| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/27/2007 1:37:46 PM | American football...from wikipedia
"American football is a contact sport. To stop the offense from advancing the ball, the defense must tackle the player with the ball by knocking him down. As such, defensive players must use some form of physical contact to bring the ball-carrier to the ground, within certain rules and guidelines. Tacklers cannot kick, punch or trip the runner. They also cannot grab the face mask of the runner's helmet or lead into a tackle with their own helmet. Despite these and other rules regarding unnecessary roughness, most other forms of tackling are legal. Blockers and defenders trying to evade them also have wide leeway in trying to force their opponents out of the way. Quarterbacks are regularly hit by defenders coming on full speed from outside the quarterback's field of vision.
To compensate for this, players must wear special protective equipment, such as a padded plastic helmet, shoulder pads, hip pads and knee pads. These protective pads were introduced decades ago and have improved ever since to help minimize lasting injury to players. An unintended consequence of all the safety equipment has resulted in increasing levels of violence in the game. Players may now hurl themselves at one another at high speeds without a significant chance of injury. Unfortunately, the injuries that do result tend to be severe and often season or career-ending and sometimes fatal."
Now pay attention to this next part Pedro.
" In previous years with less padding, tackling more closely resembled tackles in Rugby, with less severe impacts and fewer injuries. Better helmets have allowed players to use their helmets as weapons. All this has caused the various leagues, especially the NFL, to implement a complicated series of penalties for various types of contact. Most recently, virtually any contact with the helmet of a defensive player on the quarterback, or any contact to the quarterback's head, is now a foul.
Despite protective equipment and rule changes to emphasize safety, injuries remain very common in football. It is increasingly rare, for example, for NFL quarterbacks or running backs (who take the most direct hits) to make it through an entire season without missing some time to injury. Additionally, twenty-eight football players, mostly high schoolers, died from injuries directly related to football from 2000-05, according to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research.[5] Concussions are common, with about 41,000 suffered every year among high school players according to the Brain Injury Association of Arizona.[6]
The danger of football and the equipment required to reduce it make regulation football impractical for casual play. Flag football and touch football are less violent variants of the game popular among recreational players."
So what's your point, Pedro? | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/27/2007 1:48:57 PM | my point is clear Cavalier and i took my information from Wikipedia so it is not "mine".
if Wikipedia says Rugby is perhaps the most violent sport with players ending up with injured extremities,broken nose or bloodstained face, then i must belive it, mustn't it??? | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/27/2007 2:07:20 PM | Wikipedia also says American football had 28 players DIE from 2000-2005. I'd say dying is a little worse than a bloody nose wouldn't you?
Wikipedia is also user published....that means you or I could write the entries for those sports if we wished. It is hardly the ultimate authority on anything. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/28/2007 5:07:13 AM | Wikipedia also says American football had 28 players DIE from 2000-2005. I'd say dying is a little worse than a bloody nose wouldn't you?
But did it mention that the most common cause of those deaths was due to heart attacks and other weight related fatalities? Probably not. Yet 60 Minutes did a report on this about a year of two ago. They were saying that linesmen were forced by their team owners to gain as much weight as they possibly could in order to keep their positions on the team. In fact, one of the highlighted figures in their segment died of a heart attack during the duration of the filming process. These mean aren't athletes, but walls. Then only use energy in 3-5 second spurts. They do not play half as hard as any rugby player. In fact, no one on the team does.
Wikipedia is also user published....that means you or I could write the entries for those sports if we wished. It is hardly the ultimate authority on anything.
I couldn't agree with you more here. People take Wikipedia too seriously. What they need to realize is that any Joe Schmoe can edit it. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/28/2007 9:16:51 AM | from what i have seen on fims, i think that gridiron players are not versatile and mobile as they are mainly stopped on the pitch, then suddenly they start running and charging at others and again the match is stopped. always the same.
a rugby player is more mobile and versatile, similar to a footballer.
american football is a great sport yes, but to compare it to rugby is not logic. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/28/2007 11:05:37 AM | "but to compare it to rugby is not logic."
