Rugby for wimps in armour....

Vikings

...cant believe I missed this thread starting up again!

dc69 wrote: »

Im not talking about playing it yourself,I doubt the same **** goes on in the NFL as the Irish league.Im talking about comparing the NFL to the Heineken cup and if you compare the 2 rugby is tougher.I have NEVER seen a serious injury,Blood,a fight or stamping in an NFL match and I have watched more than I can count.I dont know where you guys are getting this from.

Never seen a serious injury in American Football?

If you have watched more games than you can count then go back to google or you tube and have a quick search for Willis Mcgahee, Joe Theisman..actually just go here and you will see some for yourself.

I don't get your whole Rugby is tougher because there is fights and blood argument? I really don't understand where you are coming from with this one.

Theres a reason why there are no fights in the NFL - they are called rules. Players know not to do it because if they do it means their team gets penalised, in turn this makes their teammates annoyed with them not to mention coaches, then you might have the league on your back with a suspension on top of it, that results in the player losing game checks. Players don't want to do that! As jdiv said, average NFL career 5-7 years thats just 80-112 games... drop a few game checks and you will notice it come retirement time.

I'm not going to argue that one sport is tougher than the other because that is pointless. Sure we all now olympic showjumping is the toughest sport out there.

dc69, you just really seem to have some ill formed opinions of American Football for some reason.

Spaceman Spiff

jdivision wrote: »

The 40 yard dash is used by teams to measure a player's explosiveness. A quick start is key so the shorter space shows that. There's no point in timing an offensive lineman for example over 100 metres, he wouldn't run that far in a single play. The 40-yard therefore is a standard test that is relevant to all players actually playing the sport.

Please explain how 40 yards is a measure of explosiveness? How many players actually run 10 yards nevermind 40 on a given play? Two maybe?

In the past decade, only two rugby teams tested the 35m(40 yard sprint). Can anybody guess which ones? They were also the only 2 who tested the bench press but not the squat.

Vikings

Spaceman Spiff wrote: »

Please explain how 40 yards is a measure of explosiveness? How many players actually run 10 yards nevermind 40 on a given play? Two maybe?

Explosiveness is needed at every single position on the field in American Football. Pure speed and endurance isn't.

Offensive Line and Defensive Line, quickest off the ground has the advantage. Speed over distance doesn't even come into this equation.

The key to a good 40y dash is the start, get that right and the rest follows. That is the test for explosiveness. Thats why every position is tested by the 40yard dash.

Spaceman Spiff

Vikings wrote: »

Explosiveness is needed at every single position on the field in American Football. Pure speed and endurance isn't.

Offensive Line and Defensive Line, quickest off the ground has the advantage. Speed over distance doesn't even come into this equation.

The key to a good 40y dash is the start, get that right and the rest follows. That is the test for explosiveness. Thats why every position is tested by the 40yard dash.

It doesn't test explosiveness, it tests how fast you can run 40 yards, a skill as you mentioned is useless for somebody who doesn't even run 5 let alone 40. The start is just as important for the 100m dash or the 200m as it is for a 40 yard time. Rugby scrapped pretty much every sprint test ABOVE 30m because it wasn't an accurate test of explosivness (Canada and the U.S were the countries who still tested them up until recently).

Vikings

Sorry, didn't have much time posting that so couldn't get it all in.

The 40yard dash is not only timed over 40 yards. The players times are taken at the 10y, 20y and finally at the 40y line. This gives a pretty accurate representation of the players explosiveness. The better the first 10y time the more explosive the player. This would then be compared to the difference between the 10y and 20y time which would then be compared to the overall 40 time.

There are other drills used to test explosiveness but to a lesser extent. The 3 cone drill and 20 yard shuffle can both be used in this regard but again it would be to a lesser extent than the 40 dash.

tallaghtoutlaws

Not Sure what spacemans spiff angle is into this but I agree with him the 40 yard dash is a wasted test for NFL players but I will elaborate more than he does.

Firstly NFL wear pads and helmets on the field and it is scientifically known that even with great times padless matching these times with pads is near impossible.

Secondly there has never been a completely accurate way of defining the true time hence why NFL players get 3 chances in the Combine 1 by handheld speed gun and other by laser markers.

Thirdly even NFL players have come out and said that the 40 time isnt a true reflection of their football abilities and some of the greatest players of all time had average 40 times.

But I do agree it helps in explosive speed but to a lesser extent than other drills.

monaroCountry

ElDuderino wrote: »

American football is a far superior game than rugby. It is far more technical and is a much tougher and more physical game.

