OT: Go Saints

Clever Pun

lost_in_thought wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

DDD, Lit I do suggest you watch a bit of rugby league, it's quite akin to american footy (as you mentioned lit) and can be really exciting.. again it's just a case of getting into how the tactics work

I've watched it, even played a bit of it. Just plain not as good as Union, or 'proper rugby' as it's so rightly called...

Agreed totally

nic_77

Clever Pun wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

*spoiler* would have been nice for everyone who recorded it.
I thought I'd be safe on a cycling site

but at the same time clicking on a thread about the game, you're asking for trouble

Didn't really have to click on a thread titled 'Go saints!' posted after the game had finished. Nevermind!

Clever Pun

nic_77 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

*spoiler* would have been nice for everyone who recorded it.
I thought I'd be safe on a cycling site

but at the same time clicking on a thread about the game, you're asking for trouble

Didn't really have to click on a thread titled 'Go saints!' posted after the game had finished. Nevermind!

How's
*spoiler* Go Saints
any better??

nic_77

Clever Pun wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

*spoiler* would have been nice for everyone who recorded it.
I thought I'd be safe on a cycling site

but at the same time clicking on a thread about the game, you're asking for trouble

Didn't really have to click on a thread titled 'Go saints!' posted after the game had finished. Nevermind!

How's
*spoiler* Go Saints
any better??

"*spoiler* superbowl" would've worked for me!
It's not really a big deal, it meant I could fast forward through the breaks...!

College games are the best - I travel a lot in the US, and it's amazing the coverage they get!

Beeblebrox

Oddjob62 wrote:

Here is a good reason for padding.

In rugby if you are chasing the guy with the ball, unless somone blatently cheats you are not going to get hit.

In Amfoot however....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD-6mflD_WA

Sort of... before the padding, the injuries in American Football were analogous to the rate/severity of any form of rugby today and apparently the tackling style was very similar to rugby. With the padding came serious injuries that you'd never see in rugby (outside of the freak front row stuff), such as spinal damage. This is because as in boxing, padding allows the other person to hit you harder. Whether you're the ball carrier or not doesn't make much difference.

Really, American football is a variant of rugby league with the two notable exceptions of being able to tackle anyone and being able to throw forwards. It looks different largely because the padding allows for sillier higher impact collisions.

Personally I don't like it much, mostly because the stop/start nature of it. I can't see any reason to it once you dispense of the adverts. Also, it's not a sport I'd like to play as the padding is an excuse to be dangerously violent.


Edit - The Who were good though.

shouldbeinbed

The reason for the padding is the speed these guys are running at and the sheer bulk they have to hit you with.

There's a number of US pro footballers (usually the wide receivers or the backs that go with them for the long passes) can run 10 second 100meters and a few have represented the USA at International and World sprinting level. think Usain Bolt + 2 stone barelling into you at full pelt. You'd need padding to survive intact and let him do it again 30 seconds later. The little players are the size of Martin Offiah and would leave him for dead in a straight out sprint.

Most of the offensive and defensive linemen are 20 odd stone and more, They are trained, built and primed for a short huge burst of power driving up and into you. They tend to be fat in the same way that Vinokourov has chubby thighs.

Generally for cornerbacks and safetys; the defenders down field against the long passes; the rule is (was ?) that there is no contact allowed until the incomming ball is within 10 yards of the receiver, then you can make fair contact to interfere with his attempt to catch it or try to catch it yourself - excessive force, simply thumping him or pulling the facemask is not allowed and sees a flurry of flying dusters.


DDD: I suspect if you asked a non cyclist to explain the intricacies of team tactics and the sacrifices of the domestiques in a major stage race, you'd get completely blank looks and comments about it just being a bunch of blokes riding bikes & how can there possibly be tactics.
The game is pretty easy to watch and understand when you know what you're looking at. Rugby Union is a total mystery to me.

Theres a healthy & long established UK Gridiron scene with teams all over the place.

scally56

Heres my view on American Football.

I love it. I've played it for 8 years now and haven't stopped wanting to play it. I can't comment on it being better/worse than rugby as i've not played rugby (my school didn't play it). I first started playing it when i joined Uni and now play for a local team. I've represented GB and played in Europe and have loved every moment of it. The one thing that most people i talk to about AF is the breaks. But you need the breaks in play to be able to play the game. I suppose the best way of describing the game would be "its chess but with live pieces".

