Rugby vs. American Football

[Wings]

Alright, I was going to post this last night via mobile telly, but I became too lazy and didn't want to get my half-naked self up from the couch. Besides, I can't format paragraphs on that infernal contraption.

Here is a list of questions concerning the two sports that have plagued many sports fanatics around the world (myself included). For those of you who know me, you should be fairly familiar with my background, likes and displeasures. I'm an avid fan of the Irish ruggers and football alike (real football...not American football), so my opinion may or may not be a little bias.

Question #1:

Which is the rougher sport? : Rugby or American football.

Question #2:

Do you think American football players (NFL) would do well on the pitch playing against a professional rugby team? (the same question applies to ruggers playing American football.)

Question #3:

Who are the "better athletes", American football players or ruggers?

If you feel the need to reply to this topic with your opinion, please be somewhat descriptive with your reasons for answering questions a certain way. There is absolutely no use in having one or two word answers to questions that are of a generalised nature.

 

[Ceroscuro]

1. Rugby.
2. Some NFL players.
3. Depends on what rugby players you compare to what football players... and also on what you base athleticism.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

1) Rugby. Though to be fair I get more beat up playing football with friends than when I play rugby. Rugby I know has the whole image, but personally in my experiences football hurts more. But I'll still go with rugby.

2) I think it depends on who would be playing, as that's like asking if a hockey player will do well on a baseball field, and visa versa. Put anyone who doesn't play the sport against professional athletes and chances are they are going to get beat.

3) I think it depends on who you look at again. I don't think there's really much to compare, one is conditioned for one environment where the other is for a different. It's like whose a better athlete, the Olympic runner or swimmer?

 

[Cruelty]

there's a reason they invented 'touch' football. cause people get too fucked up playing normal football. is there a touch rugby? http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4538/8dqc3.png[/img]

there, my friends, is my logic. take it for what it is.

 

[Anglachel]

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL!!!

It is tougher and they are better athletes. My opinion of them being tougher is heavily biased and could probably be argued against.

Why is it toucher? Well for starters you have no protection. The game is played at a high intensity and your head is often in danger. You can be hit from behind, and you have to use every part of your body and so there is no part of you that is safe.

As for better athletes I am absolutely certain that Aussie foolballers are fitter. Acording to statistics they are reaching the same level as Olympic athletes!!

I don't expect anyone who isn't from Australia to know much about the sport. Do a little research if you are intersted. Even in some states of Australia people aren't very interested in it. However it is HUGE over here and makes a huge amount of money. You can't compare that fact to say, soccer, because that is worldwide with many more fans.


Are you sure theres not touch rugby?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Why is it toucher? Well for starters you have no protection. The game is played at a high intensity and your head is often in danger. You can be hit from behind, and you have to use every part of your body and so there is no part of you that is safe.

By that definition the old hand ball game Homicide is tougher. No protection. High intensity. Hit from behind - is actually the point of the game. Head is in constant danger, hell sometimes you played for head shots. And you have to use all your body parts to protect yourself.

You know what, that's a good point. Screw rugby. Screw football American, Canadian, Australian, Soccer -whatever. Homicide... toughest "sport" ever!

 

[Red Dawn]

I think rugby is much rougher, cause you dont get to wear thick body armor and padding and crap. You wear boots, socks, shorts, shirt, and mouthguard. Nothing else. The tackling and everything is more vicious in AF but you get like body armor and helmets and everything.

I think a rugby team would own an AF team in rugby cause the AF team would get so smashed up. But in AF i think it would just be whichever team is fitter, stronger, faster. Or maybe AF would have advantage cause they are used to the game.

 

[Ceroscuro]

Don't take the pads into account; they are not a part of the game. I have played American football a million times and not once in my life have I worn pads.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I've never worn a helmet for anything (yeah - kinda explains some things don't it) and the pads are just there for protection. They don't slow the game down for any real pace, whereas in rugby I'm sure if you put that much protection on the game'll be very different to watch and play.

I've already said I've played both, but I've never taken that hard of a hit to my midsection in rugby. Ever. I've gotten knocked out from a shot to my gut playing American football. And I didn't think you could get hit so hard in the midsection you blanked out for a moment or two. The pads there I think are a little more... needed.

 

[Von Karma]

I definately think rugby is a tougher sport, because of things like this. You don't see that happen in American football often, do you? O_o Also, rugby players, like many people have already pointed out, don't wear any padding or helmets when playing professionally.

As for ruggers playing football and vice versa, it would be difficult for both. Though in the end, I think it would be harder for an American football team to play rugby, because of them being so used to passing forward instead of behind.

And finally, I think ruggers are way better athletes than foootball players. I mean, have you seen those 300lb. linebackers?

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Completely different sports. A comparison on which is better is pretty subjective.

 

[Red Dawn]

Well, I suppose it is a bit different if youre not playing a proper game of AF and just playing with mates, no compulsory armor. But, @60 1/4, why do you get hit harder in AF than in rugby? You could potentially be hit any hardness (lol) in either game, youve probably just played AF with tougher mates or something. I reckon both games are boring as hell, its standing/running a little, then yay! ball! runrunrun then either *throw!* or *fall over as lots of hairy men jump on you*. I prefer soccer, its way more technical and its a lot faster-paced, heaps of people think its a pussy sport but thats just cause theres no legal tackling, every time you can you shunt the other team and slide tackling hurts like a bitch (cleated boot slamming into legs/ankles at top speed). And stuff like that.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I hadn't realized that size dictates athletics, as opposed to being a factor. I hadn't realized the 300 pounder's size alters the athletic proportions of the rest of the team. Running backs, quarterbacks, everyone else. You can pick on the big fat guys on the line of scrimmage, but their size is a necessity of the game. Same way a gymnast will be shorter than the average person their age as a rule of thumb.

 

[Ceroscuro]

Actually to play offensive line (or to play well), it still takes extraordinary skill and athleticism; just not running fast or jumping high, etc.

 

[Ceroscuro]

Update: I know there are many examples of injuries in both games, but the Kevin Everett incident from Sunday is tragic. Apparently, doctors say he will most likely never walk again.

The good news is he can now breathe on his own for short periods of time and make voluntary movements below his shoulders.