - but delayed. The blocking makes no difference in whether the ballcarrier has to take the tackle, just in when and where.

Also, the tactical instances you referenced are not what I was talking about. I was talking about how people tip-toe out of bounds to avoid tackles. Avoiding tackles in football, where they can cause fumbles and can be seriously incapacitating, is a good idea. It's stupid to take a risk like that, if there are no more yards to be made, or if the effects might harm the team later. The violence in football is purposeful - advance the ball, prevent the advance, wear down the opponent in preparation for future advances and preventions.

“ Originally Posted by iceaura
Look, aside from my brother, who played more rugby and more football at a higher level than I did, and whom I quote: "Rugby is a stupid, clumsy sport. It's like slow hockey", nobody I know disparages rugby. It's jsut that if you look at the OP, or at posts like this you can see that some people here don't know shit about football. That's all. ”

Well, I know "shit" about football, and I think rugby is superior in nearly every facet, except perhaps the speed of the game (I also think your brother's remarks are ridiculous. Clumsy? A lineman in football is the epitome of clumsy). In that regard, football is more frantic and has more quick bursts. But of course, football also has numerous breaks in play, which rugby does not. So the tempo between the two is different. How one appreciates that difference is a personal preference. I'm not sure how to take the claim of knowing anything about football with the characterization of a "lineman" in football as "the epitome of clumsy". Someone who knows that little about line play in football - the core - can be fairly characterized as not knowing shit about the sport, I think So can someone who apparently overlooks the increase in both violence and depth of strategy that is introduced by blocking. But no doubt that is simply a matter of "appreciation".

I also think you've completely misread this thread. There are plenty of people here upset because their Holy Grail of Football has been attacked and are running off at the mouth about a game they've never even seen on television. I refer you to the OP, and the language of those who "attack" football on this thread. They appear to be far less well informed about football than they need to be, to address the issue they want to address. As far as "running off at the mouth" about rugby - aside from my quote of a brother of mine, there hasn't been much of that here. Much less than about football. People seem pretty respectful of rugby, whether they know anything about it or not.

va'a

10-19-07, 03:15 AM

Because every player in football is wearing pads, any hit that doesn't break something wont hurt as much as any external witness might think. Like countezero said, the pads cancel themselves out if the favourable conditions.

However, because footballers wear these pads that allow them to hit harder, any tackle that puts strain on a joint or neck is going to have worst effects than a similar tackle in rugby. The human neck has no answer to 120kgs + pads at speed.

At high-school as it's known in the states, an American teacher got the boys playing football minus the pads. It was played without any trouble because the dudes grew up playing rugby.

Any folk who grows up with or has played rugby gets an instinctual knowledge of physical contact. I believe that helps make rugby a safer yet still a very physical sport because the players understand that running into that man like this will do that and end up like so.

There is no false sense of secuirity in rugby. It's simple bone on bone contact. Find yourself at the bottom of a ruck and expect to be blanketed with a writhing mass of pure man. ;P ..

The players tackle with an awareness and respect for both players safety but that does not affect the force involved. BIG hits occur and some teams are well known for them, eg Samoa.

Any team playing Samoa or Tonga KNOW that they're in for a very hard and phsyical 60 minutes (the boys are also known for running out of steam against the top tier nations). Their tactis will have to account for this. Yet if the same team played Fiji next week they would surely lose playing the same game-plan.

You would have to say that rugby is a better example of a contact sport.

Atom

10-19-07, 09:10 AM

A few American Football players have tried Rugby over here and haven't succeeded. Although one of them 'the Fridge' (?) was past his sell by date.

I'd be even more wary of playing Aussie Rules!

mikenostic

10-19-07, 09:30 AM

A few American Football players have tried Rugby over here and haven't succeeded. Although one of them 'the Fridge' (?) was past his sell by date.

I'd be even more wary of playing Aussie Rules!
What are you trying to say with the bold statement?

Dan Henderson, one of the greatest MMA fighters, even a Pride FC champion, came over to the UFC and got his ass handed to him by Quinton "Rampage" Jackson. Part of that ass whoopin was because UFC does have different rules, and a different fighting area than Pride. One of those rules in the UFC is that you can't leg stomp anyone while there on the ground. You can do that in Pride. The leg stomp was one of the moves that Henderson was known for in Pride. Since he couldn't use his signature move, he wasn't as effective.
Same could be said for football players who try rugby and fail. Same for hot shot college football quarterbacks who fail in the NFL (Ryan Leaf and Danny Wuerfull(sp?) come to mind). I'm also sure the same could be said about rugby players. I would make a wager that some of them wouldn't make it in football.

iceaura

10-19-07, 01:12 PM

Because every player in football is wearing pads, any hit that doesn't break something wont hurt as much as any external witness might think. Like countezero said, the pads cancel themselves out if the favourable conditions. Count also said that linemen in football are the epitome of clumsy, that playing a football position involves simply repeating the same small set of physical skills over and over, that he was never still beat up two days after a hard football game, and that using the boundlines to advantage is wimpish.

I still think you guys ought to borrow football gear from someone, and run yourselves into a few parking meters and bus stop benches until you see the light about the pad business.

There is no false sense of secuirity in rugby. It's simple bone on bone contact. Find yourself at the bottom of a ruck and expect to be blanketed with a writhing mass of pure man. ;P .. That's too fat - time to disparage: This celebratory macho crap of "bone on bone", superfluous and petty injuries, and big homoerotic pileups on the field, is where I think my bro got his "stupid, slow, and clumsy" opinion.

Since he played a lot more than I did, and was articulate, I'll retail another of his observations: rugby was like running quarterback sneaks for two thirds of the plays in a football game, and pitchouts the rest.

The little college rugby I played wasn't that bad - but it was neither as complex nor as violent as the football. It was about equivalent to flag football taken seriously.

