| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/1/2007 3:24:11 PM | What a silly thread... Might as well throw my hat in.
I've played football. I've played and coached rugby. In my opinion, rugby is tougher. But it is a pointless comparison - they are completely different sports.
Rugby in the US is played in two seasons, spring and fall. As a college coach, sometimes I would get players from other sports in their off-season, looking for variety or simply to keep fit. The soccer players rarely came out - the contact is simply too different for them. Football players usually didn't do so well. The skill position players looked great for a while but couldn't handle the pace. Some OL/TE types did turn into good forwards, but it really varied.
The players that usually made the transition were basketball players, especially forwards not afraid to get physical. And when you think about it, it shouldn't be a surprise. Both sports are best characterized by keeping your engine running all the time, punctuated by explosive bursts at full throttle. Both require field awareness beyond what the guy in front of you is doing, fast transitions between offense and defense, and in both the decisions really are made on the fly by the players, not signalled in from the coach.
So IMO this thread should be better called Rugby vs. Basketball. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/1/2007 3:26:39 PM | | To the earlier poster naming presidents who played rugby, add the current one. George Bush played at Yale. In his yearbook there is an unflattering picture of him trying to make a tackle - very high, it looks more like he's punching the guy in the gut. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/1/2007 3:40:17 PM | And to the topic of american football being played worldwide, it isn't. NFL Europe was a joke.
IMO the NFL has no real plan to expand overseas. Are they worried about rugby? Of course not. But never forget that the NFL ownership is the sharpest in sports, and they plan ahead. They will never allow professional rugby to make inroads in the US. One way is to convince people here that football is the *only* physical team sport out there, and the world is watching it with baited breath. So I think NFL Europe was simply a farm team placed where it gives you the best PR. You will never hear an NFL official acknowledge the fact that there is a Rugby World Cup, that rugby is a professional sport, or that countries on every continent compete with each other in it.
If this sounds conspiratorial, consider this: when the NFL played a preseason game in Japan, the announcing team continually reminded us of the difficulty the NFL had in finding a field, and that they had to play in a baseball stadium because Japan only plays baseball. Guess what - there were plenty of rugby stadiums they could have played in. Nearly all of the large companies have their own team. But then they would have had to acknowledge that rugby is the second most popular sport there... | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/1/2007 3:55:17 PM | And one final piece of trivia:
The deal with Jonah Lomu, as I remember it, was that Jerry Jones and/or his entourage scouted and met with him at the World Cup. It was reported that they discussed a contract, but Lomu turned him down before it went anywhere. And he was right to do so - after the match with England, they way he looked like a man running among boys, he was already on top of the world as an athelete.
It was overblown, and driven more by Jones' ego than any guarantee that Lomu's talent would carry over to the NFL. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 4:13:05 AM | ^^^^you hit the nail
by the way, i already mentioned it before, that NFL players can not resist the heavy and hard pace in rugby, that is the main difference between the two sports.
perhaps in NFL you find impacts at a higher speed because forward passes are allowed, etc but those bloody helmets and pads make you feel comfortable, and your body does not suffer a lot.
on the other hand, the only real protection rugby players wear is a scrum cap, and only a few of them decide to use it.
Pedro | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 4:52:30 AM |
guys get concussions all of the time even with the helmets. guys get hurt all of the time even with the "padding" Only because they're soft.  | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 6:09:42 AM | Re the injury aspect - football players do hit harder. Rugby injuries are more wear and tear of constant pounding, where NFL injuries feature more breaks.
But what most people don't realize - even Americans - is that the padding doesn't really protect the guy getting tackled as much as it does the tackler. They also don't realize that the most courageous guy isn't the guy going over the middle getting tackled - that's easy, and he's too busy reading the field to think about getting tackled. When you don't have padding, the guy who has to show real courage is the defensive player who sees a huge guy bearing straight down on him with thighs pumping like pistons, knowing he has to lower his unprotected head and drive his shoulder into those legs. THAT is a gut-check.
