Rugby vs American Football

Ok, crouching every few seconds and holding up a 300+ pound frame and then releasing from that crouch as fast as possible, and then having other 300+ pound men hit you in the legs and fall on them at difficult angles is much more dangerous and a greater injury-risk than walking to the mall.

You're acting like I said normal people don't get knee injuries.. I feel the injury risk is greater in football than it is in rugby.

and they definetly DO have to wear knee braces, it helps prevent their legs from being mangled.

rugby is way better its sort of like street football alot more dangerous cuz almost no pads

It isn't really that similiar to street football

i'm i rugby player, and i was injured and couldnt play for three years, i busted my knees, why? because i was the biggest of my teammates i thought no one can touch me and my tackles were quite reckless because of that, also because of my size i didn't give my 100% during training sessions but once a guy half my size run into my knees and i could move for couple of days.
I was 14 then, now i'm 18, and about the same size as my collegues, i play the winger, i'm quite fast altough i weight the same as the scrum players are. my point is that it is not about the size, or the plates used in american football, it is all about preparation. i watched a lot of football matches and the only reason why there are lots of injuries is the recklesness and the lack of discipline. and that is why I THINK RUGBY IS BETTER. sometimes its not about the game it is about the player

Rugby without a doubt. Skinny unmuscular men dont make good rugby players, even if all rugby players were of a small build it wouldnt work.

American football you have to be big and muscular, simply because everyone else is. Dont have to be 6ft weigh a ton to throw the ball a few feet. or whatever it is they do. Makes no sense to me

quarterbacks need to be tall so that they can see over the linesmen in order to accurately throw the ball, and they bulk up for their own protection because its better to be 250 lbs and get hit by a 300 lb dude than it is to be tiny and crushed

i dont think the size is all that matters, you can have huge muscles but if they are like balloons than there is no use of them, on the other hand, you can be small but have really strong muscles. I will say again it is all about the preparation.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7034/hickieblooduo6.jpg

Heres your answer, they bloodsubbed him, stopped the bleeding, bandaged him, gave him a clean jersey and sent him back

you can have huge muscles but if they are like balloons than there is no use of them, on the other hand, you can be small but have really strong muscles

or you can have huge, strong muscles...

[/url]I

The player taking the hit here is only 5'6 and 75KGs. Watch the slow mo and he does this on a regular basis.

Where the big difference is at the breakdown when the tackle is made, in rugby you continue competing for the ball and in football theres a break to reset. In essence, you are sprinting between wrestling matches.

To illustrate how physically tough the professional game is, here's some stats from a survey done of Irish professionals. 40% retire due to injury, 72% of these guys are left in regular pain from their injuries and half of that 40% are never able to play again at any level.

If none of this is enough, Wales centre played 10 minutes of a match against Australia last year with a fractured skull, setting up a try in the process.

Even at junior club level, I don't know of anyone who hasn't had a break or stitches amongst my team mates, and some have had shoulders reconstructions and break,dislocates. but its all for fun!!

Some of my replay got lost before so heres the beginning

Okay heres the thing, American footballers are possibly physically bigger because all they are doing is taking or making hits, so it makes more sense to be carrying more muscle mass but thats all they're doing for the most part. The padding makes sense as the tackle count is much higher. Sure they can hit harder but mostly because of the padding. It doesn't make sense to have all huge guys though there are some who are pretty huge, John Hayes is 6'4 and 125kgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAu8s-WlxjI

yuo got the point JDolla huge,strong muscles seem atractive..... but one thing still buggs me, i've heard that big muscles reduce your agility, speed.. is that true??

Look American Football is wayyyy harder, im half american and half english.
i live in england.

You all say they are covered in padding, thats a load of rubbish, they wear a helmet and shoulder pads, thats like saying cricketers are wimps. And theyre not.
Secondly, in rugby you cant high tackle, CANT HIGH TACKLE. IF YOU COULD RUGBY PLAYERS WOULD HAVE SHOULDER PADS!!! in American football if they didnt have shoulder pads, theyd dislocate thier shoulder every tackle lol. Ive watched countless rugby games and they are sooooo boring i wanna stab myself.

The athletes are far superior in American football. theyre bigger, stronger, and faster.

AND Rugby is sooo unpopluar in the UK, i cant name 3 people that play rugby in their spare time. Whilst American football players train theyre asses off everyday.

Anyone who says rugby is harder has no idea about the concept and hard hitting of nfl.

yuo got the point JDolla huge,strong muscles seem atractive..... but one thing still buggs me, i've heard that big muscles reduce your agility, speed.. is that true??

not at all. obviously if you spend all of your time working on the upper body, you'll gain weight. If you don't also keep up with the lower body then yeah, you'll slow down.

any athlete in any sport trains both on the upper and lower body. this is because there are very few sports that do not incorporate both aspects.

as far as agility is concerned, flexibility is key. again, if you don't work on flexibility, you will not be agile.

The highest paid rugby player makes less than a million $ per year.

The highest paid NFL player makes close to $ 30 mil.

You guys wanna leave it there??

Whenever rugby starts paying more than AF, those NFL players will go to Australia, the UK or whatever the **** you are and eat your lunch.

Money talks, bull**** walks.