Sock puppet path

10-19-07, 01:25 PM

This one time, me and a football buddy of mine got in a fight with these rugby guys and totally kicked the crap out of them.

countezero

10-19-07, 01:44 PM

Granted, the skills in football require a great deal of repetitive practice to master, but that does not mean there is only one of them per position, or that the set of them is small - or that the physical skills are paramount. ... All football positions must learn to block and tackle, for example - which is several up on any rugby position right there, blocking being more than one skill.

You can spin it and split as many hairs as you like, but the fact remains, the positions in football are highly specialized in a way they are not in rugby (kickers, quarternacks and centers most immediately spring to mind). Sure, recievers and the like learn to block, but comparing that with linemen who do nothing but block 95 percent of the time they are on the field is ridiculous — if the point you're trying to make is that football players are somehow have to learn their game's universal skills. I think you entire rambling argument can be torpedoed with one simple fact: Rugby players have to play offense and defense for the entire game, something football players do not have to learn how to do.

I don't follow the point of this. Ballcarriers in football get hit, hard and repeatedly, almost every time they carry the ball. Blockers in football also hit and get hit. What is your point?

I thought it was simple enough. In football, you get to run behind people and try to avoid hits. In rugby, you can't do that. You run straight and take tackles. In fact, many of the players are taught to intentionally seek out what is largely one-on-one contact.

I'm not sure how to take the claim of knowing anything about football with the characterization of a "lineman" in football as "the epitome of clumsy". Someone who knows that little about line play in football - the core - can be fairly characterized as not knowing shit about the sport, I think.

Must you make everything about me and my credentials? I've lived in America my entire life. I've grown up watching and playing football. I'll warrant I know as much about it as anyone. I've voiced my opinion: Linemen are typically clumsy. I say this because in my experience, they aren't very agile, largely because of their weight, and don't have great ball-handling skills. To contrast, the pack players in rugby, which are roughly that game's equivilent, have to be able to move around the field, catch and carry the ball and be able to pass it. Occasionally, they even kick. I doubt there are many linemen, no matter what level of football we're talking about, who can do any of that with any consistency. They're taught to do one or two things. That's my opinion: You're free to disagree with it, but please get off your high horse about who knows what about football and quit positioning yourself as the subject's know-it-all. It's silly.

So can someone who apparently overlooks the increase in both violence and depth of strategy that is introduced by blocking.

I would argue the forward pass did more on the strategy side.

That's too fat - time to disparage: This celebratory macho crap of "bone on bone", superfluous and petty injuries, and big homoerotic pileups on the field, is where I think my bro got his "stupid, slow, and clumsy" opinion.

Know you've pulled the homoerotic card. Right...

Try this then: What about bending over a man, shoving your hands into his crotch and waiting for a ball...

Since he played a lot more than I did, and was articulate, I'll retail another of his observations: rugby was like running quarterback sneaks for two thirds of the plays in a football game, and pitchouts the rest.

Then he stunk as a player and completely misunderstood the game.

The little college rugby I played wasn't that bad - but it was neither as complex nor as violent as the football.

I would never argue rugby is more complex than football, and that's partially why I love rugby more. Football is too complex. It takes way too long, has too many breaks and too many nonsensical rules, the last of which is why the game will never be as popular as rugby outside the US.

It was about equivalent to flag football taken seriously.

Now you're just taking the piss, which doesn't surprise me...

Sock puppet path

10-19-07, 01:52 PM

mikenostic

10-19-07, 03:23 PM

I am not going to join this whole pissing match but just comment on this one thing.
1,Yes they get to run behind people when they can but every play ends with the ball carrier getting tackled or scoring or mising a pass so not a valid point.
2, In rugby if you are about to be tackled you can pass the ball down the line thus avoiding a tackle not so in football.

You can legally do that in football too. It's called a lateral. But it doesn't happen very often and the player that laterals it to another player not to avoid a tackle so much but to attempt to allow the person that received the lateral to gain more yards. The person that laterals it away then becomes a blocker for the ball carrier.

Sock puppet path

10-19-07, 03:41 PM

You can legally do that in football too. It's called a lateral. But it doesn't happen very often and the player that laterals it to another player not to avoid a tackle so much but to attempt to allow the person that received the lateral to gain more yards. The person that laterals it away then becomes a blocker for the ball carrier.

I know you can legally do it but it is a called play and seldom at that while it is an integral part of rugby's offensive flow. You don't need to tell me mikester I played from the age of 10 all the way through college ;)

va'a

10-19-07, 11:49 PM

Count also said that linemen in football are the epitome of clumsy, that playing a football position involves simply repeating the same small set of physical skills over and over, that he was never still beat up two days after a hard football game, and that using the boundlines to advantage is wimpish.

I still think you guys ought to borrow football gear from someone, and run yourselves into a few parking meters and bus stop benches until you see the light about the pad business.

That's too fat - time to disparage: This celebratory macho crap of "bone on bone", superfluous and petty injuries, and big homoerotic pileups on the field, is where I think my bro got his "stupid, slow, and clumsy" opinion.

Since he played a lot more than I did, and was articulate, I'll retail another of his observations: rugby was like running quarterback sneaks for two thirds of the plays in a football game, and pitchouts the rest.

The little college rugby I played wasn't that bad - but it was neither as complex nor as violent as the football. It was about equivalent to flag football taken seriously.

Why did you quote my statement about pads then say that?

You suggest a stupid idea. Running into rigid objects anchored to the ground is nothing comparable to running into a man.

Celebratory macho crap? Or simple fact?

Homoerotic accusations are a waste of time.

Did you play your college rugby in the states? Can American rugby be used as good representation of the game? I don't know the state of American rugby but I would guess that if you played in a country like NZ, Australia or South Africa you would probably fumble your way into a concussion.

iceaura

10-20-07, 12:15 AM

I thought it was simple enough. In football, you get to run behind people and try to avoid hits. In rugby, you can't do that. You run straight and take tackles. In fact, many of the players are taught to intentionally seek out what is largely one-on-one contact. So what's the point there? That rugby is kind of a dumb, macho sport ?
I actually agree with your general observations - except about linemen being clumsy, and only doing one or two things - but especially about the dozens of specialized rules. I doubt that's the reason football will not catch on elsewhere, though - baseball did. I would bet more on the cost of the gear. ( I think it may die back in the US on that factor as well. High schools increasingly can't afford the sport.)

