Rugby for wimps in armour....

Pherekydes

the fnj wrote:

also they are trained to hit with their helmets

That is strictly illegal. Spearing is banned.

If you lived in the states you'd know that.

the fnj

Well from playing rugby over there I noticed people liked running into tackles head first, this is very dangerous and said it to one of the guys. His response was "in football you are trained to try and hit the ball with your helmet" seeing as most of the rugby players played high school football this was the way they instinctively tackled. So unless it's recently become illegal i.e. last three years people are still trained to do it.

Pherekydes

You said "trained to hit with their helmets"

Not the same as "trained to try and hit the ball with your helmet".

I presume the players know the difference.

the fnj

Sounds like a very fine line to me, and judging by the way they went into contact in rugby they were always leading with their heads. If I tackled like that in games over here I'd have serious neck damage within a couple of games.

Either way this is a tiny point, what did you think of the rest of my points?

Pherekydes

the fnj wrote:

Rugby players are trained to work for eighty minutes and expected to be able to complete a variety of tasks..

A rugby match is nominally 80 mins, but the ball's in play for less than 50. Judging by the error rate in rugby, it looks like they could do with more ball work.

American footballers are trained to work in short burst for sixty minutes and are expected to perform more specialised tasks. I’m not saying they can’t run for eighty minutes, I’m sure lots of them could but it’s not the point they are trained to work with breaks for sixty minutes.

The training between positions varies greatly. WR, RB and DB do lots of running, the linemen don't.

Someone made a point about knowing a linebacker who was 6’ 5” and is 325lbs, claiming he would be unstoppable on a rugby pitch. First of all that is not true and more importantly he would not be able to maintain that bulk playing rugby.

Probably true. I wouldn't be bothered about these exceptions that people keep bringing up.

As someone said earlier, some people are “athletic freaks” you could train them up for any sport they would do well, this is genetics. If Brian O’Driscol trained all his life for American football and not rugby I’m sure he would be a great receiver.

I am curious as to how fast O'Driscoll could get. He would have to get pretty fast to make WR, but he's not too small to play RB or LB. And he has the field presence and vision required for those positions. I am of the philosophy that I would never write anyone off just by observing them. Let them prepare well and give it a shot.

The situational substitution and the protection both led to specialisation, which leads to bigger, faster players. If Rugby introduced play-by-play with substitution, it would lead to a marked change in players' size and speed.

Vikings

On the whole "trained to try and hit the ball with your helmet" point, what players are taught is to get your head on the side the ball carrier is carrying the ball, and to keep your helmet just above hip level, and wrap up his entire body so as to stop him completely.

ozhawk66

the fnj wrote:

.

Someone made a point about knowing a linebacker who was 6’ 5” and is 325lbs, claiming he would be unstoppable on a rugby pitch.and more importantly he would not be able to maintain that bulk playing rugby.

There are no 325 lb linebackers.

Pherekydes

ozhawk66 wrote:

There are no 325 lb linebackers.

He was probably a corner...

ozhawk66

Bennett is healthy and appears to be ready to enter Vikings camp at 100 percent for the first time in two years. The running back recently was clocked at 9.91 seconds in a 100-meter race this spring, a time that would have been a fifth-place finish in the last Olympics in Athens, Greece; Minnesota running backs coach Dean Dalton told the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Lothaar

Apologies in advance for this long post, but I just had to throw in my oar…
I often find that the problem with rugby vs amfoot arguments is that one or both of the sides don’t really have a clue about the other sport (however, a few posters on this thread clearly know what they’re talking about and have given evenhanded opinions).
I played rugby for a few years and I watch it regularly. I currently play American Football and have watched it since I was 9 (yes, I’m Irish), and I have to say there are a number of similarities between athletes in the two sports. For instance, the Out-Half and the Quarterback. Both are responsible for making quick decisions and feeding the ball to teammates to run, or taking a large chunk of field position (QBs pass, Out-Halfs kick).
Then there’s the Props, who are rather similar to Offensive Linemen. Centres are like running-backs or linebackers.