Don't think we'll ever have to worry about rugby salaries competing or NFL players leaving to play rugby lol

they are completly different sports,
not just to compare.

but i enjoy rugby more,
that means nothing though

yea^ they are differnet sports

Ok. I am a American football player, not rly experienced coz ive started this year. Im from Poland and our league is only 2yo. Still it is the most growing sport in our country. I play D-line and linebacker so i know what does it mean to hit hard to get hit hard and what does it mean to play on line and how it is to puch 300 pounds while being pushed. I also saw a lot of rugby games as i leave near rugby stadium. I think AF is tougher, more complicated, more entertaining, more demanding and involves much more tactic than rugby. I also think that if any of rugby fans would google this topic a little he would have to agree.
Ok. to start with- small example of who is a better athlete. I know speed aint everything but still it can be a determinant of athletism.
The fastest rugby player 40 meters dash
Adam Thomson 4.91, nice, really nice
The fastest football player 40 yards dash
DeAngello Hall 4.42,
OK. ok., i know yards are shorter than meters, rugby fans would say that if Hall ran 40 meters he would achieve same time. FAIL
4.42 wasnt the best time DeAngello achieved. In Tech Virginia he ran 40 yards in 4.15
Beat that.

Now about deaths. I don't really think this is a determinant of toughness but coz rugby fans count it as one here are some facts from google.
71 deaths recorded in English rugby ..
Approx. 12 per season in AF.. hopefully you can count, but ill do it for ya. Lets say football started in 1980 which is not true (it started earlier). But it will be easy to count 29 x 12 gives.. 348. Oh poor rugby FAIL again.

And now ill explain why you r wrong on your biggest point. Football is a stop/start game that's true. But this is the only point in which it is. Football has a lot of pauses because team have to choose one from over 200-250 tactics for every play. Picking up a good play is essential. Football is a very tactical sport unlike rugby. Rugby is more like rush n kick sport which simply means it is definitely less complicated.
That's not all. Rugby game lasts 80 minutes. Football game can last for 4 houres with pauses. Counting even that half of time is a huddle up pause keep in mind that 4/2 gives 2 and 80 minutes is less then 120 minutes -.- ekhm.. i dont want to say that again,. FAIL once more.

Point that made me laugh the most is the one in which you claim that rugby is so dirty and you can do whatever you want u can hit punch kick push pull etc. Honestly.. this is so stupid that I even don't want to comment it. What do you want to prove? That rugby rules are more animal-like, stupid, and doesn't concern about player lives? If you do you are right.

One of you on one of first pages of this topic said that after grabbing and pulling facemask referee blows( for all rugby fans. You throw flag on field in football firstly, you don't blow) and stops the game. Now think of it as you are a running back you run the fastest you can when someone grabs and pulls your facemask. You have your neck broken and, if you r lucky you are paralyzed, if you are not- you die. Football needs rules and thanks to them football is a game of clean human power (hits), athletism (speed) and intellect (tactics).

Football is way more entertaining when you consider every aspect of the game. Every trick play makes you say .. what the fuck? Where is the ball? Every long pass makes your breath stop every run makes you scream your RB name.
Football also is more a teamwork game than rugby. Every player is essential for success, one mistake and whole tactics goes to hell. In rugby one player can lead team to championship.

Oh I almost forget one of rugby tough guys said that it is not proven that there are hardest hits in AF. FAIL again. You are wrong. It is proven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3o


After all of that I have to say that I also like rugby but please, don't tell me that it is a better sport, it is not, bear it.

defback92pl, ok firstly for you polish twat shit fuck nob sucking pile of wank
lets start with tackles
american football...
1.they wear pads so can run full speed into a tackle and not get hurt badly
2.they can tackle how the fuck they want aslong as it brings down the god dam man

rugby
1. no pads so have to be carefull
2.have to tackle in the stomouch, high tackles are illegal theirfore having to concetrate on accuracy rather than power, also no pads so more painfull
i am english so going for rugby as better, YES AF has harder tackles, but is no way in gods name anywear near as tougher

youtube jonah lomu, one of rugby's best players ever lived, possible the best athelete ever lived
6 ft 5 and 250 lbs, can run 100m in about 11 seconds
can run through tackles walking, stumbling, hopping, jogging. search for his try against france, he runs through 8 players, 3 of which are forwards
just search him up, he wud flatten any AF player.

speed, search for habana, nywenga, preferably Rupeni Caucaunibuca. cud easily out run an AF player, maybe not over a 40 yard dash but over a hole pitch wud destroy anyone with speed

and i cant remeber where, google it, but rugby was actually prooven a better sport.

also you say about deaths, you can fit 31 englands in america, theirfore the ratio of deaths if obviously gona be bigger you dumb shit

so you say 71 deaths, rugby was invented in the 1800s, i doubt very much that they would of recorded a death back then so probally 6 times that

but anyway, 31 englands in america
71 deaths altogeather, if england was the size of america and their where 71 deaths in each of the 31 (just being realistic) their would be 2170 deaths alltogeather, so if you round it up and use some maths in all subjects
rugby IS a better sport
end of

Ok deaths have nothing to do with toughness so it really doesn't matter... Football players are way more athletic, stronger, tougher, etc. Lol, nobody from rugby is gonna flatten an NFL linebacker. That's a joke

Ummm.. Jonah Lomu is basically playing a backyard football pickup game against way smaller people... Not impressed

The answer to this one is going to depend on which side of the ocean your from I'm certain. I'm from the US and likeAmerican Football Blog
obviously but I have seen Australian rugby games on TV and they look very rough especially without the pads but having said that I played American football in school and have been to many collegiate and professional football games and the sound and speed of the game does not show nearly as well on TV as it does live.

its all on the ravens? This was from a different topic.