American 'football' vs Rugby

Remove all ads!

Iku, Rugby is Rugby...Football (Americans call it 'soccer') is footy.

Therefore I'm removing your 'yay me'! ::

 

Well, that's what they called it there...I'm not inclined to argue with those guys. If they say it's footy, it's footy there and then (and if that makes me look like an idiot, I'll take it like a man and appreciate the joke. Har-har.)

 

Good lad xxx

 

Well, they're all "footie" actually, which is why it's better to use less confusing terms like Rugby Union and Soccer on an international forum like this.

 

Dhani Jones was doing off-season reporting type stuff when he joined Blackheath for three practices and one match. His coach apparently said he was an outstanding defender, but wasn't used to having the ball in his hands.

I'd say that the immense amount of muscle on NFL players would slow them down late in a long rugby match, but most rugby players wouldn't be able to compete athletically in the NFL. I'd think that an NFL safety, (usually about 6' 215lbs or so) would make the best rugby players out of any NFL player, they have the strength to compete and have speed and stamina to last. Plus, many of them are used to returning interceptions which are the most improvised plays in football.

 

Have you watched an entire game of Aussie rules football? If you had, I HIGHLY doubt that you would call it barbaric, especially when compared to rugby and gridiron.

 

Aussie Rules IS barbaric but equally as much as all the other footballs discussed in this thread, including soccer (which I think is sometimes even more vicious than the others, judging my how often the players appear to be screaming in pain).

 

Football/soccer players scream all the time because they're good actors, not because footy is vicious. They're all addicted to the magic sponge that the coaches get out!

 

Not to mention the spray bottle!

 

Usually, yes. However, every now and then a player comes down with a pretty vicious injury, so it's not all pretend.

 

Some people posting here are ignorant. Football players are soft? If pads were not worn in football games there would be deaths every week. The helmets are 100% necessary; professional football players (per the examples given in this thread) are just too fast and too strong to not wear helmets.

This probably stems from the fact that rugby players are better served having endurance while football players are bred to run in short bursts. The thing is, football players run 40 yards much faster than rugby players so the football players hit with more force.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not true. The pads 'allow' them to tackle with more power, but without the pads the game would change to similar level and technique as rugby. I expect also, that the fact play is broken up quite a lot means that in the NFL players are able to hit harder for longer, as they're not constantly running, therefore not using as much energy...

I don't know much about American Football, but am I right in thinking that only a handfull of players on either side are interested in getting the ball at each play? The rest are simply throwing themselves at each other in order to stop the opposition...hence all the pads.

 

That's a bit of an oversimplification of what is taking place Barmy. While in the broadest sense you are correct - one guy has the ball, the other team is trying to tackle him, and his teammates are trying to prevent him from being tackled, to say that's all that's taking place doesn't do it justice. It is true that only a few players will touch the ball in a series of plays, but that's because it's the most athletic players that get the ball. A tight end is usually used as a blocker, but on occassion he will catch a pass. Same thing with a fullback - while he usually serves as a blocker he can get the ball. Even the big ugly offensive lineman will get their hands on a ball at times, although admittedly that is usually not by design - it's when something goes wrong with the play.

To say that only a few players are interested in getting the ball is like saying in soccer the forwards are the only players interested in scoring a goal.

Regarding padding, seeing as how every year there are significant injuries in foorball (including concussions) indicates to me that the only way football could be played without pads would be to change the game so dramatically that it would no longer be identifiable as football.

That said, I do think a "which is better" argument is pretty silly. Just like almost all other things, sports are cultural and national interests. There is no sport that is universally popular. Even though soccer would be the most popular sport on a world wide level, the only place it's popular in North America is Mexico. If I had been born in Italy instead of America, I'd probably like soccer more than football.

 

Close Barmy. Only a handful of players on the offense are even allowed to touch the ball -- typically there are at least four of the eleven who cannot normally contact the ball. However, everyone on the defense wants the ball. Defensive players are trained, and drill regularly, on how to read the quarterback (in order to set themselves up for an interception) and how to strip the ball.

Stripping the ball usually involves helmet-to-ball contact, literally reaching in to swat the ball with the force of a knockout punch, or hitting the player holding the ball with enough force to cause him to drop the ball. The first and third methods are the main reason for pads.

As far as not constantly running, I think there's a bit of a misconception there. The receivers sprint at every play, I would venture these are typically forty yard sprints while having a defender dragging on you. The defender is also required to sprint. The backs are typically taking off in a sprint as well -- sometimes they are handed the ball, sometimes they are passed the ball, and sometimes they hit a defender. The linemen are basically in a scrum (I think that's the term) all game against other guys weighing over 150 kilos -- these guys do more work than anyone else on the field, it would be like lifting weights while trying to run (or at least walk quickly) for extended periods.

Granted, a 60 minute football game lasts 3 hours and the offense and defense alternate taking the field. The winning team will usually have offense on the field for ~40 minutes though.

 

I'm a big fan of the Philadelphia Eagle. Last season, our 2 starting offensive tackles combined in at 750 lbs total. You will never see that on a Rugby field, big guys can't have the endurance to run non-stop. But a Rugby guy couldn't move them backwards either. These are 2 completely different games.

 

There is merit to wearing protective gear - I've never watched a rugby game where some dude's not bleeding all over the place like a stuck pig.

 

I used to play rugby, love the game, Im Welsh btw, its our sport, dont really play anything else. To anyone who says that rugby is boring and doesnt really have that edge of your seat factor, dont bother watching the world cup, watch the 6 nations, I dont think you will find a more competative tournament on the planet - everyone wants the grand slam.

Ireland won it this year if you can find a copy of the final (Wales v Ireland) watch it, my god what a game.

 

The All Blacks vs France game was a cracker on the weekend, as was the South Africa vs The Lions game. Two awesome test matches that went down to the wire. Looking forward to France taking on Australia this coming weekend. Good to see the test rugby season here!!

 

The forward throw in American Footbal is only legal behind the line of defenders. (Correct me if I am wrong). The pass gives a major tactical difference to the game.

A rugby kick is like a punt after which the other side gets the ball. But not with the pass. A constant pressure in rugby will give the desired effect in most situation but with AF you can use that pressure to your advantage and still win with a few well placed throws.

Once passed the line of scrimmage no forward pass is allowed. Only rugbylike backward passes.

 

I like gridiron but I still think it's funny that there is a player whose only job is to punt the ball. And another who only does those goal kicks.