Some people i read on here were on about college vs NFL. In my opinion college wins hands down. Purely due to the fact these guys are wanting that big contract and will perform every single week, not saying that the NFL guys don't but there just doesn't seem to be that determination like in college.

If any of you want to see a live British game then go to www.bafl.org.uk or if you live in London go to Finsbury park in April May time and the London Blitz (national champs) start their european campaign. Word of warning its not NFL and not college, but these guys are good!

Simon

Oddjob62

scally56 wrote:

I first started playing it when i joined Uni and now play for a local team. I've represented GB and played in Europe and have loved every moment of it.

Who did you play for?
Me...
Nottingham Outlaws 97-02
GB Bulldogs 00, 02

Not played since leaving uni though.

greg66_tri_v2.0

shouldbeinbed wrote:

The reason for the padding is the speed these guys are running at and the sheer bulk they have to hit you with.

Don't forget the helmets. When I played around with one in a sports store I was frankly scared at the thought of being clocked in (say) the ribs by one of those things with 280lbs behind it moving at speed. Dat would fcuk you up good, man.

cjcp

Is it right that you can tackle in AF by launching yourself, take-off stylee, at the ball carrier, but in rugby, you can't?

Beeblebrox

Greg66 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

The reason for the padding is the speed these guys are running at and the sheer bulk they have to hit you with.

Don't forget the helmets. When I played around with one in a sports store I was frankly scared at the thought of being clocked in (say) the ribs by one of those things with 280lbs behind it moving at speed. Dat would fcuk you up good, man.

So you need the padding and helmets to avoid being hurt by the padding and helmets... It's a vicious cycle which, while reducing minor injury, allows much higher impact and dangerous tackles to take place.

As for their size/speed, I'm sure there's no major physiological difference between professional players of any contact sport... although as American Footballers get a recovery between plays, I would guess they go all out for those bursts.

It just seems to make everything much more dangerous.

cjcp wrote:

Is it right that you can tackle in AF by launching yourself, take-off stylee, at the ball carrier, but in rugby, you can't?

Not specifically in law, but there are numerous safe tackle laws. Critical ones are not to tackle above the line of the shoulders, don't take the tackled player over horizontal and it is the general responsibility of the tackler to ensure the tackled player's safe return to ground.

_Brun_

Fact of the day: Americans like big things smashing into each other.

Clever Pun

cjcp wrote:

Is it right that you can tackle in AF by launching yourself, take-off stylee, at the ball carrier, but in rugby, you can't?

rugby I know about... you have to 'hit' on or below the shoulders and you must engage your arms in the tackle (wrap around the player you're tackling) as shoulder checks/barging is not allowed. you can dive into the ball carrier if you want...

PBo

Clever Pun wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Is it right that you can tackle in AF by launching yourself, take-off stylee, at the ball carrier, but in rugby, you can't?

rugby I know about... you have to 'hit' on or below the shoulders and you must engage your arms in the tackle (wrap around the player you're tackling) as shoulder checks/barging is not allowed. you can dive into the ball carrier if you want...

i find it bizaare though that so many extra yards are made by AF receivers/backs because they manage to deflect a take off stylee hit. i'm always sceaming at the screen "wrap with your arms idiot"

PBo

cjcp wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The sack is most spectacular when the QB doesn't see it coming.

E.g. Joe Montana getting clattered in, I think, the 1991 or 92 NFC Championship game against the NY Giants. Result = knackered shoulder (and I'm not sure he ever played again; certainly wasn't the same bloke). Was it Lawrence Taylor who was the sackor?

i'm a giants fan - remember this well, as it was a precursor to the "norwood - wide right!" superbowl.

It was leonard marsall

cjcp

PBo wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The sack is most spectacular when the QB doesn't see it coming.

E.g. Joe Montana getting clattered in, I think, the 1991 or 92 NFC Championship game against the NY Giants. Result = knackered shoulder (and I'm not sure he ever played again; certainly wasn't the same bloke). Was it Lawrence Taylor who was the sackor?

i'm a giants fan - remember this well, as it was a precursor to the "norwood - wide right!" superbowl.

It was leonard marsall

That's the one! Ta. I imagine Montana was seeing stars after that.