Why aren't there more injuries in rugby?

kickupthehole

how come in football, theres usually at least a couple of injuries a match, and people going off in a stretcher is also a fairly regular occurence, yet in rugby, you have 16 stone blokes running into each other for 80 minutes and you rarely see anyone injured or being carried off in a stretcher. Does it just appear this way because play doesn't stop for injuries in rugby? Or does the added bulk of rugby players make it difficult for them to get injured?

murphym7

Very simply put, Rugby isn't a girls game and football is. It's a game played by real men who need to be told when to get off the pitch when there is blood poring from some gaping wound in their head.

I gave up watching football over 10 years ago, there was too much money in the game with clubs winning based on how much money they invested in their squads. Players diving all over the place just makes me sick.

penguin00

very true!..says the rugby player:D

[Jackass]

I'd say if we're talking "real" injuries there probably is more in rugby.

If we're talking about a game Ronaldo is playing in, then there is about 15 to 20 times more injuries in football.

CliffClav

The majority of "injuries" that you see during a football match are not injuries as they are attempting to cheat the ref into giving them a free. Once a player stays down in football they must leave the field of play, even if they need it or not. This is not the case in rugby. Also as possession is so important in rugby, there is no way in hell a teammate or opponent is going to potentially give the ball away by stopping the game. So if a player in rugby stays down he is punishing his own team mates, as play will continue regardless. In football there is some stupid unwritten code of kicking the ball out of play, which is done in the name of sportsmanship even though all it does is encourage the opposite. But yeah premiership players are pansies also.
Personally I would have to say that there are more injuries in rugby. I for example have sustained the following injuries from playing rugby.
Broken finger
Broken wrist
Broken shoulder
Dislocated shoulder *2
Broken neck
numerous joint injuries, sprains etc.

To be fair football gets its fair share of knee injuries, but broken bones and dislocations are rare enough.

zAbbo

"Football players spend 90 minutes pretending they're injured, Rugby players spend 80 minutes pretending they're not injured"

Pretty much sums it up, plus the conditioning and physical requirements for Rugby are very different.

old boy

its a different type of training, preperation, etc. the two cannot be compaired.

Sangre

Tbh, I'd much rather be rugby tackled then tripped from the side/behind running at full tilt.

anonymous_joe

Anyone letting loose the old 'footballers are ghey argument cos rugby guys are hardcore' is verging on moronic.

Rugby playes are by and large bigger. They're slower and heavier. Very rarely are their tendons and ligaments put to the test. A tackle will not injure you, it will knock you to the ground and you'll get up again.

Football is played at a much higher pace. Players are faster and a lot leaner. A footballer running with the ball is quite often on the very edge of what's capable in terms of balance. When someone like Ronaldo goes flying when someone tips him, he's not just diving. In all likelihood he's running so fast that the slightest touch will put him off balance.

Stev_o

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Anyone letting loose the old 'footballers are ghey argument cos rugby guys are hardcore' is verging on moronic.

Rugby playes are by and large bigger. They're slower and heavier. Very rarely are their tendons and ligaments put to the test. A tackle will not injure you, it will knock you to the ground and you'll get up again.

Football is played at a much higher pace. Players are faster and a lot leaner. A footballer running with the ball is quite often on the very edge of what's capable in terms of balance. When someone like Ronaldo goes flying when someone tips him, he's not just diving. In all likelihood he's running so fast that the slightest touch will put him off balance.

Dunno about that if you look at 7's and the likes of Kenya who are the skinniest rugby players iv ever seen they rarely get a crap load of injuries when playing the likes of NZ Samoa Fiji etc etc

anonymous_joe

Stev_o wrote: »

Dunno about that if you look at 7's and the likes of Kenya who are the skinniest rugby players iv ever seen they rarely get a crap load of injuries when playing the likes of NZ Samoa Fiji etc etc

But they're not as lean or skinny.

Football's physically probably more demanding than rugby. There's a lot less scope to rest etc. It also tends to require more agility, which leads to twisting etc which often causes injuries that wouldn't ever happen in rugby.

Stev_o

anonymous_joe wrote: »

But they're not as lean or skinny.

