American Football vs Rugby

greasedscotsman

After watching the "Sooperbowl" in a group including a couple of Americans the conversation obviously got onto which is the tougher sport, rugby or "football".

Opinions please...

godihatehills

Posted rugby but when you take into consideration that with all the body armour in american football they are essentially "weaponised" and can inflict some hefty injuries on each other. Also I would say League nastier than Union.

dynastarg9

Tougher sport, Ha! I don't even know why it needs a poll.
Some reasons why rugby wins hands down:

1: Rugby boots have aluminium sprigs - not flimsy plastic knobs
2: Rugby players don't wear pads, helmets and boxes.
3. The whole team has to run the ball down the length of the pitch, i.e. not like AM where there's only ever 1-2 people on the pitch running.
4. The rugby team plays the entire game. There's no offensive and defensive teams.

I could go on for a lot longer ;-)

asdfhjkl

Helmets were introduced because people died and armour was introduced because of too many injuries. It's not really a valid argument - I'd sooner stay healthy than be "tough" and go without it. Were rugby as hard-hitting as american football, they'd be wearing armour too. (Play both, can't really compare them other than they both use an egg shaped ball...)

dynastarg9

I know it's an old statistic, but there were 20 rugby players with major spinal column trauma per year in 2000 (in the UK). I can list a whole bunch of sports which are more dangerous than that silly American game. Even Cricket's more dangerous ;-)

akcc05

Mountain biking and road cycling. Which one is tougher?

Different, so can't really compare.

disgruntledgoat

Which Rugby?

League I would say shares more similarity with American Football given the 10m gap between the play-the-ball and the defense (apart from the 2 markers) allowing players to get up more speed prior to the collision. Liekwise each phase of play has a defined start and finish.

Outside of cycling, Rugby League and American Football are probably my two favourite sports. I would encourage anyone who thinks AF isn't a hard game to suit up and give it a go. I packed in after a year during which (at Corner Back/Safety) I broke 4 fingers and suffered 3 concussions. I played Rugby League as a junior and again in uni and that was hard, but the hits weren't as big as in American Football, primarily because everybody was wearing out towards teh end of a game. In Football, everybody is fresh pretty muc every play.

PBo

asdfhjkl wrote:

Helmets were introduced because people died and armour was introduced because of too many injuries. It's not really a valid argument - I'd sooner stay healthy than be "tough" and go without it. Were rugby as hard-hitting as american football, they'd be wearing armour too. (Play both, can't really compare them other than they both use an egg shaped ball...)

+1 on can't compare

too old to still play, but have played....

PBo

dynastarg9 wrote:

I know it's an old statistic, but there were 20 rugby players with major spinal column trauma per year in 2000 (in the UK). I can list a whole bunch of sports which are more dangerous than that silly American game. Even Cricket's more dangerous ;-)

the question was about toughness, not danger, not the same.

and what use is your statistic without a meaningful context or comparison?


but I tell you what - no way would I have wanted Courtney Walsh whipping one past my nose....

iainment

asdfhjkl wrote:

Helmets were introduced because people died and armour was introduced because of too many injuries. It's not really a valid argument - I'd sooner stay healthy than be "tough" and go without it. Were rugby as hard-hitting as american football, they'd be wearing armour too. (Play both, can't really compare them other than they both use an egg shaped ball...)

I used to have a book by Norman Mailer about American sport and in it he wrote about gridiron and the intro of padding, helmets etc and he said that injuries increased after the common use of them. Players got braver as they thought the padding and helmet would save them - they didn't.
Bit like the attitude of Volvo drivers.

Splottboy

Having played both, both are dangerous!
Difference with American Football is, you can get tackled/smacked "without" having the ball.

So, MORE people are getting clobbered per game. This would increase the number and frequency of injuries.

As far as the "Tougest" team sport, I'd say Australian Rules looks harder than Rugby League, as they wear minimal or even no protection at all... Strewth, Bruce!

Toughest Individual sport, Mixed Martial Arts or Boxing.

You need all the aspects of other sports, Speed, Strength, Skill, Agility, Power, Tactics, Flexibility, Endurance, but...You got some ugly grunt trying to rip your head off !!!!

TheStone

American Football is basically Rugby League, but you're allowed one pass forward
and can tackle off the ball.

Some other smaller diffs, 4 tackles reset every 10 yards, rather than 6 tackles no reset,
but very similar rules.

mask of sanity

Not a fan of either but at least rugby has more than five seconds of action before the adverts kick in again. American sports seem to be more about fitting as much advertising in then about having a sport to watch, so for that reason they're always going to be less interesting IMO.

Tom Butcher

Having never played American Football and having avoided playing rugby since school I would say rugby looks a lot tougher than American football.