The main difference between athletes in the two sports is that in rugby the players have a wider range of disciplines – Props, for instance, must sometimes carry the ball or make tackles. In amfoot, each player specialises for each position. The result is that runningbacks are better ballcarriers than Centres, and linebackers are better tacklers than Centres. But neither amfoot player has to do BOTH.
To argue over which sport produces better athletes is silly, as the different disciplines in each sport require different training regimes. Whether an American Football player can last 80 mins on a rugby pitch is immaterial – he doesn’t need to. If he was a rugby player, I’m pretty certain he’d train in a different way so that he COULD last 80 mins.
However, I do think the players in the NFL are, in general, better athletes than rugby players. Not because of the sport they play, just because of their athletic ability, which would have them excel at pretty much any sport they turned their hand to.

As for the ‘too many stoppages’ argument:
That’s quite similar to me saying I don’t like soccer because there is too much passing the ball around in defence. Or that I don’t like rugby because there are too many rucks. The stoppages in football are just long enough to give both teams time to regroup. In general, this is slightly longer than a ruck, but it leads to a much more strategic battle, as both teams can call a play to instruct every member of the team on the precise details of their next move.

Regarding the ‘rugby for pussies’ argument:
Rugby players wear helmets. They also wear shoulder pads. So, padding per se can’t be what makes footballers ‘pussies’ from a rugby perspective. Is it the amount of pads? Y’know, ELEVEN players died in the NFL the year before helmets became mandatory. Died. In one league, in one season. Has anything like that ever happened in rugby? No. And you know what would happen if it did? One of two things – 1) A severe reworking of the rules to make the game less physical or 2) Mandatory helmets. In essence, football is more physical and more violent than rugby and the pads exist to maintain that status quo. If the pads weren’t there, there would be a lot less contact and a lot more death.
When you tackle high in rugby, it’s a penalty. That’s unheard of in football. You can put every fibre in your body 100% behind a hit on any part of the ballcarriers body, without having to worry about him passing the ball off to a fullback shooting the gap. And, because the rest of the defenders don’t have to worry about the ballcarrier passing the ball, you can get 4 or 5 defenders making the hit at exactly the same time.

In conclusion, I don’t think American Football can be called rugby for pussies. I find that Americans often refer to rugby as being a ‘pussies’ game’. This is an opinion spouted by an ignoramus. Both games are very physical and both require a lot of athleticism. I think American Football is ‘tougher’ than rubgy and involves much harder hitting and the possibility of major injury. But I think that rugby is ‘rougher’ than football and you’re more likely to get a nasty gash or minor injuries, because of the nature of rucks and the lack of padding to protect from minor injuries.

spooiirt!!

[QUOTE=ozhawk66
Americans would just automatically assume anything different to football as having something wrong with it.
QUOTE]

Is the same not true for most Irish/ English rugby fans?
Anyway, the two sports are completely different.

Rugby hurts youre shoulders and chest more, whereas in football its your head and neck that absorb most of the impact.
Eg : last night at training me and a linbacker ran headfirst into each other, from about 10 yards apart. The impact made me see stars for a few seconds, my head hurt REAL bad, and feel close to vomiting. I usually get migraines if i get a hit like that more than once.

Now i admit im a wuss, i only get hits like that occaisionally, our Middle linebacker however, gets those kind of hits all the time, whenever he has a fullback charging at him. he got a concussion on sunday, and was puking dark coloured blood that evening.
But guess what, he was at training last knight, ready to go. but then again hes nuts.

spooiirt!!

Hey Lothaar whats up QB?
Hows your stira?

dwayne

Did someone mention a 325lb linebacker?!?

Vegeta

I'm 6ft tall, 80kg and pretty good on my feet, I've been doing kickboxing/MMA for about 3 years now and i'm used to getting hit, I consider myself way too slight a build to play either sport, saying that i'd play American football way before i'd play rugby. Not calling it a wimps game or anything like that i just feel that i might survive a game of football.

Has anyone seen the film Rudy????

spooiirt!!

Yeah, but youre bigger than rudy. Hes only about 5 foot 6

Saints#33

Didnt Jonah Lomu qiut the cowboys after two weeks because he couldnt take the physicality of football?

And from my years involved in football most rugby guys who get involved give up because they are used to breaking DOWN before impact and not breaking THROUGH.

Rugby is a contact sport..football is a collision sport...ones not better than the other,they are as different as chess and checkers imo.