Are you sure about this? I admit that the game is much more specialized but both rugby and football is pretty technical. Also taking a dive is illegal in rugby and running to the sidelines to avoid tackles is a definate no no for both rugby codes.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

They are both different sports with different rules.The reason NFL guys wear helmet is because the type of tackling allowed in the NFL would never be allowed in Rugby. But that is not to say that Rugby isnt as tough either.

What type of tackling is that? Shoulder charge is definitely allowed in rugby league as is the horse-collar tackle. The illegal tackles in rugby league are the spear tackle (pile driver) whereby a player is picked up by a tackler and turned upside down the tackler then drops or drives the player into the ground head or neck first; the grapple tackle where 2 defenders tackle the player and the third attacks the head and neck area with a chokehold and forcing the player on his back by twisting the head/neck; coat hanger/elbow type tackle to the head/neck area. Apart from that it’s basically a free for all. There are less illegal tackles in rugby league than in American football.

Sav rocca an ex AFL player and now NFL player has said that his monster hit didn’t affect him and that the helmets and padding protected him from serious injuries. Clashing of helmets in football is less likely going to cause brain injuries or concussions, a hit like that in AFL/rugby league/union would have definitely caused serious head injuries. In the last two round of NRL (rugby league) there has been several players that continued playing even after a concussion.

dc69 wrote: »

obviously a rugby player cant play football, they are different sizes with different characteristics. Look il agree to disagree and say they are both hard sports.Just because only a handfull of Irish rugby players could play, does not mean its a tougher sport.

although ALOT of NFL rejects would make unbelievable rugby players,I cant believe clubs dont scout them.Look at that mcuffie lad i was talking about in another thread,he might not make it but he would be an unbelievable rugby player, could probably play 3 different positions.

I strongly disagree!!!!!!!! Both rugby codes has so many skill sets and requirements on a player that any (even the best) NFL player would find it very difficult to get in the top tier union/league team. In rugby every player must know how to run angles, defend as a unit, kick, catch a ball, how to be tackled, where in the field to be tackled etc. American football is so specialised that there are different players on defence and offence, there are punters that only see the game when they are needed to kick the ball etc. Rugby players on the other hand would succeed in NFL since they are usually great tacklers, ball runners, and knows how to take a bruising hit. Height wise rugby union would have a taller average, followed by football and league, weight wise its football, union and league – however weight/muscle gain shouldn’t be an issue especially with these big pacific islanders we have here in league and union.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Eh not its not especially when the hand hitting you is a 300 pound linemen using full force. And I had my nose busted by a fist punching my face cage didnt break but a full force fist hitting the helmet can hurt just as much as as no helmet and anyway when do rugby players ever legally punch each other anyway?? Ever see linemen with cut noses and lips or even wide receivers and ever ask yourself how the hell their faces are cut and bruised when they are wearing helmets. Or you see linemen or ball carriers slow to get up becuase the tackler or other lineman has taken a cheap shot.

Those 3 hundred pounders are not very fast on their feet, ive seen footage of those d-line guys warming up – they had their guts hanging out. League and Union forwards are infinitely physically fitter. Without a helmet definitely hurts more, there are tricks of the trade that players use, an accidental elbow or swinging arm, a hidden grapple tackle, a hidden punch in the scrum/ruck, an accidental knee to the face in most cases aren’t penalised……all a player have to do is make it seem accidental.

Vikings wrote: »

I don't get your whole Rugby is tougher because there is fights and blood argument? I really don't understand where you are coming from with this one.

Not only that but rugby especially league does combine the athleticism of football, the power of boxing, and the endurance of triathlon.

With the limited interchange (4-5) they have in league players must also endure pain and stay in the game, some players get stapled up in the field, one guy in union had his nuts sawn back and continued playing, several played during a concussion, other continued playing after a broken bone or a busted face.

You don’t have to be the fastest, biggest or tallest player to be tough. In my opinion you just need to be the one that continued playing even after being injured.

tallaghtoutlaws

monaroCountry wrote: »

Those 3 hundred pounders are not very fast on their feet, ive seen footage of those d-line guys warming up – they had their guts hanging out. League and Union forwards are infinitely physically fitter. Without a helmet definitely hurts more, there are tricks of the trade that players use, an accidental elbow or swinging arm, a hidden grapple tackle, a hidden punch in the scrum/ruck, an accidental knee to the face in most cases aren’t penalised……all a player have to do is make it seem accidental.


.