I want to defend myself on this one though:
That's too fat - time to disparage: This celebratory macho crap of "bone on bone", superfluous and petty injuries, and big homoerotic pileups on the field, is where I think my bro got his "stupid, slow, and clumsy" opinion. ”
Know you've pulled the homoerotic card. Right... I didn't play the homoerotic card, man, this guy did:

There is no false sense of secuirity in rugby. It's simple bone on bone contact. Find yourself at the bottom of a ruck and expect to be blanketed with a writhing mass of pure man. ;P .. I'm supposed to just let that go by? C'mon - - - is that your classic rugby player, or what ?

You suggest a stupid idea. Running into rigid objects anchored to the ground is nothing comparable to running into a man. Nothing comparable to running into a rugby player maybe, but it's not much different from running into the middle linebacker on a decent college football team. Try it, see what it's like to have that pad "nullify" the hit.

ashpwner

10-25-07, 06:39 PM

it makes me luagh when people say american football players are huge, but have you seen a the fronts in rugby they are bloody huge.

quadraphonics

10-25-07, 06:46 PM

it makes me luagh when people say american football players are huge, but have you seen a the fronts in rugby they are bloody huge.

Yeah, almost as huge as American Football players.

ashpwner

10-25-07, 06:47 PM

lol almost you have got to take into acount man for man there are gona be rugby players who are bigger then american football players and vice versa.

quadraphonics

10-25-07, 07:14 PM

lol almost you have got to take into acount man for man there are gona be rugby players who are bigger then american football players and vice versa.

The average player on an American football team is substantially larger than the average player on a rugby team.

Average rugby: 5'11.5", 198lbs
Average NFL: 6'1.5", 245lbs

Sources:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/rugby/fitness.htm
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6628372

countezero

10-26-07, 01:45 AM

So what's your point?

countezero

10-28-07, 03:38 PM

These boys should play rugby.

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/10/28/count-the-laterals-if-you-can/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

iceaura

10-29-07, 11:30 AM

Had a rare opportunity to compare rugby and football side by side last week - a mediocre pro US football game was playing simultaneously with the Championship rugby match on the TV.

Observations about rugby:

in switching channels, I would hit advertisements and other breaks in the play only slightly more often on the football side. The notion that high-level rugby is continuous action needs serious qualifying.

The points in that rugby match came mostly (entirely, on the winning team's side) from uncontested field goal-type (except from a tee) kicks awarded as penalties and so forth. In football every score is contested. (These kicks of course are breaks in the action).

Most of the action on the rugby side consisted of relatively immobile piles and scrums of bodies, with the ball going nowhere at the moment, and there were usually a fair number of guys just standing around at any given time. The moments when everyone was simultaneously in full tilt effort (as in most footabll plays) were few.

The extra physical skill involved was punting. Whether one views rubgy as a more skillful sport seems to depend on how one rates the skill of punting compared with the skill of blocking. I would rate blocking higher in skill, both mentally and physically, as well as more violent and strenuous.

The rugby players were about physically equivalent to linebackers and tight ends in football. That makes sense, if the similarity in job requirements is noted.

The single most athletic play observed in the afternoon was the block of a field goal during the football game. The player blocking the field goal was at least the size of the larger rugby players, and demonstrated more quickness and agility than anyone had the opportunity to demonstrate in the rugby match.

These boys should play rugby Football could be played that way, all the time - it's not against the rules.

countezero

10-29-07, 03:11 PM

Had a rare opportunity to compare rugby and football side by side last week - a mediocre pro US football game was playing simultaneously with the Championship rugby match on the TV.

Given that you've consistantly been anti-rugby during your time in this thread, one should take your observations with a (proverbial) grain of salt.

in switching channels, I would hit advertisements and other breaks in the play only slightly more often on the football side. The notion that high-level rugby is continuous action needs serious qualifying.

Then I have no idea what you were watching. Aside from the usual festivities before kickoff and some brief adverts during the 10-minute halftime, rugby has absolutely no commercial breaks. None. The game is played in two continuous halves of 40 minutes, without stoppage. If you were watching a re-broadcast of some kind on American television, then the TV execs inserted stopages and breaks for commericials that did not originally exist. And football, as we all know, takes hours to play or watch because the near constant breaks in play and TV timeouts.

The points in that rugby match came mostly (entirely, on the winning team's side) from uncontested field goal-type (except from a tee) kicks awarded as penalties and so forth. In football every score is contested. (These kicks of course are breaks in the action).

Kicking has certainly become more important in International rugby, but it's hardly the norm in most matches. Watch the France/Argentina semifinal to see a nice, open match with lots of scoring (I'm also confused as to why Americans always seem to insist scoring is the measure of a game, too). As for the contesting, the contesting is done prior to the kick (during the continuous action). Penalties are usually given because a team has been under constant pressure and makes a mistake.

Most of the action on the rugby side consisted of relatively immobile piles and scrums of bodies, with the ball going nowhere at the moment, and there were usually a fair number of guys just standing around at any given time. The moments when everyone was simultaneously in full tilt effort (as in most footabll plays) were few.

That is the most base description of rugby I have ever read, one written by someone who obviously doesn't understand the game or is interested in admitting its strengths. The game constantly moves. Whenever a ball comes out of a ruck, the defense must move up and tackle the man and the offense must get to the breakdown and secure the ruck. The people standing around are standing there to make up a defense or provide a option for the offload. They won't stand there long, either. As I mentioned above, they will either join a ruck or realign to get a pass or play defense in the next phase. Pack players in rugby run miles per game and are involved with dozens of tackles and 80 or 100 phases of play. The same cannot be said for football players.

The extra physical skill involved was punting.