Football's physically probably more demanding than rugby. There's a lot less scope to rest etc. It also tends to require more agility, which leads to twisting etc which often causes injuries that wouldn't ever happen in rugby.

Again i dunno the average weight, height and general build of a footballer bar but i mean every time i see this lot play i sware that most of them will be broken in two

brianthebard

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Anyone letting loose the old 'footballers are ghey argument cos rugby guys are hardcore' is verging on moronic.

Rugby playes are by and large bigger. They're slower and heavier. Very rarely are their tendons and ligaments put to the test. A tackle will not injure you, it will knock you to the ground and you'll get up again.

Football is played at a much higher pace. Players are faster and a lot leaner. A footballer running with the ball is quite often on the very edge of what's capable in terms of balance. When someone like Ronaldo goes flying when someone tips him, he's not just diving. In all likelihood he's running so fast that the slightest touch will put him off balance.

Slower than what? I don't think there's any need to look for figures, but rugby players' 100m numbers are very very good, certainly on a par with soccer players.

Secondly their tendons and ligaments aren't put to the test-which test? I'm sure they are, but since most rugby players are training with weights and carry more muscle mass than soccer players, they have stronger ligaments, tendons and bones, all of which should help reduce injuries. It may be true that soccer players are given more space to run, but if anything that means they are slower than rugby players, who need short sharp bursts of maximum speed, each run has to be full effort.

A soccer player will always have the option of lobbing the ball across to the other wing. Also Ronaldo doesn't have to contend with ankle taps ito of balance, he doesn't have to contend with much tbh, its not a very physical sport, and to say that he is some sort of finely tuned running machine that the slightest tip will put him off is really doing an injustice to the sport and to him.
If he doesn't have the balancing capabilities to stay up after a shoulder or attempted tackle, why is he on the pitch?

anonymous_joe

brianthebard wrote: »

Slower than what? I don't think there's any need to look for figures, but rugby players' 100m numbers are very very good, certainly on a par with soccer players.

Secondly their tendons and ligaments aren't put to the test-which test? I'm sure they are, but since most rugby players are training with weights and carry more muscle mass than soccer players, they have stronger ligaments, tendons and bones, all of which should help reduce injuries. It may be true that soccer players are given more space to run, but if anything that means they are slower than rugby players, who need short sharp bursts of maximum speed, each run has to be full effort.

A soccer player will always have the option of lobbing the ball across to the other wing. Also Ronaldo doesn't have to contend with ankle taps ito of balance, he doesn't have to contend with much tbh, its not a very physical sport, and to say that he is some sort of finely tuned running machine that the slightest tip will put him off is really doing an injustice to the sport and to him.
If he doesn't have the balancing capabilities to stay up after a shoulder or attempted tackle, why is he on the pitch?

One or two wingers are comparable to footballers in terms of speed. In general though, there'd be little contest.

Look, think to yourself about playing both. I know I would run differently playing football than if I was playing rugby. Ankle taps are extraordinarily rare in rugby, in football you are constantly getting little taps and nudges to you when you're balance is a lot more precarious.

Rugby playes have bigger stronger muscle, which adds weight, reduces stamina and reduces speed. That's inevitable.

In terms of ligaments and tendons - weights in a controlled environment is different to your hamstrings going. And when you look at guys who need speed in rugby, such as wings and centres, injuries like hamstrings are probably as common as in footballers. The bigger slower guys aren't ever going to be quite as on the edge in terms of speed and balance as a footballer or a back.

I'd also say that in football you see guys throwing their legs into challenges etc, where they can do a lot of damage to themselves, where a rugby players movements are probably less viguoress (spelling? ^^) in that you won't be throwing a leg out, which is always going to be supported by another leg which can then be twisted/damaged, whereas you might throw an arm out, which isn't going to get as damaged.

brianthebard

:rolleyes: You've clearly made your mind up, but let me ask you, if soccer players are so fast, why do sprinters look more like rugby players than soccer players? There was a thread on this recently in the fitness section and Vainokolo's sprint figures are 10. something, at 17 stone I think. Its clear from your belief that muscle mass reduces speed and stamina that you don't really know what you are talking about here, but someone more knowledgeable than me might show you just how wrong that post is. You don't seem to get that weights "in a controlled environment" (why that should matter I don't know-should they be doing power cleans in the wilderness or something?) is what protects against injuries. You seem to have conceded the point on tendons and ligaments, so I hope you will read over the rest of your post and realise there isn't much that's accurate about it. I would hate to think that the myth of added muscle mass means decreased speed is being perpetuated, when the truth as shown by rugby players and sprinters is staring you in the face.