If you are going to Quote me at least read what you quoted:rolleyes: Where did I say those 300 pound linemen were faster or physically fitter than any rugby player. :rolleyes: If you had read any of my posts you would have read I never compared the two sports as I played and play both and I think its a pointless argument.

Oh and read this:

In both games it is permitted to bring down the player in possession of the ball and prevent them making forward progress. In rugby, unlike in American football, the ball is still in play. Players from either team can take possession of the ball. The tackled player must present the ball (release the ball) so that open play can continue.

Rugby union rules do not allow tackles above the plane of the shoulders. Only the player who has possession of the ball can be tackled. The arms of the attacker must also wrap around the player being tackled. If a maul or ruck is formed, a player may not "ram" into the formation without first binding to the players.

In American football, tacklers are not required to wrap their arms around the ball carrier before bringing him to the ground; in fact, the ball carrier is often "tackled" by the defender taking a running start and hitting the ball carrier to knock them to the ground. Tackles can also be made by grabbing the ball carrier's jersey and pulling him to the ground (though pulling down a ball carrier by the pads behind his neck is known as a "horse collar" and is illegal in the professional National Football League). If a ball carrier is stopped for more than a few seconds, the referee can blow the whistle, declare the player's forward progress stopped, and end the play even though the ball carrier is not actually tackled to the ground.

In American football, players are allowed to 'block' players without the ball, this is not permitted in rugby union and would be considered 'obstruction', resulting in a penalty.

And again I didnt want to argue because I play both sports but again there is a difference when you keep to the legal aspects of the rules.

Oh and Menarocounty maybe before jumping into a conversation you fully read every post before having your say might give you a bit of insight as to what others actually have been saying instead of quoting the last couple of posts.

tallaghtoutlaws

Oh and Menaorcounty whatever your name is the Tallaght Outlaws have 30 guys on the squad between the ages of 16 and 35. 16 of us have played or still play Rugby. In fact we have a few junior international players for ireland on our team and I posted your argument on our team forum and they all laughed at you. They agree with me yes both sports are tough yes they have similarities but both are as rough as each other. We all know the dirty jabs and punches and tackles happen but with in the legal rules some of the tackles performed by American Football players if used on someone not padded there would be some very serious damage to the body hence why both Union and league dont allow them so cop on.:rolleyes:

monaroCountry

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

We all know the dirty jabs and punches and tackles happen but with in the legal rules some of the tackles performed by American Football players if used on someone not padded there would be some very serious damage to the body hence why both Union and league dont allow them so cop on.:rolleyes:

Please educate me, what type of tackles are they?

Rugby union rules do not allow tackles above the plane of the shoulders. Only the player who has possession of the ball can be tackled. The arms of the attacker must also wrap around the player being tackled.

Tackles can also be made by grabbing the ball carrier's jersey and pulling him to the ground (though pulling down a ball carrier by the pads behind his neck is known as a "horse collar" and is illegal in the professional National Football League).

What your doing is picking and choosing between league and union to suit your arguments. In league a shoulder charge is definitely a legal tackle. Dummy runner can also be tackles with the referrers discretion.

Again pulling on the jersey and bringing the player down is also a legal tackle in league as is pulling on the shirt collar.

The only one you really have going for you is the blocking.

tallaghtoutlaws

monaroCountry wrote: »

Please educate me, what type of tackles are they?




What your doing is picking and choosing between league and union to suit your arguments. In league a shoulder charge is definitely a legal tackle. Dummy runner can also be tackles with the referrers discretion.

Again pulling on the jersey and bringing the player down is also a legal tackle in league as is pulling on the shirt collar.

The only one you really have going for you is the blocking.

You seriously have selective reading so here is my last say because I know mods will ban me after this.

And so you fooking read it again here are those rules again:

Rugby union rules do not allow tackles above the plane of the shoulders(And without a helmet this would lead to serious accidents) . Only the player who has possession of the ball can be tackled. The arms of the attacker must also wrap around the player being tackled. If a maul or ruck is formed, a player may not "ram" into the formation without first binding to the players.

Rugby LeagueIn both games it is permitted to bring down the player in possession of the ball and prevent them making forward progress. Play then restarts from the next down or tackle. In rugby league, it is common for the player in possession to 'off-load' the ball, passing out of the tackle (before forward progress is halted) in order not to use up a tackle and to keep the play alive. Shoulder charges are permitted were as in union they are not.