In rugby, a player who launches himself at a player the way an NFL strong safety does will be out with a broken collerbone after two games. Players who make it in rugby learn how to make tackles, not highlites. They learn that stopping your man and getting back into the play immediately leaves no time for a sack dance. Simply put, the tackling in the NFL is surprisingly poor, especially in the secondaries. Everybody is trying to make the big play, because they only have a handfull of opportunities to make a tackle.
Two more random points:
I've coached both college-level men and women in rugby. Surprisingly, teaching women to tackle is easier, because they are learning from scratch, whereas the men have to unlearn everything they think they know from watching football highlights.
American rugby, because of the football influence, is more physical than most places around the world - not better, mind you, it's just that we tackle harder. One season our club brought over a young scrum-half from England who had been the Army A starter. He joined us in a big pre-season tournament held every year in New Hampshire. He wasn't used to the intensity and by the end of the tournament voided his contract and went home. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 7:22:12 AM | | going over the middle is easy? and you said you played? sounds like a kicker talking to me. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 9:25:29 AM | i have always wondered myself why you americans love slagging kickers off.
as far as i know, the kicker is part of the team, and may i add an important player.
is it because many of kickers come from football, so you loathe them? | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 10:31:57 AM | Namegame2 knows what he's talking about.
Pedro - They dislike the kickers because they tend to be among the smallest guys on the field.
Besides, having to kick a field goal often leaves the offense feeling like they've 'failed' (to score a touchdown, that is), so they kind of resent the whole idea.
The defense isn't too thrilled, either, because a field goal usually means they have less field to defend, so the only 'real' reasons to live for the average kicker are extra points or kick offs.
The NM Lobos used to have a female kicker (pretty cute, actually)........ | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 11:38:26 AM | anyone who says going over the middle is easy does NOT know what they are talking about. if this guy knows rugby so be it. but to say you've played football and then say it's easy going over the middle....well, if you've ever played you know what that sounds like. in defense of the punter however, those guys get off on how high and far they can punt and some of them are quite impressive. on the other hand the kicker is indeed a valuable part of the team but doesn't do the same type of drills that the rest of the team does. which is why most teams have female kickers | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 7:59:04 PM | ^^^
I'm not talking about the physical abuse you get there at all. In fact, it is essentially the same as what rugby backs get: the ball is lateralled to them, and while they are looking to the thrower a defender is charging straight at them. Maybe the back turns in time and side-steps, maybe he wind up on his back out cold.
I meant easy in the mental sense, and my point is more of an issue of offense vs defense than rugby vs football. When your head is in the game as a reciever, you are so focused on reading the seams that you never have a chance to see it coming. 90% of the time when you are tackled, it's a surprise to you to find yourself suddenly lying on the ground. If you were anticipating the tackle, you were too distracted.
But a defensive player who - by his own action - throws himself into the path of a charging player cannot help but realize that *he* is causing the collision. That takes a gut check: it's a lot easier to have somebody else hit you with a hammer (especially if you are focusing on something else) than it is to hit yourself with it.
It is not much of a gut-check in football precisely because of the equipment. But believe me, when there is nothing between yourself and a charging player but a jersey, and you know that the impact that you are causing is going to hurt you as much as it hurts the receiver, that tiny twing of doubt is a bit louder.
