American football = sissy rugby?

[Ryukaze 0]

That would be like taking something like rugby, and turning it into American football, Aka. 'rugby for pansies'

:-D

I'd like to see ONE of those 150lb rugby players come out and try to play in a real game of "rugby for pansies" and have that same opinion. (Thats why most of them make for great punters or kickers :-D )

Edited September 26, 2006 by Ryukaze

[Jejima 1,427]

That would be like taking something like rugby, and turning it into American football, Aka. 'rugby for pansies'

:-D

I'd like to see ONE of those 150lb rugby players come out and try to play in a real game of "rugby for pansies" and have that same opinion. (Thats why most of them make for great punters or kickers :-D )

Well with all that padding that they are given, I don't think too many rugby players would mind playing a game of American Football for a bit of fun. They probably wouldn't do very well at it though. Largely due to the 'Forward Pass' rule.

How many American Footballers would be willing to remove all of their armour, and play a game of rugby (League or Union rules)? Or Australian Rules football? Or (the most violent game I've watched live to date), Gaelic Football?

Edited September 26, 2006 by Jejima

[_the_mind_ 0]

considering that the QB for tampa had his spleen removed because of internal damage yesterday, i dont think people realize "all those pads" are to keep from dieing on the field, not to make it a sissy game. ...when two guys run at eachother head on running at 4.4 40 yard dash speed straight into eachother, people dont realize the force generated. they often dont try to miss, just run the other guy over. necks get broken (which happened last week to a player) and people get hurt 4real. take a few hits like that, you wont think its for pansies. the 250lb-350lb defender(usually less then 4% body fat) who is lightening fast and only cares about knocking you out, while starting to run from 30 feet away to get up to speed before hitting you, is not something you want to run into. but the "pansies" do it 40-70 times a game.

i would not demean(SP?) rugby, but people DIE playing american football. is that common in rugby(i really dont know)? a college player died today from a game over the weekend (check ESPN.com if you dont believe it). players become crippled for life in one play and its all over. that may happen in rugby too, but dont act like the pads in american football make it for sissies, the pads are to make sure someone doesnt end their career on every single play

so in just this last week ( a random time) ....one college kid died today, a Pro QB had to have surgery to remove a ruptured spleen that was the result of the hits(yesterday), and last week a guy broke his neck on the field. ....sissies those guys are with all that "armor". the only "armor" they wear is the helmet, everything else is thin plastic with a pad under it. .....the speed of the game is what makes the injuries so terrible. i garuntee you could not sprint like an american football player. there is no way rugby players hit that fast or hard because their game is not geared around speed like american football is. the speed makes for great velocity in the hits. and there is no "armor" on the legs, nor the stomach, nor back, nor arms, and the head is still subject to whiplash. and you would probably be surprised how many of the NFL players WOULD take off all the pads and play other forms of football. they have killer instinct, and the pads dont change him. i mean you can act like they are out there playing ball in a suit of feathers, but thats as ignorent as saying sumotori fight in diapers.

Edited September 26, 2006 by _the_mind_

[aderechelsea 125]

you are comparing apples with oranges here .....

these are two completely different sports.

[sumofan 6]

i would not demean(SP?) rugby, but people DIE playing american football. is that common in rugby(i really dont know)? a college player died today from a game over the weekend (check ESPN.com if you dont believe it). players become crippled for life in one play and its all over. that may happen in rugby too, but dont act like the pads in american football make it for sissies, the pads are to make sure someone doesnt end their career on every single play

I see your point, I should have expressed myself differently.

But I think it is exactly 'because' they wear protection that they have these injuries. (hence, the sissy remark)

Rugby players don't have those, so a game of rugby will be more focused on gameplay and speed, while AF relies (in part of course) on sheer force and power.

People don't do the things you describe in rugby because it would mean people dying each game.

I have not much knowledge about either AF or rugby, but an Englishman once told me that rugby causes less injuries than soccer, simply because of the lack of protection. in general, it makes the players more careful about what they are doing on the field.

[Hidariashiyama 0]

Having played both American football as quarterback and division 1 rugby at lock, I can tell you that both are equally punishing. While the quarterback generally doesn't get beaten down like a running back, it does hurt to take a hit from a 280 pound lineman. I did break my elbow during a practice though as a result of a hit. I remember my first game in rugby...I caught the kick-off, looked up and was immediately hit. I lost a part of my tooth and a contact lens.

However, most of the time in rugby they teach you tackle a certain way and ruck a certain way and everything has a "way" of doing it. In American football, you just get the guy down in any way you can as long as you don't rip off their head.

[Jakusotsu 6,052]

an Englishman once told me that rugby causes less injuries than soccer, simply because of the lack of protection.

No, that's because soccer players are the real sissies. (In a state of confusion...)

[Jesinofuji 11]

Another thing to consider is the fact that in American football often take hits from behind or while off balance, like right after making a leaping catch. There's a big difference between taking a hit coming at you from the front and taking one you never see.

[Azumashida 1]

you are comparing apples with oranges here .....

these are two completely different sports.

I wouldn't say that, since American football originates from rugby, and I don't think there is a similar relationship between apples and oranges.

The games are quite different, but if you compare them with soccer for instance, they look quite alike. For instance, you wouldn't imagine a rugby star (whatever his position) to raise interest in scouts from soccer only through displaying his skills playing rugby. OTOH, Jonah Lomu was allegedly contacted by some NFL teams at some point - although he admittedly never went there - and AFAIK a number of foreign American football players (at least at college level) have a rugby background. Richard Tardits, the only French player in the NFL ever, for instance, first developed as a rugby player (he was a junior international). And he was a linebacker, not a kicker.