Also re. the armour I heard the same - it can actually increase some injuries because it allows people to hit harder - though of course the fact that the average weight of the pros has increased by about 50% due to a mixture of diet, gym and steroids probably has more to do with it.

Frank the tank

dynastarg9 wrote:

Tougher sport, Ha! I don't even know why it needs a poll.
Some reasons why rugby wins hands down:

1: Rugby boots have aluminium sprigs - not flimsy plastic knobs
2: Rugby players don't wear pads, helmets and boxes.
3. The whole team has to run the ball down the length of the pitch, i.e. not like AM where there's only ever 1-2 people on the pitch running.
4. The rugby team plays the entire game. There's no offensive and defensive teams.

I could go on for a lot longer ;-)

I'm with those sentiments.

Frank the tank

mask of sanity wrote:

Not a fan of either but at least rugby has more than five seconds of action before the adverts kick in again. American sports seem to be more about fitting as much advertising in then about having a sport to watch, so for that reason they're always going to be less interesting IMO.

When the football world cup finals were held in the USA I believe they were trying to get the rules of the sport changed to quarters so extra advertising could be fitted in. :roll:

As they say 'round here "The Yanks would f**k a good cnut up".

seward4or5

Have only played rugby (union), but I thin the anwer you are looking for is that they are both tough!
Would be interested to see the statistics on major injuries - spinal concussion - for both sports.
In the past I would guess that there was a higher chance of getting a serious injury in AM as padding / helmets / breaks between plays made the intensity of hits higher.
On the other hand there was more chance of getting more superficial injuries in rugby from rucking (stamping) and shennanigans at the bottom of a ruck. Now, rugby is changing - rucking is almost completely outlawed, foul play tends to be picked up more, and there is massive focus on stopping eye gouging. At the same time the players are getting bigger and stronger so the hits are getting more in line with AM, and with it the chance of serious injury.

harpz

Obviously they are very different,
I find it hard to appreciate a sport where you can sprint for 3 seconds and catch a ball before getting flattened and then jump up and whoop and holler about how wonderful you were to catch a ball for 5 second then walk off the pitch and stand around with the 60 odd other members of your team.

THe tackling is different- In american football you put your body accross the front of the oncoming player blocking him and reducing his potential yardage. In rugby where you should always tackle with your head to the side or behind the player as you tackle them (or risk being knocked out)

I'd vote for Rugby league being toughest, though I prefer Union.

Rushie

The argument for wearing helmets and padding is a little like the argument that urban SUV drivers use i.e. bigger = safer. But of course if everyone's car is bigger then a collision is going to cause just as much damage as if everyone had smaller cars. If you're wearing armour and you tackle someone who's also wearing armour then the net effect is that the collision is the same as if neither of you was wearing it. I'd love to see American football without armour but they'd need to adopt the "can't tackle above shoulder height" rule from rugby to prevent neck & spinal injuries. The other argument against armour is that it makes it very difficult to have a casual game in the park, which is the breeding ground for the next generation of players. Another thing I'd love to see in AF is the removal of separate teams for offense and defense (as I believe it's spelled there). This would mean that you don't have to sit there for 5 hours to watch 80n mins of actual play. You'd also ensure the players were better all-round athletes and not just either big lumps or skinny fast boys.

My instinct tells me that rugby is inherently a tougher game but Martin Johnson rates AF as a tough sport so I'm not about to argue...

Aggieboy

Clint Eastwood is quoted as saying that rugby is tougher. That's good enough for me!!

fungus_the_muffin_man

seward4or5 wrote:

Have only played rugby (union), but I thin the anwer you are looking for is that they are both tough!
Would be interested to see the statistics on major injuries - spinal concussion - for both sports.
In the past I would guess that there was a higher chance of getting a serious injury in AM as padding / helmets / breaks between plays made the intensity of hits higher.
On the other hand there was more chance of getting more superficial injuries in rugby from rucking (stamping) and shennanigans at the bottom of a ruck. Now, rugby is changing - rucking is almost completely outlawed, foul play tends to be picked up more, and there is massive focus on stopping eye gouging. At the same time the players are getting bigger and stronger so the hits are getting more in line with AM, and with it the chance of serious injury.

In other words the RFU are trying to make union into more of a league game

proto

Nothing to do with toughness but .....

Many ears ago (and may no longer be relevent, if it ever was) I knew a guy who had played rugby for an American university. He said thet they sometimes played the gridiron team for training and practice games, out of season. He stated that for the first half the AF fellows ran rings around them. Faster, more skillful, better handling, better trained. However as the game progressed they hadn't the stamina to maintain their superiority and it used to come out about even.

