Rugby vs american football

[Sock puppet path]

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

 

[ashpwner]

one is far away the other aint.

 

[countezero]

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]

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]

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]

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.

In a perfect world perhaps but this is definately not science it is subjective.

 

[countezero]

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

 

[TwidlesTheCloud]

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]

WATER POLO!

hahaha
or a rootball

 

[ashpwner]

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

 

[iceaura]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?