Neither is trying to argue with someone whose only experience w/ American football is seeing it in movies.
I'm done. Let me know when you've actually watched a football game, Pedro...and we'll talk. You just repeat the same tired uniformed opinions. There are many different positions on a gridiron squad....each of which has it's own physical demands and each requiring a different skill set. Some positions require speed and agility...some require strength and power...some require endurance...and some require remarkable arm strength and visual acuity. They are not all lumbering behemoths....and there is a maximum of 35 seconds between the end of last play and the start of the next. Hardly enough time to catch your breath when a 330 lb. man has just crushed you.....or if you just sprinted 60 yards only to have an opponent hammer you after you catch the ball.
Yet again your ignorance of the sport shows. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/28/2007 6:23:15 PM | | @rs to say that 60 mins. reported that lineman were "forced to gain as much weight as they could in order to keep their positions" is just an out and out lie. and furthermore to say that these men are not athletes, only use energy in 3-5 second spurts, and do not play half as hard as any rugby player. makes you look completely ignorant. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/28/2007 6:55:30 PM |
They are not all lumbering behemoths....and there is a maximum of 35 seconds between the end of last play and the start of the next
interesting thing is it is very rare to have unbroken play of longer than 10 seconds. if they need 35 seconds to catch there breath after 10 seconds of play, it doesnt say much for there fitness | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/29/2007 4:56:34 AM |
@rs to say that 60 mins. reported that lineman were "forced to gain as much weight as they could in order to keep their positions" is just an out and out lie.
No it's not. In fact, one player from New Orleans claimed that he ate a 5lb bucket of chicken wings every day on top of his normal daily intake of food. When asked why he did such, he stated that if he lost weight, they would recruit a bigger player to replace him. The only thing that may possibly be inaccurate is the television program. There is a chance it may have not been 60 minutes, but then again, I watched it more than a year ago, so if it wasn't 60 minutes, it was a similar show. But the show doesn't make the facts, meaning that it really doesn't matter what network it aired on, if someone felt there was sufficient evidence to cover this dilemma in documentary form, there much be some truth to it.
All you really have to do is google "Football and obesity" and you will find some amazing stats. CNN.com had this to say..."Heavy tackles and 300-pound nose guards are common in pro and college football. ... On the other hand, there is still an obvious and growing problem of obesity among football linemen of our high school teams." The article was entitled "High school football players overweight, 1 in 10 obese". Now, other than Sumo Wrestling and Hot dog eating contests, what other sport besides football can have 10% of their participants be obese? | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/29/2007 8:27:14 AM | | high school football is an entirely different matter. you have kids with baby fat who have not fully developed, using weight gain supplements . under the assumption they are going to get a look from a big time college program. there is no doubt about that. and it is wrong in every way. if a guy eats 5lbs of wings a day because he is afraid of getting cut. then perhaps his skills are marginal. i wont sit here and explain the protien vs. fat intake. but i'm sure you know what i mean. football is a game of speed, strength and agility. and the weak should shy away from it. are ya feelin' me? | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/29/2007 11:45:05 AM | the fanbase???
North Americans and Europeans fans are totally diferent.
Rugby is a British sport played mainly by countries belonging to The Commonwelth (England,Scotland,Ireland,Wales,etc) a rugby supporter is similar to a football's, he or she will never change the colours and the passion comes from the heart, passed from father to son,etc they are always loyal to death (see any English supporter of , say, West Ham,Liverpool,Manchester United,Tottenham Hotspurs,etc. they hate their rivals not because it is said but because it is the feeling inside.