In American football, tacklers are not required to wrap their arms around the ball carrier before bringing him to the ground; in fact, the ball carrier is often "tackled" by the defender taking a running start and hitting the ball carrier to knock them to the ground. Tackles can also be made by grabbing the ball carrier's jersey and pulling him to the ground (though pulling down a ball carrier by the pads behind his neck is known as a "horse collar" and is illegal in the professional National Football League). If a ball carrier is stopped for more than a few seconds, the referee can blow the whistle, declare the player's forward progress stopped, and end the play even though the ball carrier is not actually tackled to the ground.

THIS BIT IN BOLD NOW READ ALL ABOVE PARAGRAPHS. i HAVE MARKED IN BOLD THESE TACKLES YOU ASK AND NOW IM DONE

Seriously play the fooking sport and then you will be educated I fooking hate people that judge something they only see on TV and have never played. Most of the last posts on here have gone off which sport is better or harder and accepted both sports are rough etc etc but its **** like you that come on havent a clue. Mods ban me if you like this guys is an obvious ****.

tallaghtoutlaws

monaroCountry wrote: »

The only one you really have going for you is the blocking.

See now this is why you need to learn to read again for fook sake :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tell you what come down to our practice on the 20th and I will get one of our rugby guys to level you American Football style and see if the gear isnt important afterwards. Dont talk about something you know nothing off.

monaroCountry

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

See now this is why you need to learn to read again for fook sake :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tell you what come down to our practice on the 20th and I will get one of our rugby guys to level you American Football style and see if the gear isnt important afterwards. Dont talk about something you know nothing off.

So going by your tirade, do helmets and paddings protect a player especially for head injuries better than a player without a helmet? I agree that paddings and helmets can and are being used as weapons but they are infinitely better at reducing head injuries (which in my opinion is more serious) than those without.

tallaghtoutlaws

monaroCountry wrote: »

So going by your tirade, do helmets and paddings protect a player especially for head injuries better than a player without a helmet? I agree that paddings and helmets can and are being used as weapons but they are infinitely better at reducing head injuries (which in my opinion is more serious) than those without.

Yes of course but by both Rugby League and Rugby Union rules a players head should not be involved in a tackle. If a rugby players head has been hit in direct contact 1 of two things happened the tackler performed an illegal tackle or the ball carrier dropped his head. We all know rugby players can get injured from mis timed tackles and blatant tackles that should never have been allowed but if an American Footballer failed to wear a helmet on a gameday he stands the chance death quicker than a rugby player due to the style of tackles allowed. i.e tackling above the shoulder plain or contact to the head due to AF players note having to wrap up to bring someone down and getting than running headstart.

BizzyC

The style of tackling in rugby vs football is very different.

After I played football for a season, I went back into the rugby season and nearly broke my neck cause I was tackling like a football player.

The fact is that the padding was made mandatory in the 1950's because too many people were getting killed playing the sport.

The tackles and hits are different. The only way you'll ever have a real basis on which to compare them is by playing both, which I have and I still wouldn't try because they are so different.

Lothaar

The whole point of this thread - even look at the title - is that there complete fools out there who peddle the common misconceptions about football. This isn’t about proving that football is tougher than rugby, it’s about rubbishing those misconceptions. They are different sports, and they are both tough.

Y’know, in the States, it’s the complete opposite. The American Football players ignorantly go on about rugby being a pvssy’s sport!

The catalyst there, as with here, is ignorance.

Anyone who thinks that NFL players couldn’t play rugby is ignorant. Ok – it would be very difficult for them to make the transition, because they may never have practiced the different skills required for rugby. However, they ARE outstanding athletes, and that is the universal currency for sport. They have been conditioned for football… but if they had been conditioned for rugby, there is no doubt that many of them would excel.

And the same goes for top rugby players playing American Football.

In summary: different sports; both tough; athletes are athletes.

heinzes9100

is it true if u get done for taking drugs in the nfl u only get a 2 week suspension if it is its truly disgraceful:mad:

tallaghtoutlaws

heinzes9100 wrote: »

is it true if u get done for taking drugs in the nfl u only get a 2 week suspension if it is its truly disgraceful:mad:

That has changed over the last few years.

BizzyC

The NFL nowadays has higher doping test standards than the Olympics.

RuggieBear

BizzyC wrote: »

The NFL nowadays has higher doping test standards than the Olympics.

source/link?

Rented Mule

heinzes9100 wrote: »

is it true if u get done for taking drugs in the nfl u only get a 2 week suspension if it is its truly disgraceful:mad:

That is not true at all.

Times have changed in the NHL with fines/suspensions increasing in size with each offense.


NEW YORK -- The NFL is going deeper into the wallets of players who get caught using steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.