So the fact that all the players had to be able to pass and catch, tackle and ruck doesn't impress you? Football players do not have to exhibit such a range...

Whether one views rubgy as a more skillful sport seems to depend on how one rates the skill of punting compared with the skill of blocking. I would rate blocking higher in skill, both mentally and physically, as well as more violent and strenuous.

Blocking in no way, shape or fashion is as violent or as physical or as difficult as rucking, which you've wrongly described as "relatively immobile piles."

The player blocking the field goal was at least the size of the larger rugby players, and demonstrated more quickness and agility than anyone had the opportunity to demonstrate in the rugby match.

Kicks are block in similar fashion in rugby all the time...

mikenostic

10-29-07, 03:30 PM

I just learned the other day that Russell Crowe owns the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby team. He was the guest on a Monday Night Football game a week or two ago (Colts vs. Jaguars) and was telling everyone that the Rabbitohs were having an exibition game there in Jacksonville. I thought that was pretty cool.

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/10/22/russell-crowe-in-monday-night-football-booth/

Actor Russell Crowe, one of the stars of the new Universal Pictures film American Gangster (in theaters Nov. 2), will make a third-quarter appearance in the MNF booth. Crowe, a native of New Zealand, is an avid fan of American football and other sports. Also, he is owner of the South Sydney Rabbitohs Rugby League team in Australia, which will play a match in Jacksonville in January 2008;

MacGyver1968

10-29-07, 03:38 PM

Sports joke:

A man was lucky enough to get playoff tickets to see his favorite team play. As the start of the game approached he noticed the seat next to him was empty. He asked the man on the other side of the empty seat if he knew if anyone was sitting there.

The man with a sad face said, no, the seat was empty because it was for his wife, who had just died. He told him that this was the first game that he had not attended with her since 1993. "But these are the playoffs," the man remarked, "couldn't you have found a relative or family member to fill the seat?" "No," the man replied, "they're all at the funeral." :)

lucifers angel

10-29-07, 03:41 PM

Non-Logical-Idea-Guy

10-29-07, 03:41 PM

hm, mild lol

lucifers angel

10-29-07, 03:43 PM

rugby is a better game anyway!

TwidlesTheCloud

11-01-07, 06:54 PM

Look none of this ''rugby is a better game no football is stuff'' i have played both american football players are larger because of specific duties. 305 pounds is a lot of dude and thats what a QB wants to stand infront of him not a 215 pound RB. hes for RUNNING thats why hes CALLED A RUNNING BACK. also the 305 lineman has a 1.5 meter zone to work in so he would kick ass for 5 mins in a rugby game but then just die of a heart attack. in rugby theres no one like that because there fitness could not reach the level required for 80 minuts of 100meter play. weights compremise fitness its body law.

rugby players are tougher cause there skull takes the impact not a 10 pound helmet. thats not saying its better but come on could u run a a guy head first if u had no helmet? football players have some amazing skill one handed behind the back catchs and shit, ray lewis cutting guys in half shit like that but can they do anything else. No......... not because they are useless because they are given millions to do there job so thats what they do. a rugby player has to be able to pass ruck maul tackle read defensive lines preform basic and advanced passing communication and other things. the sports are diffrent rugby is tougher just because its logical to assume hit with pads easyier than witout. u cant compare skill because its another sport. there very good sports i prefer rugby just genrally more to do. football can get very long with nothing happening.
but at times can be very good exciting and stuff.

TwidlesTheCloud

11-01-07, 07:04 PM

ghn

countezero

11-01-07, 10:26 PM

You touch on a theme of mine, which is that people think the complexity of American football translate into more skill (complexity) for the individual player in American football. I don't think that's the case. As I've argued, football is a highly complex game with highly specialized positions. Thus, the players know how to do a limited range of skills very well. In rugby, as you say, this is not possible. Each player literally must know how to do all or most of the skills in the game. Overall, rugby is not nearly as complex a game as football, because the latter of the two has more rules and is essentially played from numerous set pieces. But I think the skills required to play rugby successfully are more demanding. In other words, rugby (the more simple of the two games) is harder to play and play well...

Sock puppet path

11-02-07, 09:49 AM

Sock puppet path

11-02-07, 09:52 AM

Count can you tell me if there is a difference in method and effectiveness between a regular soldier and a sniper?

ashpwner

11-02-07, 10:20 AM

one is far away the other aint.

countezero

11-02-07, 01:06 PM

Sorry sport, I have played football, rugby, chinese checkers and super mario bros. (for N64) and can tell you your post is bunk and you have never played football beyond a rudimentary/recreational level.

And such anecdotal evidence is bunk. I have played both, too. And my observations were discarded...

Count can you tell me if there is a difference in method and effectiveness between a regular soldier and a sniper?

And what does that have to do with anything?

Sock puppet path

11-02-07, 02:26 PM

And such anecdotal evidence is bunk. I have played both, too. And my observations were discarded...

The whole topic is ridiculous and not something that can be proved right either way it simply boils down to familiarity and preference.

And what does that have to do with anything?
Specialization can raise the bar in the overall game but again down to preference.

countezero

11-02-07, 03:59 PM

The conclusions one makes about the two sports obviously boil down to their subjective appreciation of them, but that doesn't mean people can't make reasonable observations and arguments about the sports in the hope of convincing others to adopt their viewpoint. That is, I think, the entire point of debate — and as such, it's not ridiculous.

Sock puppet path

11-02-07, 04:06 PM

countezero

11-03-07, 12:33 AM

Right, but some subjective viewpoints are better than or carry more weight than others. If not, logic and reason go out the window.