[aderechelsea 125]

the fact that there are only just those few examples of players making the transition proves my point. Those two sports are very very different.

different "balls", different rules, different strategy, different body types, different gameplay ....

[Takanorappa 97]

I caught the kick-off, looked up and was immediately hit. I lost a part of my tooth and a contact lens.

I remember that play. ...but you left out one crucial detail. As I recall, you tossed the ball away as soon as you saw three guys bearing down on you - say in about 1.5 seconds. There may even have been a scream reminiscient of Macaulay Culkin running down the hallway in "Home Alone" ;-) (Mono-ii...) Edited September 27, 2006 by Takanorappa

[Kaihayaiha 0]

Another thing to consider is the fact that in American football often take hits from behind or while off balance

This is especially true if you play quarterback for my alma mater.

[bigfatsumoass 0]

I too come from the fairly unique position of having played football and rugby. I think only Hidariashiyama and I should be aloud to have any say on this subject because if you haven't been there you don't know, you are just showing your nationalism and ethnocentricity in a subtle way. I agree 100%, "both are equally punishing". But they are very different games. In football everyone is a specialist. If you are a blocker that's your whole job, blocking. Runners, run, kickers, kick. For this reason the fastest runners in football are faster than the fastest rugby players. The strongest man in football would be MUCH stronger than the strongest in rugby ... ect ... In rugby however, everyone must be functional, usually adept, in almost every aspect of the game. They are Jacks-of-all trades. The slowest rugby player is much MUCH faster than the slowest football player. The weakest football player (no doubt kicker) is not as strong as the weakest rugby player. In a rugby game you get hit 15 times and sometimes (in large part due to law of averages) get hurt. 15 hits on one football game would send 3 or 4 men to their graves.

Sissy's are the men who play neither!!

[sumofan 6]

I too come from the fairly unique position of having played football and rugby. I think only Hidariashiyama and I should be aloud to have any say on this subject because if you haven't been there you don't know, you are just showing your nationalism and ethnocentricity in a subtle way.

Everyone is entitled to have a say. That's why they call it a discussion: so that everyone can express his opinion, expert or not.

Otherwise I could just as well say that you are not entitled to voice your opinion on computing / computers because you haven't been programming software for the last 9 years, like I did.

(assuming of course that you are not a programmer, and that we were discussing computing related stuff)

Sissy's are the men who play neither!!

Lots of sissies in the world then, as only > 0.01% of the world plays either.

;-)

[bigfatsumoass 0]

Perhaps you are right, I should not be entitled to voice my opinion on computing / computers because I am an idiot (at least when it comes to computers, baking, spelling, girls and a few other things) and am pretty sure programmers are witches. If I gave my opinion on computing it would be a) wrong and b) misleading. Perhaps I should have said that people should listen with greater attention to Hidariashiyama and I (just my opinion, I have no idea how Hidariashiyama feels... but I bet he feels good, all those sports must make for big ripply mussels). I hope I have not offended you with my sissy crack (assuming you are not in the non sissy 0.01%). Please PLEASE dont voodoo up my already mysteriously (magically??) fricked computer.

I am sissy enough for this entire page! Or is it a room?? . . . Site? . . . Blog?

[sumofan 6]

No worries. No offense was taken, and I will not put a spell on your computer (In a state of confusion...)

You are right that it makes sense to pay more attention to expert opinions.

An no, I am not one of the non-sissies.

In the course of my life, I have done

Judo

Athletics

Badminton

Volleyball

Ju-jitsu

Squash

Kendo

But no rugby or AF.

[Kotoseiya Yuichi 3]

Soccer? The game is football. Football & American football. Not soccer & football.

[Jejima 1,427]

If you removed the armour from the American football players, would they play the game in exactly the same way?

If no, then perhaps the armour is not only for protection, but also for offense?

[sumofan 6]

If you removed the armour from the American football players, would they play the game in exactly the same way?

If no, then perhaps the armour is not only for protection, but also for offense?

After the first game day, half the players would be dead or crippled.

The armour allows them to attack even harder.

[aderechelsea 125]

The armour allows them to attack even harder.

i think this was exactly why Jejima wrote that ... :-(

[Ratpack 0]

Lets not forget that american football was played for many years without "armour". Just take a look at any old photo and you will see many players bareheaded and at first with only leather caps and light padding. In fact modern rugby, far from being the protection-free zone that many claim is now riddled with players wearing scrum caps and padded jerseys. American football could quite easily be played without the protection, as it was for many years. the helmet is the only really "armour". the other pads mostly protect a player from the helmet or shoulder pads.

If there were no "armour" the game would not change fundamentally in any way. The only change you would see is that the tacking player wouldn't be able to launch himself into the player tackled. rather he would drag his oppenent to the ground a la rugby. However as inches count much more in american football than ruby i think the development "armour" has been a natural evolution. If you tackle a player at a goal line stand but his momentum carries him across the plane then that would hand too much advantage to the offense. Such situations, where a team starts the attack on the goal line, just do not happen often in rugby, and where they do there is a scrum to give that fair power -v- power battle.

The game without pads would change fundentally the way its played,contary to your claim.The vunerablity of lighter projection would alter the senses normally accustomed in a more battle worhy theatre of war.