remus808

kickupthehole wrote: »

how come in football, theres usually at least a couple of injuries a match

Wendyball players are soft.

javaboy

I really wish people would stop using Ronaldo as a representative example of soccer players in general. He is faster than most, more skillful than most, dives more than most and is more petulant than most. Most people who play soccer are nothing like him.
Soccer is not a "girl's" game as somebody said earlier. The problem I reckon is that referees in soccer have very little respect. A lot of that is their own fault. If they imposed rugby style rules where only the captain speaks etc. and any dissent is nipped in the bud, we might see a different story but for whatever reason, the referees' association is reluctant to bring in any zero tolerance policies.
So basically referees have become pushovers in the modern game. Players are encouraged to dive and feign injury because they'll get something out of it. All you have to do is look at a few lads playing football amongst themselves without a referee to give free kicks every two minutes for the slightest thing and you can see that it's not a game for pussies.
The professional game has definitely gotten worse as regards faking and diving and the perceived weakness of referees and the refusal to use video evidence are contributing to that.
In summary the sport is not a "girl's game" but the top level of the pro game is heading that way.

anonymous_joe

brianthebard wrote: »

:rolleyes: You've clearly made your mind up, but let me ask you, if soccer players are so fast, why do sprinters look more like rugby players than soccer players? There was a thread on this recently in the fitness section and Vainokolo's sprint figures are 10. something, at 17 stone I think. Its clear from your belief that muscle mass reduces speed and stamina that you don't really know what you are talking about here, but someone more knowledgeable than me might show you just how wrong that post is. You don't seem to get that weights "in a controlled environment" (why that should matter I don't know-should they be doing power cleans in the wilderness or something?) is what protects against injuries. You seem to have conceded the point on tendons and ligaments, so I hope you will read over the rest of your post and realise there isn't much that's accurate about it. I would hate to think that the myth of added muscle mass means decreased speed is being perpetuated, when the truth as shown by rugby players and sprinters is staring you in the face.

Hey, I'm just going by what I know myself.

Sprinters are extraordinarily specialised. Could a sprinter run that fast for 80 or 90?

I'm perfectly open to being wrong. I don't even know if there are more injuries in football over rugby. Or vice versa.

Muscle mass doesn't reduce speed (although it can) but it does reduce the ability to continue display speed over a long period of time.

brianthebard

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Hey, I'm just going by what I know myself.

Sprinters are extraordinarily specialised. Could a sprinter run that fast for 80 or 90?

I'm perfectly open to being wrong. I don't even know if there are more injuries in football over rugby. Or vice versa.

Muscle mass doesn't reduce speed (although it can) but it does reduce the ability to continue display speed over a long period of time.

Soccer players don't run that fast for 90 mins. Please explain in detail how muscle mass can reduce speed.

Chucky the tree

brianthebard wrote: »

:rolleyes: You've clearly made your mind up, but let me ask you, if soccer players are so fast, why do sprinters look more like rugby players than soccer players? There was a thread on this recently in the fitness section and Vainokolo's sprint figures are 10. something, at 17 stone I think.

Exception to the rule, for every 17stone Vainokolo you have 10 17stone Marcus Horans. The 100m stats of of a football team would be vary higher then that of a rugby team. As for injuries I dont know if there is more, but I'd say injuries like pulled hamstrings,groins, calves etc would be higher in soccer. As Sangre said I'd personnally much ather be tackled at full speed then have someone sliding in at my ankles running full speed.

anonymous_joe

brianthebard wrote: »

Soccer players don't run that fast for 90 mins. Please explain in detail how muscle mass can reduce speed.

Brian O'Driscoll would be the most obvious example I can think of.

Goodluck2me

if you were allowed to foot tackle in rugby there would be way more injuries.

In rugby you are tackled by someones hands and arms, in soccer it's their studs and boots generally.