TwidlesTheCloud

11-03-07, 07:32 PM

Sorry sport, I have played football, rugby, chinese checkers and super mario bros. (for N64) and can tell you your post is bunk and you have never played football beyond a rudimentary/recreational level.

i have played and am playing rugby at top level for years now i also have been playing football for around two years so i dont think u know what ur saying my man

Donnal

11-03-07, 08:29 PM

WATER POLO!

hahaha
or a rootball:D

ashpwner

11-03-07, 08:39 PM

lol but does no one think about that poor gu underneath the ruck!

iceaura

11-03-07, 11:41 PM

Given that you've consistantly been anti-rugby during your time in this thread, one should take your observations with a (proverbial) grain of salt.
Actually, I started out merely pro-football, not anti-rugby at all, in response to some very silly comments about football. And still, the anti-rugby stuff is only in response to some particular forms of praise of rugby - in comparison with football, especially - that I find unwarranted, by observation and experience. ”

Then I have no idea what you were watching. Aside from the usual festivities before kickoff and some brief adverts during the 10-minute halftime, rugby has absolutely no commercial breaks. None. The game is played in two continuous halves of 40 minutes, without stoppage. There was "stoppage" for every single score, several penalties, and other stuff. I hit ads fairly often - short ones, comapared with the football delays (a really annoying factor when attending the game, btw - one reason high school football is a better sport than pro).

Kicking has certainly become more important in International rugby, but it's hardly the norm in most matches. Watch the France/Argentina semifinal to see a nice, open match with lots of scoring (I'm also confused as to why Americans always seem to insist scoring is the measure of a game, too). As for the contesting, the contesting is done prior to the kick (during the continuous action). Penalties are usually given because a team has been under constant pressure and makes a mistake. The match was decided by a large number of uncontested penalty kicks. They were by far the majority of the scoring. They were breaks in the action.

That is the most base description of rugby I have ever read, one written by someone who obviously doesn't understand the game or is interested in admitting its strengths. The game constantly moves. Whenever a ball comes out of a ruck, the defense must move up and tackle the man and the offense must get to the breakdown and secure the ruck. The people standing around are standing there to make up a defense or provide a option for the offload. They won't stand there long, either. As I mentioned above, they will either join a ruck or realign to get a pass or play defense in the next phase. Pack players in rugby run miles per game and are involved with dozens of tackles and 80 or 100 phases of play. The same cannot be said for football players. The World Championhip match consisted of largely immobile piles of players shoving for advantage, and occasional sequences of laterals followed by a punt (using football terms). People were standing around all the time. I would guess the average player ran maybe three miles total, an average speed (if they played the whole match) of two miles an hour, with a ten minute rest half way.

So the fact that all the players had to be able to pass and catch, tackle and ruck doesn't impress you? Football players do not have to exhibit such a range... Laterals are not high skill plays compared with passes and blocks, everyone on a football field tackles and/or blocks. Rugby forbids blocking, one of the highest skill actions (and a major contributor to strategy and complexity) in football.
In the championship match, one of the penalities (another break in the action) was for blocking.

Blocking in no way, shape or fashion is as violent or as physical or as difficult as rucking, which you've wrongly described as "relatively immobile piles." Uh, sure guy. They jsut look like immobile piles, with guys locking arms (an illegal act in football, because it jams up the game and prevents hitting) and pushing en masse (coordinated mass, to be sure. It's not completely without skill). You sure you ever learned to block? Have you ever wrestled Greco-Roman ? They are compararble in skill and physicality. Pro football teams will sometimes draft Greco-Roman and heavyweight wrestlers, figuring the most difficult skills have been learned. Often, they are not enough.

“

The player blocking the field goal was at least the size of the larger rugby players, and demonstrated more quickness and agility than anyone had the opportunity to demonstrate in the rugby match. ”
Kicks are block in similar fashion in rugby all the time... Not in that match. And not in "similar fashion", of course, because there is no block to beat and the "field goals" are not contested.
Look, I'd be perfectly happy to praise rugby for its virtues, if these virtues were not being promoted here by bogus comparisons with misunderstood football. The things I've been "defending" about football are as much flaws as virtues. I think football is too violent - incapacitating injury is far too much a part of the game. Far too much time is spent huddling and plotting - that could be eliminated by rule. The gear is too expensive. Coaches have too much input into actual play. And so forth.

But let's not lead off with nonsense about football being a padded sport for the wimps of this world to take orders in, eh?

Sock puppet path

11-04-07, 03:17 AM

i have played and am playing rugby at top level for years now i also have been playing football for around two years so i dont think u know what ur saying my man

1, If you really were playing football at anything beyond a rudimentary level you would realize that your comments about football were wrong. Specifically regarding linemen and conditioning and if they are worth their salt they don't work in 1.5 m (your thinking of a sculpture perhaps?).

2, If rugby was the better game would you really bother playing football simultaneously?

countezero

11-04-07, 12:52 PM

Actually, I started out merely pro-football, not anti-rugby at all, in response to some very silly comments about football. And still, the anti-rugby stuff is only in response to some particular forms of praise of rugby - in comparison with football, especially - that I find unwarranted, by observation and experience.

You started out argumentative, as usual. You've since conjured up terms like "unwarranted observation and experience," which is code for nobody's opinion is equal to your own, despite your obvious unfamiliarity with one of the two key components in this debate (the majority of your observations are based on passing knowledge, such as remarks by your brother, and what you learned watching the World Cup final, which you can't even identify correctly). But hey, who's unwarranted?

There was "stoppage" for every single score, several penalties, and other stuff. I hit ads fairly often - short ones, comapared with the football delays (a really annoying factor when attending the game, btw - one reason high school football is a better sport than pro).

I never meant to imply there wasn't stoppage. There is stoppage and every sport. But labeling fellows trotting back to their sides after a score as stoppage is a little harsh, don't you think? It also escapes my essential point. Rugby is played much more continuously than football, which can drag on for hours, based on the way it is structured. This is undeniable. And again, I don't care what you saw. There are no commercials during a rugby match. None. I watched the final live. It was two 40 minutes halves without interruption. If American TV is adding commercials, there is nothing I can do about that, but it's also a rather weak foundation for whatever argument you're trying to make, given that it's not genuine.

The match was decided by a large number of uncontested penalty kicks. They were by far the majority of the scoring. They were breaks in the action.