J.R.HARTLEY

ARGINITE wrote:

I dislike the game due to the amount of stopages, otherwise its not to bad at all!

new enough myself but to me it seems that the stopages aren't such a major problem they are split 50/50, some we stay with the action and the commentators explain in detail what happened at whats the result of that play etc, my problem comes with the other kinds of stoppages, the ones where we go for a break or go back to the studio,that interruts the flow of the game, at leat if we are watching the teams switch or huddle and line up you don't feel like the game is being interrupted so much as when you get a barrage of ads in between downs

I wouldn't compare the two at all. Imo rugby is hardly a sport, more a pastime for overweight elitists who see it as a form of social climbing - it's no coincidence that the Celtic Tiger marked a new found interest in Munster and a propensity of red jerseys around the place.

RuggieBear

Deleted User wrote:

I wouldn't compare the two at all. Imo rugby is hardly a sport, more a pastime for overweight elitists who see it as a form of social climbing - it's no coincidence that the Celtic Tiger marked a new found interest in Munster and a propensity of red jerseys around the place.

You do your signature justice

LegacyUser

RuggieBear wrote:

You do your signature justice

ROFL Brilliant Ruggie, and what a game yesterday!

RuggieBear

RuggieBear wrote:

You do your signature justice

Benedict XVI

Deleted User wrote:

I wouldn't compare the two at all. Imo rugby is hardly a sport, more a pastime for overweight elitists who see it as a form of social climbing - it's no coincidence that the Celtic Tiger marked a new found interest in Munster and a propensity of red jerseys around the place.

Brilliant post Conor74, whether you mean it or not I agree 100% with the sentiment

Will

Ok eh Im trying to be fair about this. But what Conor74 said about rugby being elitest is exactly the same as the way American Football is seen in america in some respects. Jocks and all that. Same here with "rugger buggers".
I have played both sports, each has their own specific qualities and flaws...as every sport does.
The idea that the armour is there because they are wimps is a stupid comment. People dont wear them for the craic, it is there for a reason, to protect the player from the impact of the hits.
Also to say that rugby is hardly a sport is another ignorant comment, have you seen the irish or leinster team play recently!? Amazing quality and skill was shown there.
On the american football side of things you cannot deny that there is skill involved, ok depending on what position you play it may be displayed more, e.g Quarter Back throwing the ball half way down the field, or a Line Backer making a quality sack. Linemen also make a vital contribution to any team.
Anywho ive tried to remain fair on the whole rugby vs. american football thing. Each to their own.

Heart Break Kid

leave American football alone it is the only good thing america has ever produced. i hate all you rugars who compare rugby to american football.
here is something for you, american football players are the most educted players in the known sports world.

dl

Two totally different sports with the exception of an oval ball and even those are different... would you say that golf and soccer are the same because they both use a round ball, I think not! Better still... snooker & pool, both use similar equipment but totally different! Just give credit to each and every sport for what it is and if you don't understand it or dislike it then don't comment!

By the way, I've been listening to this debate for 20 years now... same old crap!

RuggieBear

Heart Break Kid wrote:

leave American football alone it is the only good thing america has ever produced. i hate all you rugars who compare rugby to american football.
here is something for you, american football players are the most educted players in the known sports world.

Sure they are.....all those really difficult courses the colleges put on (coupled with easy grading) to make sure they don't flunk.

http://www.fanblogs.com/lsu/005801.php highlights just one example

Baggly

oh yeah, that doesnt go in the big rugby schools.

RuggieBear

petermonaghan wrote:

oh yeah, that doesnt go in the big rugby schools.

Not the ones i know of

At the end of the day, the pupils in school still have to do the Leaving Cert. It's not as if the they will be passd just coz they played rugby.

spooiirt!!

RuggieBear wrote:

At the end of the day, the pupils in school still have to do the Leaving Cert.

:eek:

Diamondmaker

How can conor say Pro rugby players are overweight....implying that other sportsmen are more athletic. A prop may appear over weight but still has to have the stamina for 80mins. They are required to be increasingly mobikle these days

Personally I feel pro rugby players are some of the most rounded athletes there are. Give me a good argument how another team sports man requires a more complete range of skills and physical attributes....

Soccer:Do you think they have the bulk to take the hits!? , Basket ball: Broke in half by a tackle, Hockey, Olympic handball..........No sport bar AF compares.

They have to be built for speed and power and have to use a whole range of skills.

They need to be able to run as fast as a sprinter but be built as strong as boxer.
They need to be able to take a physical pounding that a soccer player could not dream of enduring.
I think its ridiculous to make conors suggestion.