North Americans DO love their sports but from what i have seen and read on different websites and forums it is different with people supporting one team or even more than one! suddenly a different team wins the Superbowl or the baseball Premier League with a great perfomance and then they start supporting it (what happens to the other loved claimed team? does love disappear??? note that i do not refer to all of Americans of course.
perhaps i am wrong but this is my opinion.
before some people start blaming me, let us say that North Americans are great people and love their clubs under their own way, just like us do the same unde our way. i really like the American attitude respecting matches,rivals and lacking hooligans. shame on us Europeans! | |
|
ebgdae
|
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/29/2007 2:45:52 PM | It's virtually impossible to compare any two sports.
However, for me, Rugby is the game they play in heaven.
I went to a school where the spirit of Rugby was held sacred, where foul play was considered both stupid and disgraceful.
To be modest in victory and gracious in defeat, however, while the clock was still ticking, winning was the only thing. No quarter was ever given or expected.
Rugby is one of those rare sports where every single size and shape of a human being is catered for. There's always the perfect position for anyone. It just takes a big heart.
Admittedly, it is a very violent sport. That's its only downfall.
If you really want to see champagne rugby, watch an A level First xv high school match. The young guys are at the peak of physical fitness. They have no marriage or financial or other commercial pressures. They're not right into grog and drugs, and at that stage of their lives sport is at it's purest ideal.
I think two American presidents played Rugby, John F.Kennedy and Bill Clinton. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/29/2007 9:02:32 PM | high school football is an entirely different matter. you have kids with baby fat who have not fully developed, using weight gain supplements . under the assumption they are going to get a look from a big time college program.
Although this article is mostly targeting the fact that high school players are obese, they also point out that the Pro players are just as obese if not more so. The reason for the article was not to point out the obvious fact that professional players are suffering from lack or fitness, but to shed light on the fact that it is now carrying over to our children. Nowhere does it mention that ONLY high school kids are being plagued by obesity.
if a guy eats 5lbs of wings a day because he is afraid of getting cut. then perhaps his skills are marginal.
What skills? A blocker has one primary function...to block. And that takes a big guy. Being big is his greatest asset, and without that asset, he then becomes a marginal player.
football is a game of speed, strength and agility. and the weak should shy away from it. are ya feelin' me?
Ok, so there are some strong guys, some agile guys, and some fast guys on a football team. But in the grand scheme of things, not many football players have all three of these skills. As I stated earlier, almost every player has a single specific job to do on the team. One guy is a kicker, some are blockers, some are receivers, one is a quartarback...and so on. But on a rugby team, every players must be able to kick, pass, block, hit, run, etc. to even be considered to play. Rugby players also have to play both offense and defense as well as special teams.
So football is about speed, strength and agility? Well what about stamina, versatility and precision? Or the many other characteristics that rugby has that go above and beyond those characteristics of football? | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/30/2007 2:18:38 PM | | what skills? you ask. it all makes sense now. you are ignorant of any kind of football. i would put my "skilless lineman' against anyone of your "skilled rugbettes" and my big, fat, slow, skilless linemen would prevail EVERY time. bigger, faster, stronger. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/31/2007 3:58:04 AM | because a player is bigger does not mean it is a better sportsman.
you have those Japanese sumo fighters, do you think that they are better, more versatile and more mobile than a NFL player??? according to your posts they are.
rugby player may not be so strong (some of them are) but they are far more mobile and versatile as they are always under action and never stopping, whereas a NFL player is like a wall, always stopped waiting for the rival. only the quaterback really moves.................... | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/31/2007 8:33:56 AM | | By and large most nfl players are just fat, not all though. i think that any rugby player could make a respecable nfl player, but i think very few nfl players would be able to play rugby for the simple fact that they lack fitness that is required to excel in rugby, without stopages every 10 seconds | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 3/31/2007 10:07:55 AM | NFL player is like a wall, always stopped waiting for the rival. only the quaterback really moves....................
Although filthymcnast's childish put-downs and il-conceived notion that the average football player is more of an athlete than the average rugby player is inaccurate and uncalled for. I will have to disagree with this statement about quarterbacks being the only ones who really move.