Again, I've addressed this. The final in rugby is no more typical of the game than the World Cup final in football (soccer), which also suffers for scoring. The fact your trying to use one match to paint an overall picture of a sport shows how desperate you are for data that proves the viewpoint you've already decided to adopt. Watch a season of rugby in the Super 14 and then maybe I will give your observations from the couch some merit.

The World Championhip match consisted of largely immobile piles of players shoving for advantage, and occasional sequences of laterals followed by a punt (using football terms). People were standing around all the time. I would guess the average player ran maybe three miles total, an average speed (if they played the whole match) of two miles an hour, with a ten minute rest half way.

Again, that's the most base interpretation possible, and I reckon, one that is distinctly colored by your obvious bias. I once had a girlfriend who described football to me as two lines of people trying to push each other while a fast guy tried to run around them. Now factually, that's correct. But as with your description, it's ignorant and asinine.

Laterals are not high skill plays compared with passes and blocks, everyone on a football field tackles and/or blocks.

Quit making foolish comparisons. Everyone on a football field does not typically tackle and block (take a quarterback for example). True, there may come a time when a player who normally would not do so is called on to block or tackle (an interception, for example), but trying to posit extraordinary situations like that as being the equivalent of a game where everyone on the pitch tackles, passes and rucks the entire match is patently ridiculous, and again, exposes your obvious bias.

Rugby forbids blocking, one of the highest skill actions (and a major contributor to strategy and complexity) in football.
In the championship match, one of the penalities (another break in the action) was for blocking.

Right. Blocking is one of the "highest skill actions" in football. Well, we can all probably surmise what position you played now. To your ridiculous claim, I offer one telling factoid: The best athletes (IE the ones with the most "skills") on every football are not found on the line, throwing their girth around and blocking people.

Not in that match. And not in "similar fashion", of course, because there is no block to beat and the "field goals" are not contested.

No goal kicks in rugby are not contested. But every other kick is. Your original argument was that a block was a super play in football with lots of athleticism. My response was kicks get blocked in rugby all the time. Just not goal kicks. Overall, I fail to see your point here. Field goals are better than goal kicks because they are contested. A rugby kicker would quicker riposte that in football one gets to kick at the goal from the hash marks in the middle of the field, whereas in rugby the angles are from the infraction or the score and are always tougher.

Far too much time is spent huddling and plotting - that could be eliminated by rule. The gear is too expensive. Coaches have too much input into actual play. And so forth.

I agree. It's tough for me to watch football now. The games take too long...

But let's not lead off with nonsense about football being a padded sport for the wimps of this world to take orders in, eh?

I never said football was for wimps. Heck, I played football, so why would I insult myself so. However, the notion that you think pads don't protect people strikes me as woefully antithetical. If the pads aren't nullify the hits to some degree, then why are people wearing them for their safety?

pjdude1219

11-04-07, 12:58 PM

rugby any sport where you here oh that isn't a penilty because he did not mean to punch him in the face is cool in my book

countezero

11-04-07, 04:34 PM

That's a good point. I don't know too many sports where you can strike someone and still stay on the playing field. Even hockey punishes such offenses...

iceaura

11-04-07, 11:19 PM

Right. Blocking is one of the "highest skill actions" in football. Well, we can all probably surmise what position you played now. To your ridiculous claim, I offer one telling factoid: The best athletes (IE the ones with the most "skills") on every football are not found on the line, throwing their girth around and blocking people. There's a reason offensive linemen on a pro football team have, on average, the highest IQs on the field. Blocking takes more skill than laterals, or running the ball, or any other ballhandling except the forward pass. That is why you see a star rookie less often on the offensive line than anywhere else, except maybe quarterback. The skill set takes years to develop.

Your original argument was that a block was a super play in football with lots of athleticism. My response was kicks get blocked in rugby all the time. And you missed the point, or rather points, as usual.

For one thing, blocking punts in rugby is far easier than kicks in football: you don't have to beat a blocker, you are closer - the punter is in traffic, there are a lot more punts, etc.

For another, the anecdote illustrated the athleticism of line play in football - nobody in that whole rugby championship matched that play for demonstration of sheer athletic ability.

For a third, the existence of uncontested opportunites to score is IMHO a comparative flaw in the game - and their relative importance emphasizes that.

However, the notion that you think pads don't protect people strikes me as woefully antithetical. Reading comprehension. I think, and have clearly stated several times in this thread, that pads protect people - specifically, they protect the people who are delivering the extremely violent hits that accompany almost every play. Without the pads, the hitting would have to scale back to rugby levels.

Now that might be an improvement. Football is probably too violent. But this thread started off and continued with a serious misunderstanding of the role and effects of the pads in football. That was my entry here, and the first of my two serious points: the hitting in football is hard, violent, concussive stuff. The hitting in rugby is not as hard, and not as violent.

countezero

11-05-07, 10:53 PM

There's a reason offensive linemen on a pro football team have, on average, the highest IQs on the field. Blocking takes more skill than laterals, or running the ball, or any other ballhandling except the forward pass. That is why you see a star rookie less often on the offensive line than anywhere else, except maybe quarterback. The skill set takes years to develop.

Skills and decision-making two different things, so having a high game IQ doesn't make you the most skilled player on the pitch. If you really think blocking is the hardest skill to learn in football, there's not much I can say that will dissuade you. As for me, I tend to think the "skill players" who play in the "skill" positions are the most skilled. But what do I know?

For one thing, blocking punts in rugby is far easier than kicks in football: you don't have to beat a blocker, you are closer - the punter is in traffic, there are a lot more punts, etc.

The kicks blocked in football are usually blocked by people who aren't blocked at all or slip their block very easily. The timing of the kicks demands this. So all in all, I don't think it's too different than rugby, where a man simply charges the ball down. It's interesting you seem to acknowledge the punting in rugby is much harder (and therefore requires more skill), because it is.

For another, the anecdote illustrated the athleticism of line play in football - nobody in that whole rugby championship matched that play for demonstration of sheer athletic ability.

