Rugby vs american football

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by ashpwner, Oct 15, 2007.

  1. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. va'a Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    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.
    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.
    "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 can see that some people here don't know shit about football. That's all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    hey All,

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

    ~~~~~~~
    cheers
    zak
     
  8. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I played football for about 10 years, does that count as a lot or a little in your book?

    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.

    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...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  9. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    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.


    ....


    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    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.


    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?
     
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590

    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.


    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.

    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.
     
  11. ashpwner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    speaking as a prop i can tell ya when a scrum collapses on ya you are fucked ....
     
  12. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    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.


    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.
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    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.

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

    I don't think so. See the above.

    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.
     
  14. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    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.

    I did not know that pads were illegal in rugby.

    I can see that. Football being a living example of how the game would change where tackling/hitting a person is concerned.

    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.


    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.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It is way more than I would have figured from the odd perspective you have on the game. Such as this:
    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? ”
    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"? ”
    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. ”
    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 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.
    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. ”
    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 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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2007
  16. va'a Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    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.
     
  17. Atom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    928
    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!
     
  18. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    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.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    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.
     
  20. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    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.
     
  21. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    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 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.

    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.

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

    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...

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

    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.

    Now you're just taking the piss, which doesn't surprise me...
     
  22. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    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.
     
  23. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    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.
     

Share This Page