Regarding the original question, I cfan't think many would be tougher than someone like Os du Randt

barriecusvein

proto wrote:

Regarding the original question, I cfan't think many would be tougher than someone like Os du Randt

pah, he is demolished by a small welshman



massive respect to scott gibbs, and im not even welsh.

bompington

It's not just the hits that determine how "tough" a game is - ask any front row forward! As a small (12st) prop in my school days, despite doing a lot of strength training (including some mean neck strengthening exercises) there were times that I really used to think I was just going to snap.
One aspect, as the Os photos show, is that in rugby, if you're one of the small guys you don't leave the field to let a specialist do the tackling.
As mentioned by Proto, stamina comes into it too - summoning up the willpower for a big tackle when you can barely stand is a different sort of tough altogether. That's no personal reflection on the AF plyers he talks about, they're just training for different demands.

disgruntledgoat

The link is way long so I'm not gonna post it but you can google it on "mississipi (sp?) Tribune".

Brett Favre's ankle and thigh after his last game. Ankle swelled to twice normal size, thigh is completely black with bruising. And he was still in the game, aged 40, throwing and running.most would not even be standing. You can't tell me that isn't tough, marshalling a team in a knockout game and making plays when you can barely stand.

Aggieboy

barriecusvein wrote:

proto wrote:

Regarding the original question, I cfan't think many would be tougher than someone like Os du Randt

pah, he is demolished by a small welshman



massive respect to scott gibbs, and im not even welsh.

Pah, he isn't, because that's Andre Venter!

blinddrew

And besides which, Scott Gibbs is not "small" in anyone's book...

The padding / armour one is interesting because it follows exactly the same pattern as boxing gloves did. The gloves were developed to protect the hand not the recipient of the punch and allow you to punch harder. The armour protects the wearer and allows you to tackle harder.
It's also disingenuous to say that rugby players (either code) don't wear armour. If you look at the professional game now most of them are wearing chest / shoulder protectors.

Overall, i'd go with Aussie rules being the toughest because:
1) no one wears any padding so you have a high risk of injuring yourself in a tackle
2) it's a massive, massive pitch and you have to be stupidly fit to keep going
3) letting fly a casual punch when the ref isn't looking appears to be pretty much de rigeur and certainly not a bookable offence.
4) having played rugby with a few AR players, they're all nuts!

Dgh

Rugby league is very similar to American Football in the principles of the game. But, because the game is played by the same players throughout (subject to rotations) and doesn't stop so often, would have to say its tougher.

Rugby Union is the most dangerous of the three, but dangerousness should not be equated with toughness. The scrum in particular is, frankly (I speak as a Welshman and a former tight-head prop) too dangerous. I personally don't want to to see people breaking their necks, and would happily sacrifice some toughness (for those who don't make the distinction) for safety.

verloren

For those complaining about the stop-start nature of American Football, it might say more about your understanding of the game than its merit. For example, Rugby Union seems to me like 20 seconds of throwing the ball behind you followed by a group hug while the ref shouts at you. I assume, however, that its my understanding that's flawed, rather than the game itself.

As to which sport is tougher, I've no idea, but as a single event I'd put the Ice Bowl up against any rugby match: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Championship_Game,_1967

PBo

verloren wrote:

For those complaining about the stop-start nature of American Football, it might say more about your understanding of the game than its merit. For example, Rugby Union seems to me like 20 seconds of throwing the ball behind you followed by a group hug while the ref shouts at you. I assume, however, that its my understanding that's flawed, rather than the game itself.

As to which sport is tougher, I've no idea, but as a single event I'd put the Ice Bowl up against any rugby match: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Championship_Game,_1967

Don't know whether it' urban myth or not, but many a game at Green Bay in the winter months are sub zero, and I've heared that even though oppo teams had large heaters on the sidelines, Lombardi wouldn't let the home team have them, to psyche out the oppo as to how tough they were

fungus_the_muffin_man

Dgh wrote:

Rugby league is very similar to American Football in the principles of the game. But, because the game is played by the same players throughout (subject to rotations) and doesn't stop so often, would have to say its tougher.

Rugby Union is the most dangerous of the three, but dangerousness should not be equated with toughness. The scrum in particular is, frankly (I speak as a Welshman and a former tight-head prop) too dangerous. I personally don't want to to see people breaking their necks, and would happily sacrifice some toughness (for those who don't make the distinction) for safety.

Interesting that you say that about the scrums. It's the one part of RL that has made a big compromise to saftey. In such as you very ever rarely see a contested scrum anymore. Infact to the point where most people now moan that they would like to see contested scrums returning as a scrum now seems nonsensical to some.