Karlusss

Ten games doesn't seem a lot, but that's more than half a season. Relative to the amount of games played, that's more than baseball's 50 games.

tallaghtoutlaws

Karlusss wrote: »

Ten games doesn't seem a lot, but that's more than half a season. Relative to the amount of games played, that's more than baseball's 50 games.

And it could be a loss of some of the bonuses due to not fulfilling the required amount of games. People forget how short the NFL season is when comparing bans to other sports.You are spot on 10 games is a big deal to be suspended for.

ulviking#17

ok this is my two cents

before i start, I played Rugby for Shannon RFC, hurling at an underage county level and I play for the Vikings in UL.

I dont think that either rugby or football are for pussies, they are both tough games. However from personal experience you do get hit WAY harder playing football than rugby.

I think Rugby is a tough sport, there is a lot demanded of players with regard to physicality and fitness. the 50 minutes or so that the ball is in play you are jogging and occasionally sprinting and then every so often hit contact. The major thing I find is though that only the player with the ball and the one or two guys that go in to clear the ruck are the ones that get contact on a play, then the ball bogs down in a ruck, people reset and another 3 or 4 people on both teams have contact. In football usually all 11 defensive players and 10 offensive players (sometimes all 11, depends on the quarterback really) hit someone every play. this is really draining towards the end of the game.

c: Hits in rugby are made on the ball carrier only and as field position is not as important in rugby the tackles are, in the most part, designed to wrap the man up, not push him back. In rugby the perfect tackle is to take the man high around the chest so he cant offload and then get him to the ground facing towards your pack so its easier to turn over. In football the perfect tackle is when you line a man up, take him low and drive him 5 yards back where he came.

In my experience the hardest hits in football are totally alien to the rugby discipline anyway. On returns or crack blocks you could be looking at the ball carrier while sprinting down the pitch when a 15 stone guy catches you under the chin looking the other with a massive (and perfectly legal) block. I have been flipped head over heels with hits like that and been knocked unconcious. The worst injuries i got from Rugby were black eyes and bruised shoulders.

The other type of hit that shows that football is a hard hitting game is safeties on wide recievers. The reciever is looking at the ball (usually back over his shoulder) and running forward concentrating on the ball. Often a reciever will have to jump for the ball as well. This makes a massive target for a safety if he is in the right position because as soon as the reciever (or anyone else) touches the ball, the reciever becomes a legitimate target. So the reciever has a full head of steam going in the air one way and is unprepared for the hit, the safety has a full head of steam going the other way and is putting himself 100% into the hit. It makes for some spectacular hits and rugby will never have anything like that.

people will say, "oh but your wearing pads and a helmet", the pads cover the safeties shoulders to prevent them from breaking but they dont protect the WR ribs, neck, arms, back. Also the helmets are heavier than motorbike helmets and really are used more like weapons than protection.

the fitness thing is a load of bull as well, if im playing reciever and safety and kick returner for a full football game I would run 100 times further than i would playing out half or wing for a rugby match.

we have linemen who are 300lbs but they arent very good to be honest, the slimmer more athletic guys (a few of whom play prop in rugby) are much more effective.

They are both good sports, better than that soccer ****e anyday.

In conclusion, I like hitting people.

UL Vikings are playing the Dublin Rebels in St. Munchins College this weekend if anyone is interested, its going to be a good game.

jdivision

ulviking#17 wrote: »

The reciever is looking at the ball (usually back over his shoulder) and running forward concentrating on the ball. Often a reciever will have to jump for the ball as well. This makes a massive target for a safety if he is in the right position because as soon as the reciever (or anyone else) touches the ball, the reciever becomes a legitimate target. So the reciever has a full head of steam going in the air one way and is unprepared for the hit, the safety has a full head of steam going the other way and is putting himself 100% into the hit. It makes for some spectacular hits and rugby will never have anything like that.

*shudders at memory of your hit on Willie*

ulviking#17

hahaha ya that one was solid.

jdivision

He still held on though

ulviking#17

he did indeed. fair play to him. i probably would have dropped the ball and crapped my pants

looking forward to our game man. I hope ALSAA dont pull the plug this time or they will have 40 angry limerickmen hanging around and NOBODY wants that on their hands.

jdivision

If you saw the weather here yesterday you'd think there's a chance they would. You'll still have 40 players in a few weeks? Balls

Mweelrea

Mweelrea wrote: »

Nfl is for guys who call themselves hard but in reality are puffs

I retract this statement.
There's alot more to NFL then meets the eye, Its far more interesting and tactical then i had ever imagined previously.
Sorry for being ignorant, i'm now a convert!