I don;t agree there are more injuries in Soccer though, there is nearly always one injury sub per game in Rugby, not so in Soccer.

hobochris

I have to disagree with the notion that soccer requires more stamina.

Try getting tackled at full speed, getting up (winded(just winded if your lucky)), sprinting to the other side of the pitch, fighting for the ball in a ruck (where you give it everything, i.e. using all your muscles in your body at full strength, not just your legs) against the guys on the other team who are contesting with their full strength, Then after taking a few knocks there run to the next ruck for the same thing to happen again (repeat this multiple times and you get an idea of what a rugby player goes through in a match).

While rugby players are probably heavier with muscle mass, they run rings around soccer players when it comes to endurance and stamina.

the Reason there doesn't appear to be as many injury's in rugby is that as said above if you down injured your not doing your team any favors, so if you can you get back up. Also one of the first things you will learn when starting to play rugby is how to protect yourself in tackles, rucks etc...

gcgirl

hobochris wrote: »

I have to disagree with the notion that soccer requires more stamina.

Try getting tackled at full speed, getting up (winded(just winded if your lucky)), sprinting to the other side of the pitch, fighting for the ball in a ruck (where you give it everything, i.e. using all your muscles in your body at full strength, not just your legs) against the guys on the other team who are contesting with their full strength, Then after taking a few knocks there run to the next ruck for the same thing to happen again (repeat this multiple times and you get an idea of what a rugby player goes through in a match).

While rugby players are probably heavier with muscle mass, they run rings around soccer players when it comes to endurance and stamina.

the Reason there doesn't appear to be as many injury's in rugby is that as said above if you down injured your not doing your team any favors, so if you can you get back up. Also one of the first things you will learn when starting to play rugby is how to protect yourself in tackles, rucks etc...

Brill post I myself have played soccer gaa camogie and most recently rugby ! With rugby tackle wise it's very hard getting knock after knock and your better off going in to a tackle 100% as oppose to ducking out cos you will only get injured plus line outs as well i lift which zaps a good lot of energy out of me and my shoulders are sore for a couple days after !I played attacting midfielder/stricker for most of my soccer career and in rugby I do as much running as I did in soccer ! It's a bit like marmite some like it and some hate it soccer /rugby should be enjoyed there are different kind of sports!

Mr.Applepie

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Brian O'Driscoll would be the most obvious example I can think of.

I think the constant hamsting tears might have slowed him down more than adding more muscle:(

CoachBoone

Sillyness comparing the two sports anyway. The physiques and skill set or each sport are entirely different, its like comparing cycling with american football.

Injury wise, I would say its quite even for injuries sustained, its that the culture of how injuries are viewed and treated are different. Soccer culture dictates that going down and staying down is ok for any type of injury. Rugby is different unless the injury is much more serious thats why I'd say you don't "see" as many injuries in rugby as in soccer.

I play both fwiw and I hate it when some little bitchy winger stays down because he got a shoulder or w/e, similarly I hate it when a macho rugby player keeps playing with strained muscles or w/e as he is then a liability to himself and the team.

handsomecake

i agree with op. i played rugby for 16 years .never injured apart from a dead leg.
play astro turf with my friends, broke my ankle twice. sprained both many times. broke my finger playing 11 a side in dublin. broke my arm. dont know what it is about football but your knees and ankles get minced

anonymous_joe

CoachBoone wrote: »

Sillyness comparing the two sports anyway. The physiques and skill set or each sport are entirely different, its like comparing cycling with american football.

Injury wise, I would say its quite even for injuries sustained, its that the culture of how injuries are viewed and treated are different. Soccer culture dictates that going down and staying down is ok for any type of injury. Rugby is different unless the injury is much more serious thats why I'd say you don't "see" as many injuries in rugby as in soccer.

I play both fwiw and I hate it when some little bitchy winger stays down because he got a shoulder or w/e, similarly I hate it when a macho rugby player keeps playing with strained muscles or w/e as he is then a liability to himself and the team.

Paul O'Connell against New Zealand?

CoachBoone

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Paul O'Connell against New Zealand?

There are always exceptions. Using them to disprove a general theory is pretty pointless.

Gelio

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Rugby players are by and large bigger. They're slower and heavier.