Given that you know squat about the game of rugby, I'm just going to ignore that statement.

For a third, the existence of uncontested opportunites to score is IMHO a comparative flaw in the game - and their relative importance emphasizes that.

Being that you don't know the history (and purpose) of the game and why it's like that, your criticism rings pretty hollow.

Reading comprehension. I think, and have clearly stated several times in this thread, that pads protect people - specifically, they protect the people who are delivering the extremely violent hits that accompany almost every play. Without the pads, the hitting would have to scale back to rugby levels.

Oh, please. Most of the pads a player wears are protective. Or do people tackle with their legs, their back and their rib cage? The shoulder pads and helmet are the only pads intentionally used for tackling, and one of them (the helmet) is obviously protective device for the person GETTING hit. If you don't believe that, consider they originated as rugby scrum caps, which are purely for the person getting tackled, and take a look at how football regulates how a person can use their helmet to strike people. Helmet to helmet tackles are illegal, are they not?

iceaura

11-06-07, 02:15 AM

If you really think blocking is the hardest skill to learn in football, there's not much I can say that will dissuade you. As for me, I tend to think the "skill players" who play in the "skill" positions are the most skilled. But what do I know? I don't think blocking is the most difficult skill. I think throwing a forward pass accurately and safely is.

Something else not found in rugby.

But blocking is harder than punting, even punting on the run. It is harder than throwing or catching a lateral. And true, nothing you say in the vein of what you've said so far - which indicates very little familiarity with blocking, or offensive line play in football - will dissuade me from my high estimation of the skill involved in blocking.

Again: star rookies on the offensive line are rare, in pro football. Star rookies kicking field goals, punting, catching passes, running with the ball, defensive line and secondary, are more common. These "skill" positions are easier for the inexperienced and youthful to master, in football. They are also the football positions most similar to rugby play.

The kicks blocked in football are usually blocked by people who aren't blocked at all or slip their block very easily. The timing of the kicks demands this. So all in all, I don't think it's too different than rugby, where a man simply charges the ball down. The block is beaten quickly, not necessarily easily, and not by just "charging".

The block is not always "slipped", btw - when Fred MacNeil blocked Ray Guy's punt in a Minnesota/Oakland game many years ago, he went over the block.

Oh, please. Most of the pads a player wears are protective. Or do people tackle with their legs, their back and their rib cage? The shoulder pads and helmet are the only pads intentionally used for tackling, and one of them (the helmet) is obviously protective device for the person GETTING hit. And yet your very own description of your first tackle in rugby, done football style by mistake, was an account of learning that such hitting requires a helmet - to protect the hitter.

And we note you identify hitting with tackling. In football there is blocking, running the ball, and other hitting, which is done with the ribs, legs, etc.

If you look at the pads worn by pros, you will notice that the players getting hit more than hitting wear the smaller and lighter pads, and the ones who hit more than take hit wear the bigger and heavier pads. You will also note that some players hit with their leg pads, few even wear rib or back pads, and the lightest helmet with the smallest faceguard is on the quarterback - the player who does the least hitting, but takes hit regularly.

Again - the only problem here is the ill-informed disparagement of football. If people want to praise rugby for its many virtues, compare the many actual flaws of football to those virtues, etc, have at it - I've played neither for years. I almost quit even watching football altogether, a few years ago, when the steroids and injuries began to bug me. I don't have a dog in this fight. But stick to reality, eh?

countezero

11-06-07, 11:31 AM

You mean your appreciation of reality, which is the only proper one, right?

Seriously, I said we just had a difference of opinion, but you continue to parse and nitpick, asserting your self-percieved brilliant on all things sport. That's pretty ridiculous, given that you've watched ONE game of rugby and have never played it.

On top of that, you continue to label my opinions "ill-informed," presumably because they don't agree with your irrefutable appreciation of reality. That's poppycock. I have years of experiencing playing and watching football, but of course, that can't stand up to the all-knowing Iceaura, a man who can make broad sweeping statements about a game he knows little or nothing about. Apparently, your unbelievable intellect can even make statements about hits in football that are done "with the ribs, legs, etc." Huh? You can "hit" someone with your ribs?

iceaura

11-06-07, 04:20 PM

Apparently, your unbelievable intellect can even make statements about hits in football that are done "with the ribs, legs, etc." Huh? You can "hit" someone with your ribs? A clue, there, as to why you think blocking is unskilled. In your "years of experience" you never threw a hard crossblock ?

Seriously, I said we just had a difference of opinion, Sure: your opinion is that blocking is unskilled and football linemen are the epitome of clumsy, that pads nullify hits and are mostly worn for protection from being hit, that playing football positions involves doing one or two things over and over, and so forth.

My opinion is that rugby is an interesting, enjoyable sport with a couple of flaws, a great improvement on soccer while incorporating soccer's few virtues. The very little experience I've had playing it (wandering onto an intramural team in college because I could punt) were marred only by the macho posturing of the participants - I found its greater simplicity, lower level of specialization, more continuous action, lower level of violence and injury, lesser dependence on central direction and key decisionmakers, etc etc, to be all to the good.

Did I mention the macho posturing? What is it with this "no pads, we're tough" BS?

countezero

11-07-07, 11:44 AM

Right, there's no macho posturing in football. None at all...

Nickelodeon

11-07-07, 03:48 PM

2, If rugby was the better game would you really bother playing football simultaneously?
Simultaneously? Like on the same pitch at the same time?

Sock puppet path

11-07-07, 03:54 PM

Simultaneously? Like on the same pitch at the same time?

No, as in currently playing knucklehead.

mikenostic

11-07-07, 03:56 PM

That's a good point. I don't know too many sports where you can strike someone and still stay on the playing field. Even hockey punishes such offenses...
Yeah, and that's why the NHL is losing popularity; putting too many restrictions on hits and fighting(which is a big reason why fans go to watch it).

countezero

11-08-07, 11:42 AM

I was never a big fan of hockey, so I can't say. My only experiences with the game, which I've never played, involve going to watch a minor league club where I went to college. The beer was cheap and there were tons of fights, which made it lots of fun. Other than that, I ran into Mark Messier one time in bar. That's it.

