Why aren't there more injuries in rugby?

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

d-gal

Jimmy Numerous Weevil wrote: »

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

Well done, you have picked 2 ridiculous videos, no time into the match, no previous play, how much they had exerted before.
And no I didn't do my test figures with just Irish people. You have again contradicted my point, your taking 10 guys each from say each team, not just one for one. Oh and never has one pro soccer player been recorded under 10 seconds, so thats complete BS, get your facts right.
I say over the last 2 years I have tested around 4 soccer teams and 3 rugby teams. rugby has been faster overall
I have yet to come across a concrete record that a pro soccer player has gone under 10.2, open to correction

Sangre

Anyone ever wonder why football players get stick for diving/faking injury to gain an advantage for their team, yet, when a rugby player infringes in the ruck with hands or lying on the wrong side he is usually praised?

d-gal

d-gal wrote: »

Well done, you have picked 2 ridiculous videos, no time into the match, no previous play, how much they had exerted before.
And no I didn't do my test figures with just Irish people. You have again contradicted my point, your taking 10 guys each from say each team, not just one for one. Oh and never has one pro soccer player been recorded under 10 seconds, so thats complete BS, get your facts right.
I say over the last 2 years I have tested around 4 soccer teams and 3 rugby teams. rugby has been faster overall
I have yet to come across a concrete record that a pro soccer player has gone under 10.2, open to correction

how do you know how far it was into that match?

You can tell by looking at them that some of them run flat 10's or lower.why would info about times be released by their clubs?

In america some of the nfl players were recorded fast enough to get into the olympics in athletics.

You are testing amatuers not professionals.

Dennis Rommedahl ran the 100m in 10.2 and he is white,so you can bet that some of the african players have run it lower than 10.

If you compare the flair players in the teams i.e the back 3 in rugby to the strikers and wingers in football,theres no contest that the football players would be faster average.

damnyanks

Sangre wrote: »

Anyone ever wonder why football players get stick for diving/faking injury to gain an advantage for their team, yet, when a rugby player infringes in the ruck with hands or lying on the wrong side he is usually praised?

Not really if you think about it they are very different actions.

Sangre

they're both unsportman behaviour.

anonymous_joe

Sangre wrote: »

Anyone ever wonder why football players get stick for diving/faking injury to gain an advantage for their team, yet, when a rugby player infringes in the ruck with hands or lying on the wrong side he is usually praised?

Because oh my God footballers are like so ghey! They['re not real men!

damnyanks wrote: »

Not really if you think about it they are very different actions.

In no way are they different.

Sangre wrote: »

they're both unsportman behaviour.

Yeah, but it's bad form to point that out. Cos y'know, rugby players are angels, and footballers demons.

Chucky the tree

Sangre wrote: »

Anyone ever wonder why football players get stick for diving/faking injury to gain an advantage for their team, yet, when a rugby player infringes in the ruck with hands or lying on the wrong side he is usually praised?

Expect when it's Richie McCaw obviously, because then it's a disgrace to the sport on how he continuously get's away with it and he's a cheat etc etc throw in more anti NZ bull**** etc etc.

siochain

Jimmy Numerous Weevil wrote: »

how do you know how far it was into that match?

You can tell by looking at them that some of them run flat 10's or lower.why would info about times be released by their clubs?

You can tell by looking? That’s how your backing up the facts!!!
Only thing you can tell by looking is the video is running faster then its original speed.

Henry on his day is a class player. I seen him play in anfield and his pace and skill on the ball was worth the ticket money alone and i was there supporting Liverpool. But no way is he sub 10 sec.

Ginger

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.

A tackle will injure you, if you dont know what you are doing or the tackler doesnt. The most dangerous thing on the pitch is someone not knowing what they are doing. Bad tackles break necks, end careers etc.. Done wrong you will know about it.

One of the first thing you learn playing rugby is how to fall.

Ligaments, tendons get destroyed by people doing tackles wrong, high and low and a wrenching movement for example.. its a nasty thing.

A direct comparison of the sports is like comparing basketball and rugby.. you do different things and there are different injuries.

Also its possibly (and more likely) a mental thing in rugby.. no one wants to stay down. you get up and make sure that you hit the person that put you down harder. Part of the sport is only staying down when you are really hurt.

anonymous_joe

Ginger wrote: »

A tackle will injure you, if you dont know what you are doing or the tackler doesnt. The most dangerous thing on the pitch is someone not knowing what they are doing. Bad tackles break necks, end careers etc.. Done wrong you will know about it.

One of the first thing you learn playing rugby is how to fall.

Ligaments, tendons get destroyed by people doing tackles wrong, high and low and a wrenching movement for example.. its a nasty thing.

A direct comparison of the sports is like comparing basketball and rugby.. you do different things and there are different injuries.

True enough. The vast majority of people playing at the top know well what they're meant to do. That can only reduce injury levels.

Also its possibly (and more likely) a mental thing in rugby.. no one wants to stay down. you get up and make sure that you hit the person that put you down harder. Part of the sport is only staying down when you are really hurt.

This is the bit I don't agree with.

When a footballers goes down injured, he's not a (insert whatever insult you want) he's just cheating. He's doing that to help his team win, which is the only moral point that counts in competitive sports in reality.