Yeah, because Jason Robinson never beat 10km/h :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I don't think people realise how fast rugby is.

anonymous_joe

ajeffares wrote: »

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Rugby players are by and large bigger. They're slower and heavier.

Yeah, because Jason Robinson never beat 10km/h :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I don't think people realise how fast rugby is.

How fast some of it is.

Gelio

anonymous_joe wrote: »

ajeffares wrote: »

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Rugby players are by and large bigger. They're slower and heavier.



How fast some of it is.

What do you mean?

Sangre

CoachBoone wrote: »

There are always exceptions. Using them to disprove a general theory is pretty pointless.

He was agreeing with you.

anonymous_joe

ajeffares wrote: »

What do you mean?

That for every very fast back there's a slow forward. Footballers are a more consistent shape. There's not as much difference between a winger and a centre back as there is between a prop and a winger.

Gelio

anonymous_joe wrote: »

That for every very fast back there's a slow forward. Footballers are a more consistent shape. There's not as much difference between a winger and a centre back as there is between a prop and a winger.

In pro rugby all the forwards are expected to be very fast

anonymous_joe

ajeffares wrote: »

In pro rugby all the forwards are expected to be very fast

Did you see Niall Ronan's try on the weekend? ^^

They aren't all and can't all be very fast. I know props are very fit etc, but that doesn't mean they're all capable of sprinting past wingers does it? ^^

premierstone

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I know props are very fit etc, but that doesn't mean they're all capable of sprinting past wingers does it? ^^

No it doesnt cos then they would be wingers surely

monaghanbiffo

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Did you see Niall Ronan's try on the weekend? ^^

They aren't all and can't all be very fast. I know props are very fit etc, but that doesn't mean they're all capable of sprinting past wingers does it? ^^

Nor can many soccer centre backs or goal keepers outrun their winger team mates.

Your argument is idiotic!!

premierstone

monaghanbiffo wrote: »

Nor can many soccer centre backs or goal keepers outrun their winger team mates.

Your argument is idiotic!!

How is it idiotic, the point he's making is that the difference overall in Rugby would be far greater than in Soccer

awhite07

Rugby is a mans game!!!!

Chucky the tree

monaghanbiffo wrote: »

Nor can many soccer centre backs or goal keepers outrun their winger team mates.

Your argument is idiotic!!

You really think the avergae 100m times of a rugby team would be better then that of soccer team, or even close?

dRNk SAnTA

Come on it's obvious why theres more injuries in football!

Playing football week-in week-out puts a lot more stress on leg joints and muscles. The sport relies on legs and rugby is in no way similar. You don't see many footballers breaking their arms but the injuries you see regularly are knee ligaments, hamstrings, ankles and bones in the foot.

I'm not saying that football takes more stamina, but footballers definitely sprint a lot more than a rugby player does and can run as much as 12 or 14km in a match. When you run as much as a footballer it leads to muscle loss.

It is quite frankly idiotic to ask if footballers need to run so fast why don't they look like 100m sprinters. They need to be able to run fast for 90 minutes! A footballer needs to be more like a marathon runner if anything! Tell me how many long distance runners look like Vainikolo then?

Let me make it clear that in no way am I saying that being a footballer is tougher than a rugby player. I'm just saying that a footballer's injuries are focused on their legs and rugby just isn't like that.

BTW, if you think about it, it's the rugby players who sprint a lot who end up getting being injured more persistently. Look at BOD or Jason Robinson's hamstrings.

RONOC08

there are alot of injuries if u watch a rugby game but the players just get treated on the pitch while play often continues then afterwards they just get up and get on with it like players sometimes get a bang in the head go off get stictches then come back thats how dedicated they are

RuggieBear

RONOC08

RuggieBear wrote: »

fair enough but usually do you see that happen in football

siochain

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Come on it's obvious why theres more injuries in football!

Playing football week-in week-out puts a lot more stress on leg joints and muscles. The sport relies on legs and rugby is in no way similar. You don't see many footballers breaking their arms but the injuries you see regularly are knee ligaments, hamstrings, ankles and bones in the foot.

I'm not saying that football takes more stamina, but footballers definitely sprint a lot more than a rugby player does and can run as much as 12 or 14km in a match. When you run as much as a footballer it leads to muscle loss.