In most cases, the quarterback doesn't do that much moving around the field (or pitch as it is known in rugby) either. Instead he is more worried about dodging oncoming resistance and advancing the ball by means of passes. Once he crosses the line of scrimmage, he cannot execute a forward pass. It would be the same as what we rugby fans would call a knock on. It's the receivers who do most of the sprinting. They must get down the field as quickly as possible. And they make up the most athletic portion of the team.
it all makes sense now. you are ignorant of any kind of football.
Since I played football for 2 years in high school and then went on to play rugby in the military, it is obvious that I am less ignorant of the subject at hand than you. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 4/1/2007 9:54:03 AM | | i read your posts and find many flaws. your assertion that the wide receivers make up the most athletic portion of the team shows me that you must have played a different type of football. video games perhaps? and the comment that linemen have no skills was certainly a childish put-down on your part. however it has become clear to me that i am indeed wasting my time with this dicussion. you should also know that being the kicker on your 10th grade team (for two years no less) does not give you a real good understanding of the sport. that was my last post on the matter. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 4/2/2007 12:31:33 PM | why is it your last post???
to disagree is part of democracy! yes you are wrong but you can defend your opinion to death.
why does a kicker not know the sport??? are you suggesting that a member of a NFL team does not know the game because his duty is to kick??? strange but what do i know! | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 4/2/2007 9:36:57 PM | They're completely different sports. Why compare them? Hell, I like 'em both!
Heck, if you want to compare endurance (that's part of the argument: who's more athletic and who runs more) just for the sake of who's more macho, my money is on marathon runners. Man or woman--those people are nuts!! | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 5/6/2007 1:52:51 AM | | Football wins easily... real football that is, Aussie Rules Football. :) | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 5/6/2007 9:28:00 PM |
whereas a NFL player is like a wall, always stopped waiting for the rival.
Son, I was at football practice this afternoon, and I can tell you-I did not have one play where I got to be stopped, waiting for the "rival." I play offensive line; and let me tell you, between zone blocking, pulling, cross blocking, pass blocking, and godo old straight-ahead "smash-mouth" run blocking, I didn't STOP moving! Yeah, there's the huddle-but when you weigh 285, and you have to keep sinking your body into someone that's at least that big, while at the same time trying to "read" the stunts that the defensive line and linebackers will try-that half-a-minute of "rest" isn't all that restful. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 5/7/2007 1:39:26 PM | | Oh ok, the football you're talking about is the NFL, AFL (National and American Football League). Sorry! just here in New Zealand where Rugby is our main Sport, we refer football as to soccer. Anyway, a few differences between the sports is Rugby has no protective gear except maybe head gear when you've been trooden on to many times or a few to many knocks. Unlike the football where you have helmets, chest and shoulder pads and also thigh padding as well. True they do have specials teams that come on and off the field depending on whos got the ball at the time whereby Rugby players stay on for 40 minutes consisting of 2 halves for each period. Glad you're enjoying your Rugby and if you wana get a real taste of hard knocks Rygby, c'mon down to NZ and watch poetry in motion. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 5/7/2007 6:40:11 PM |
and the comment that linemen have no skills was certainly a childish put-down on your part.
I don't think that linemen have no skill, but simply that they only have one skill.
why does a kicker not know the sport??? are you suggesting that a member of a NFL team does not know the game because his duty is to kick??? strange but what do i know!
Actually, I am glad he made the comment. It only adds validity to my point that football players are not versatile. They concentrate only on the aspects of the game that their position is concerned with. It's kind of what I have been saying from the beginning. Thank you for proving my point for me. I could not have said it better. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 5/8/2007 9:51:48 AM | | my point is this. you were a kicker for tw0 years on your tenth grade team. you know nothing about football. you are right you could not have said it better. you did not need my help to point that out to everyone. | |
|
Home
login 