In rugby, players play both ways. I'd be interested is knowing if rugby backs agree with me: there is never fear or doubt when you are on the attack, but on defense there is always an instant of a gut-check to overcome every time you lower the shoulder in a head-on tackle. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 9:30:23 PM | | you guys always use the same argument. the equipment. it tells me everything about the level of understanding you people have. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/2/2007 9:57:06 PM | | I actually enjoy all these sports which while related and have some common origins, are apples and oranges these days. Even the CFL and NFL have widened their differences over the years. Australian Rules..Gaelic rules..Rugby league and Union..soccer/football, American..Canadian..all great games in their own right. I would love to see a new sport invented which is a combination of all these forms of "football". | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 3:56:18 AM | wolfie,
so the Americans dislike kickers just because they are the smallest players on the pitch or because a field goal is considered less? well it sounds ridiculous and makes no sense!
i have some questions and hope someone will answer me: why is a touchdown better than a field goal? why is a quarterback getting a touchdown considered better than a kicker getting a field goal? why should a quarterback gain more respect amongst the fans, with the kicker losing respect?
the important is to defeat the rival and one team is like a family.
under my opinion a kicker has the same sporting value than any other player, in fact i would say that a kicker is better, you know, someone being able to kick an oval ball from a long distance and getting a field goal has more skills than a quarterback or a linebacker (whose duty i do not know).
i think one of the reasons why Americans tend to dislike kickers is because many of them come from football, and you DO know Americans always have hated football. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 4:45:15 AM | | petey my friend, put the bottle down and the pipe as well. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 6:01:04 AM |
you guys always use the same argument. the equipment. it tells me everything about the level of understanding you people have.
If your level of understanding about football is so high, you'ld realize that defensive backs are the most frequently injured players on the field, at a much higher rate than the receivers they are tackling.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_291035.html :
In 2000 through 2003, NFL data showed that the highest injury rates belong to cornerbacks and safeties. Nearly seven of 10 DBs are hurt every year, according to the NFL's weekly injury reports. For those who get hurt, half will suffer another, unrelated injury before the season ends.
They also sustain the highest rates of the injuries most likely to be catastrophic; 102 defensive backs have suffered brain concussions or neck and spinal injuries during the past four years.
| |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 6:11:55 AM | Pedro - Dislike of kickers has nothing to do with their coming from soccer. Wolfie is correct: teams and fans hate driving down the field and then putting their fortunes onto a single play, a type of action not perfomed at any other time, by a player who does not contribute at any other time and doesn't seem very 'footballish.'
It would be as if in soccer, you replaced the corner kick with an arm-wrestling match conducted by two specialty players brought off the bench for only that purpose. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 7:19:21 AM | | if the point you are trying to make is that db's are injured making tackles on receivers, you are reading something that isn't there. those stats are not based on a particular play or engagement of a specific position. are you trying to tell me that they don't get injured getting blocked or run over by a running back or making a tackle in general? i certainly hope not. because that is NOT what the article states. and apparently my level of understanding of football is greater than you comprehension of the written word. and excerpt you posted actually illustrates the bigger, faster, stronger dynamic of the two sports. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 7:58:26 AM | Pedro - A touchdown counts for 6 points( 7 with the point after), a field goal is only 3.
That's why a TD is better......
Plus, to many people (myself included), winning a game by a field goal or less always seems a little lame, like almost a tie.
You are, of course, right when you say that a team should be a kind of 'family' , but how often does this actually happen in reality?
It might happen on a college or amateur level, but as soon as money, career, advancement and playing a sport as a profession come into play, it's every dog for himself.
I grew up watching soccer, it's exactly the same there.
Bayern München are not a family.
Manchester United are not a family.
Barcelona are not a family.
Inter Milan are not a family.
Btw, Americans don't hate soccer, they don't know soccer.
In the US, soccer is mostly played by girls under 16, the so-called 'Major League' soccer we have here is an artificially created joke on life support, no one watches those games, the vast majority of Americans barely even know this sport exists.
The absolutely only time Americans might pay attention to soccer is when the World Cup is on (and it sure helps A LOT if that World Cup is held in the US.......), as soon as that's over, it drops right back off the radar screen and stays there until the next World Cup (preferably in the US.....).
One thing that really hurts the sport here in North America is the fact that it isn't TV-friendly, or rather advertiser-friendly.
The people who are going to foot the bill for the airtime (advertisers) are not happy with 45 minutes of non-stop uninterrupted coverage.