It is quite frankly idiotic to ask if footballers need to run so fast why don't they look like 100m sprinters. They need to be able to run fast for 90 minutes! A footballer needs to be more like a marathon runner if anything! Tell me how many long distance runners look like Vainikolo then?

Let me make it clear that in no way am I saying that being a footballer is tougher than a rugby player. I'm just saying that a footballer's injuries are focused on their legs and rugby just isn't like that.

BTW, if you think about it, it's the rugby players who sprint a lot who end up getting being injured more persistently. Look at BOD or Jason Robinson's hamstrings.

funny how you mention idiotic.

Playing rugby week-in week-out puts a lot of stress on all joints and muscles.

I'd be very interested in see the stats of a flanker in terms on number of sprints and KM's covered in a match compared to soccer.

Your statement about BOD and JR, some people just have an imbalance and are prone to certain injuries.

worth a watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DICdXTPYgpA&feature=related

Chucky the tree

RONOC08 wrote: »

fair enough but usually do you see that happen in football

The lack of blood substitutions in soccer would be a big reason for this.

siochain wrote: »

I'd be very interested in see the stats of a flanker in terms on number of sprints and KM's covered in a match compared to soccer.

This is the best I could find, pages 37 for soccer and 910 for rugby. Pretty old though.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=VsB-9847SA4C&printsec=frontcover

damnyanks

The demands from both sports are incredibly different.

You see a consistency in players of soccer because their job is pretty much consistent. The only exception is the goalie and you can see that in hwo some of them quite portly or can keep playing at the highest level into their mid to late thirties which is less common for outfield players.

In rugby different positions demand very different attributes. A prop and a winger do very different jobs thus they display different attributes. You dont really need a fast prop - but you need a fit prop that can eventually get to most of the break downs.

Rugby has far more broken bone type injuries because it is far more physical. But when they twinge a muscle much like a soccer player would they take time off.

I think being a (good) forward in rugby definitely requires far more stamina than a soccer player. They are constantly at the breakdown, getting involved in very physical activities and then doing it all over again 25 seconds later after passing the ball out to a bunch of lazy, incompetent, retarded backs who like to kick and drop the ball.

d-gal

I have trained both types of athletes. Rugby players do have a better fitness rate, both anaerobic and aerobic. Soccer is a much more free flowing game, hence why they run more and there is little to no contact.
As of who is faster, you could get the backrow and backs of rugby and their sprint figures would be higher (again I have tested both these). Including props and second rows is stupid, they have a completely different job on the pitch and more focused on other things than sprinting.
As for injuries, ankle injuries are much more common in soccer due to pattern movements of the sport. Shoulder, neck and hip injuries are more common in rugby. The reason people think there are much more injuries in soccer is because of diving, rolling around and basically general toughness to physical contact. Perfect example was the Man U right back rafael going off this morning because of a 'shoulder' injury. Rugby players do get injured more overall, they spend much more time on the treatment table than soccer, AFTER the match, During the match it is simple refusal to show a weakness and to shake it off, their is a very little percentage of pre-cautionary substitutions.

Stev_o

Just wondering for those who have a better insight into football then us rugby fans making assumptions what kind of recovery programs they have in terms of after match recovery. Most of us know that the day after a match for rugby would involve a god damn huge meal at every opportunity with a emphasis on a high protein and carbs meal. Then followed by ice baths on and off with pool work. Is it the same for soccer or what?

d-gal

d-gal wrote: »

As of who is faster, you could get the backrow and backs of rugby and their sprint figures would be higher (again I have tested both these).

You must be having a laugh if your saying backs are faster than football players.

Habanna for example is regarded as the fastest yet he runs a high 10 second 100m,same with rockococo etc.
Tonderai Chavhanga is currently the fastest player in rugby and he ran a 10.27 when in school.

At his peak Henry/cisse currently agbonlahor and countless others are as fast as him and some would be faster than any rugby player to ever play the game,these guys would be running very low 10's and I would bet that some of them run high 9's.

Im presuming you did your test figures with irish people,who are not fast as a race,so its flawed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p93mxSU2bJc this is Chavanga

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWT7f_YI8t0&feature=related henry