Deepuz

09-18-09, 07:17 AM

When I was at school in the UK, I used to get beaten bloody raw playing rugby on the school fields in the freezing ice-solid earth. I remember playing against a guy who went on to play for Northampton Saints and England. He was a big mutha even at the young old age of 14. So I thought - right - I'm gonna take this guy down. It took a lot of courage to dive in around his kneecaplevel face-first when he was running at me full-speed like a bull on amphetamine. I was not exactly solidly-built - but I had some balls.

So I got the fella, made connection and taking a knee to the jaw managed to wrap my arms around his thighs. It was like hitting a brick wall, which ripped my torso around 180 degrees. He carried on running 3/4 of the length of the pitch and scored a try with me hanging on all the way like a dorkish pageboy at his coat-tails.

Nowadays, here, I prefer to kick back and relax on my Raiders pub sofa (http://www.pubsofa.com) and enjoy the game from the comfort of my den. Its not really the same at all, but I alway reminisce about those raw young days and am constantly flipping back to the BBC channels for whatever coverage I can find.

amark317

09-18-09, 07:27 AM

rugby, though i have never watched nor played, seems more tactical, with the whole protect the guy carrying the ball with a diamond shaped formation and whatnot

X-Man2

09-18-09, 05:21 PM

Clearly Golf is the roughest sport one could take up.I mean when those golfers get hit with those big ass irons and those harder than baseball balls,it hurts.

It makes even the big guys cry.:D

jpappl

09-18-09, 05:52 PM

The obvious reason football players have larger players is they don't have to run up and down the field as much. If they did they would die or get thinner.

I like both sports but I would have more respect for football if there was less coach involvement and the players had to play both offense and defense.

If they reduced the team roster size and had fewer specialists like they did in the old days.

But the biggest issue is just that they seem to be told what to do ever second and even then screw things up.

Too many players who never touch the ball, and don't have to think for themselves in football.

But I am still a fan.

cluelusshusbund

09-19-09, 09:48 AM

i mean in pain wise...

The truth of the mater is... both are perty much equaly paneful to play... cause wit pads or wit-out... the players of ether game will exert enuff effort to reach the maximum level of pane they can tolerate... an on average... i suspect the pane tolerence level for all players is peerty much equal... however... compared to football (or perty much anythang else)... i find that rugby is definately paneful to watch :puke:

vslayer

09-19-09, 04:16 PM

When I was at school in the UK, I used to get beaten bloody raw playing rugby on the school fields in the freezing ice-solid earth. I remember playing against a guy who went on to play for Northampton Saints and England. He was a big mutha even at the young old age of 14. So I thought - right - I'm gonna take this guy down. It took a lot of courage to dive in around his kneecaplevel face-first when he was running at me full-speed like a bull on amphetamine. I was not exactly solidly-built - but I had some balls.

So I got the fella, made connection and taking a knee to the jaw managed to wrap my arms around his thighs. It was like hitting a brick wall, which ripped my torso around 180 degrees. He carried on running 3/4 of the length of the pitch and scored a try with me hanging on all the way like a dorkish pageboy at his coat-tails.

it's all about technique. at 85kg/175cm i'm considered fairly scrawny for the rugby grade that i play in, but i still manage to take down the 120-130kg guys easily enough. you just have to get going fast enough that your inertia can knock him off balance, hit him from a slight angle so he doesn't just knock you over and keep going, and hold his legs together so that he can't regain his footing.

iceaura

09-19-09, 09:40 PM

But the biggest issue is just that they seem to be told what to do ever second and even then screw things up.

Too many players who never touch the ball, and don't have to think for themselves in football. You get this a lot. It's not a reasonable take on the game - kind of up there with "all that padding - not really tough", or the "bunch of fat guys pushing on each other" oddity.

Football may be one of the more difficult games to understand - to follow what's going on - if you have never played.

jpappl

09-19-09, 11:51 PM

You get this a lot. It's not a reasonable take on the game - kind of up there with "all that padding - not really tough", or the "bunch of fat guys pushing on each other" oddity.

Football may be one of the more difficult games to understand - to follow what's going on - if you have never played.

I don't agree that it is more difficult, just different. It has it's challenges of course.

It's not the the tasks are easy. It's that they are specific and so brief in nature that once outside of this the game actually gets really exiciting.

Whenever a play breaks down and the players are required to think on their feet and improvise, it gets more interesting.

This is how soccer, basketball, hockey and rugby plays develop, on the run, improvisation.

So my only point was that there is too much coach involvement, but that is required because of the specialist approach to the game.

It would be the equivalent of every time Shaq got fouled, they bring in a guy who can shoot free throws, and once he is done, put Shaq back in.

I just got back from the Univ of Wa beating USC, got lucky and knew someone who had Alumni tickets.

Guaranteed the best game of the season to watch for Univ of Wa.

But it was like a circus, the cheerleaders were constantly on the move, but the players would only be active for seconds at a time. The cheerleaders expending way more energy over the 3 hours with regards to aerobic activity. Most of the players did some anerobic activity, but almost no aerobic activity, very few did. So the result is that a 320 lb guy can survive and thrive in this.

But in rugby he would pass out. What would really happen during training would be that either he wouldn't be that heavy after playing rugby or he would be replaced with someone who could run up and down the field.

Likewise if the rugby player came over at say 230-250 he would survive and the coaches would tell him to put on 80 lbs.

Many pro football players complain that is a health issue for them, they have to bulk up to move bodies and then try to lose the weight when the season is over, only to repeat the process.

Compared to a soccer, basketball or rugby game, there is not as much being asked of the players to think on the fly, that is not to say they are not great athletes and that the game is not a great game. Just like other sports there are pros and cons and times when the games can be great or boring.

Take the good with the bad and appreciate it for what it is or don't watch it.