Also, the viewing public isn't happy with the fact that so many soccer games are low scoring affairs.
Things like red cards do not appeal to the American sense of fair play.
And finally, the centuries-old rivalries that give European soccer much of its' flavor and the desperate poverty that drive South American soccer simply don't exist here. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 8:04:12 AM | if the point you are trying to make is that db's are injured making tackles on receivers, you are reading something that isn't there. those stats are not based on a particular play or engagement of a specific position. are you trying to tell me that they don't get injured getting blocked or run over by a running back or making a tackle in general? i certainly hope not. because that is NOT what the article states. and apparently my level of understanding of football is greater than you comprehension of the written word. and excerpt you posted actually illustrates the bigger, faster, stronger dynamic of the two sports.
No, the point I have been making and what the article states is that defensive players are more likely to be injured than offensive players. In the open field, tackling is more dangerous than being tackled. If you want to believe that the third more head and neck injuries referenced in the article are caused by being blocked, I can't help you. The article is pretty clear on why it thinks the injuries are occuring. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 8:33:06 AM |
i certainly hope not. because that is NOT what the article states. and apparently my level of understanding of football is greater than you comprehension of the written word. and excerpt you posted actually illustrates the bigger, faster, stronger dynamic of the two sports.
And on the topic of reading comprehension, I don't think you have been able to understand my posts at all. I have never argued that football isn't bigger and faster and the impacts greater. My point is that they are. It is because the defenders have protection that they can launch themselves full speed; that and the different tempo of the game:
(1) Plays have clear starting points, and you know any tackle you have to make will come within 10 seconds, so you can be mentally prrepared.
(2) A play ends after the tackle, so you don't have to worry about springing to your feet, reading the action, and making another play 3 seconds later.
(3) You get a breather when the offense is on the field, and can get a sub in if you are dinged.
These ingrediants are what allow players on both sides of the ball to give 100% every play. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 8:35:55 AM | | yet you use the defensive backs as an example. which is it defensive players as a whole or a specific position.. and i still fail to see how any of that adresses what you pasted from my own post. in regards to the equipment argument.?????? on this particular subject i will submit to your knowledge of rugby. my only experience was in college at a half assed level. however i should inform you that i do in fact teach football.( i don't call it coaching for philosophical reasons). and my kids are one of two study groups used by a pittsburgh area hospital to study head injuries. we are in our third year. i don't claim to be an expert and never will but, i know a little bit about the injury asspect of the game and how it relates to size speed and strength. it's basic physics. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 11:37:36 AM | ^^^ Why don't you read my post which started this digression:
Re the injury aspect - football players do hit harder. Rugby injuries are more wear and tear of constant pounding, where NFL injuries feature more breaks.
But what most people don't realize - even Americans - is that the padding doesn't really protect the guy getting tackled as much as it does the tackler. They also don't realize that the most courageous guy isn't the guy going over the middle getting tackled - that's easy, and he's too busy reading the field to think about getting tackled. When you don't have padding, the guy who has to show real courage is the defensive player who sees a huge guy bearing straight down on him with thighs pumping like pistons, knowing he has to lower his unprotected head and drive his shoulder into those legs. THAT is a gut-check.
It was about the mental aspect, not whether rugby hits are harder - my position has always been that they are not. My point was that making tackles is more dangerous then being tackled, and the defender is the one who is aware he is initiating the impact while a good attacker is focused on the play. It's like being in a car accident - drunks are more likely to emerge unscathed because they are unaware when it happens. Equipment only enters into the discussion insofar as it dampens the instinct to pull back when you are causing the collision. | |
|
| Rugby vs. Football
Posted: 9/3/2007 12:38:51 PM | | try as i might i could find little continuity among your many threads. you lost me with the going over the middle comment. and i will attribute that to my lack of understanding as opposed to your inability to explain. have a good day. | |
|
Home
login 
