Compromise Rules Rugby V's American Football

the Guru

OK I was watching the super bowl last night I found it very boring and I was speaking to my GF (huge football fan)and advised her that our game of rugby is more more exciting as they is no breaks we don't change all our players for each play , defence and attack etc and we are not padded up.

But if there was a compromise rules series how do you think would win and why.

cakehole

Line Backers and offence lines men are huge, i know rugby players would be considered big put these guys are 20 stone and can run...no contest in the scum, it would be broken every time...emith smith who used to play for the cowboys(running back) was 17 stone and could run 100 yards(i know its not metres) in his full gear under 10.5 seconds..imagine trynna stop him..rugby players would have more stamina as grid iron players only play in short bursts...so could be close

carpothepunk

Atari jaguar ftw:D

Jimi-Spandex

If the game was free flowing like rugby, they

It would depend on the rules of a compromise game, American football players wouldn't be too good at lateral passing.

If it was free flowing like rugby, they'd win if they survived the first twenty minutes.

Angels

Rugby players would win!!! American footballers underneath all that protective gear are not built up at all compared to our Rugby players here without a doubt.

seamus

Moved from AH.

cakehole

Angels wrote:

Rugby players would win!!! American footballers underneath all that protective gear are not built up at all compared to our Rugby players here without a doubt.

you what??? you know nothing if thats your opinion...american footballers are huge much bigger and way more built... th guys on the front line are 20 stone plus and are bulit for power..go on an NFL website and get some stats on these guys

shoutman

angels you are clearly wrong. American Football players are huge, whether or not they are as tough as rugby players i dont know. I know there have been players playin with broken ankles and stuff but you feel real pain when you are cut in half by a hard shoulder in your ribs while playing rugby.

I think it would be tight but with skills alone the rugby players would win.

Would be interesting though

Flukey

They may be big and give big hits, but they still go around wrapped up in cotton wool or like a Michelin Man. The Rugby players take it full on, with little or not protection.

American Football is a bit of a misnomer as the ball is hardly ever kicked. It should be called American Throwball, which a far more accurate description. It is boring to watch, which is why they have so many ad breaks and pom pom girls, to provide at least some entertainment. It takes hours for a game which which has only something like 40 minutes of actual "play", if you could even describe it as that. It is more like chess than a field game. It barely merits being called a sport. As well as renaming the game itself, they should call their annual big event: The Superbore.

J.R.HARTLEY

too many ignorant opinion to have any decent kind of discussion, they are two completely different games, rugby doesn't have large shoulder padding or helmets but it also doesn't allow tackling above the shoulders, which is a big part of the NFL game. half the people here are talking rubbish.

NDMARSHALS

As someone who has played both I still feel as I have said on another thread before you cannot compare both.

Compromised rules????? Of what how would that work 90% of all the tackles in american football would leave you on your death bed without padding pure ignorance again on most part of people.

As a 19 stone lineman I was knocked out by a safety half my size while he rushed our QB I turned late to try block him and he caught me offguard his head hitting my chest. If he did that in rugby a rib would have been broken and maybe more.

Look at the end of the day there are similarities between both sports but they are on two different levels none better than the other.

Man I hate this Football V Rugby thing.

Lothaar

NFL players would win in a compromise game, without doubt. They are the best athletes in the world and are unfeasibly fit/strong/fast/etc.

If there was a set of compromise rules it would have to include padding if it was to be any fun. If you take away the padding, you take away the intense violence of football... and you're left with rugby.

Flukey

Well there is not much "football" in so-called American Football. As I said, it would be more accurate to call it throwball. There is not a huge amount of kicking in rugby, compared to soccer - the truest form of football - but there is a lot more than in American Football, but then that wouldn't be hard. There is also a lot more open play. American Football is all stop start, more chess-like than like any field game. Rugby can be a bit stop start with rucks, scrums and mauls, but you do get a lot of open play in most matches. Of all the games that call themselves football, the American version is the one that is least appropriate. As I said, American Throwball would be more accurate.

fixer

who cares what it's called? call it Gridiron, hell call it Murderball if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change Lothaar's point about the fitness, strength and speed of NFL players.

6'7", 325 pounds running a 40 yard sprint in 5 seconds? 6'5", 295 pounds 4.85 second 40? 6'0", 200 lb 4.4 seconds?

and just because you don't see these guys running for distance or duration on the pitch each week on tv doesn't mean they *can't*.

psycrow

these topics should be deleted as soon as they are posted. its ridiculous trying to have a conversation about it and this hasnt moved much off the topic that has been stickied and talked about in depth already on this forum

Lothaar

Flukey, you make an excellent (albeit completely irrelevant) point. However, the name 'American Football' isn't so much a misnomer as it is evolutionary residue. First there was football (soccer). Then Webb Ellis picked up the ball and invented a new sport, in a school called Rugby School. Thus, it became 'Rugby Football'. Then the Americans gradually adapted it and evolved it, changing 'Rugby Football' into 'American Football'.
The name is not describing what happens in the game, it's describing the American adaptation of an existing sport.

FlutterinBantam

Interior linemen in Gridiron are there not to be moved.... Tony Siragusa ,when asked his weight usually said between "40 and 60".... He ignored the other 300!.. but everyone knew what he meant.

Also Gilbert Brown x Green Bay nose tackle was 360-370.... 'Ol Gil couldnt move too far,but he didn't have to....his job was not to be moved....


The point...Oh..... totally different games/skills/tactics/physical attributes.....not possible to compare:)

BizzyC

Angels wrote:

Rugby players would win!!! American footballers underneath all that protective gear are not built up at all compared to our Rugby players here without a doubt.

You have to be kidding!

The fact is that President Rosevelt made padding mandatory in American Football because so many people were getting killed playing the sport.
Show me a rugby player who's vertabrae have become fused togethor from hitting other people, I've met a couple of Football players who have.

I've played both, and the fact is that Rugby is more aerobically difficult but football is much more physical, and a tougher sport.