Rugby vs American Football

[Jackass]

I know people have enjoyed making comparrisons to the two sports in the past and I came accross the below video on youtube which is kind of interesting.

Personally, I'm sceptical about the findings....the rugby player hit another human, who he's tackling and putting down (i.e. Dump tackling) so that's got too be taking away a huge amount of the force of the hit, where as the "football" player is hitting a crash test dummy, on a tackle frame, being supported at the back, which allows him to tackle through the dummy at full tilt without having to line up the victim and without having to have any concern for the impact.

If they had gotten the rugby player to line up a tackle bag, he could dive straight through it, just like the football player could.....so they should have had the same format for tackling....either both on tackle bags...or both lining up somebody who is receiving a pass for accuracy...

Still, interesting to see and I know the football jocks think American football is far more physical and hard hitting, but I don't know The debate can rage on. Personally, I still think rugby hits are bigger in actual game play.

Stev_o

Whats the biggest NFL hit ever recorded?

Everyone RU fan knows that this, is probably considered the biggest hit to be seen on mass by fans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF8ctts9LOk

Would be interesting to compare it to it's NFL counter part.

Stealdo

Lots of apples v oranges stuff there...

dummy run vs real life situation
static target vs moving target
hitting a dummy vs hitting your pal
NFL player vs US Club player


interesting stuff though, I'd always have thought that the actual impact hit in NFL is harder simply because of the lack of wrapping the arms (hence it not being allowed) but even allowing for the above 3 times is a lot more impact. They never gave a lb per sq inch comparison though, which would have been the fairest measure.

Stealdo

Also - I'd say Scott Gibbs v Os Du Randt in 97 would be a good one from the rugby side.

mink_man

different sports in their own rights

ScrubsfanChris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59doAVmMExU

up them Schteps

Different sprots agreed, but I watch american football sometimes and 90% of the time their tackles are weak jersey grabbing attempts. I think that over the period of a game a rugby player will make more 'impact'.

mikedragon32

I've played RU, RL and American Football and can safely say that the hits in Football are much harder, however it is less physically demanding.

My reasons for saying this. In Football, you hit a guy with all your force knowing that you're protected and to some extent he's protected too depending on how/where the contact is and also that play is over soon after.

In League, you make the hits knowing that you and your opponent have little or no protection but that if the tackle is made, play pauses for the roll back.

In Union, as with league you make a hit but play continues beyond the tackle unless there's a penalty or other stoppage.

That's a maybe over simplified analysis, but it should give an idea.

In my experience the hits in Football are much harder on the recipient if they are well executed by the tackler, padding notwithstanding.

[Jackass]

Couple more vids actually....some MASSIVE hits in them!! XD

UsedtobePC

Having played both sports I have a couple of comments derived from my own experience.

In both cases the tackles were on fairly exposed bodies and although we all know sh*t happens and you get one of those hospittal passes every now and again, there's not as much impact in the experiment as there is on two bodies running at full tilt against each other with the ball well under control.

The AF tackler attacked a fully static target which is unfair against the RU player as the latter has to control his energy/balance in order to estimate his target's position and adjust his own (all this happens in micro-seconds but still has an impact on the final result).

In relation with Jackass' comment on the tackle bag, you will notice it's not a tackle bag but a sledge and i can tell you they're pretty heavy mofo's. Hence, the force they oppose to the tackler's impact can be equal to that of a moving object if the equation Force = Mass * Acceleration is balanced during the experiment. In real life you couldn't tackle a sledge without pads cause it has a metal frame and you would crush your collarbone (as the vid says, the pads dissipate the impact plus the fact that they have a steel arch at the shoulder)

From my experience I got injured more from tackling in AF but that was due to the fact that every now and again head to head collisions happen.

OldJay

Ali v Tyson...

Gelio

Pretty even I'd say but rugby prob hurts more

Stev_o

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59doAVmMExU

FYP

Tim Robbins

mikedragon32 wrote: »

I've played RU, RL and American Football and can safely say that the hits in Football are much harder, however it is less physically demanding.

My reasons for saying this. In Football, you hit a guy with all your force knowing that you're protected and to some extent he's protected too depending on how/where the contact is and also that play is over soon after.

In League, you make the hits knowing that you and your opponent have little or no protection but that if the tackle is made, play pauses for the roll back.

In Union, as with league you make a hit but play continues beyond the tackle unless there's a penalty or other stoppage.

That's a maybe over simplified analysis, but it should give an idea.

In my experience the hits in Football are much harder on the recipient if they are well executed by the tackler, padding notwithstanding.

In Rugby you are supposed to lead with the arm as well, whereas in AF you can fly with your shoulder.

d'Oracle

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In Rugby you are supposed to lead with the arm as well, whereas in AF you can fly with your shoulder.

Plus as long as the carriers knee hits the deck its a success in NFL.
No need to hold a player in the tackle.

mikedragon32

Tim Robbins wrote:

In Rugby you are supposed to lead with the arm as well, whereas in AF you can fly with your shoulder.

Oh yeah... That's what I've been doing wrong. :eek:

Chucky the tree

"One of the biggest hitters in the nfl....Quentan Jammer"


:pac:

Snickers Man

Two misconceptions that need to be nailed right now.

1) The measure of a game's greatness is not how "Big" the "Hits" can be. if it were, there would be a world wide audience for headbangers. "See how hard you can slap yourself against this wall, sonny"

Rugby is about so much more than big hits. As the law changes about wrapping your arms around the tackled man in response to the Samoan chirpractors make clear.


2) If we are trying to compare "British" games, (let's face it, it's where most ball sports were codified, even if the origins were from all over the place) to American ones then rugby is not the one to compare with American football.

The British game most like American football is in fact cricket, as I'm sure has been said before.

The similarities are not too obvious at face value, much like the Welsh and Irish languages, but as in that case if you look a little under the surface you will find much that is similar.

Primarily, the pace of both cricket and Amercan football is the same. They are both based on set piece plays which often take some time to set up, then there is a flurry of action and then they start all over again. Rugby is far more continuous.

With both cricket and American football, half the battle is how you set the field, both in offence and defence (or offense and defense) therefore

Captaincy is a huge part of each game.

Both games are simple in concept but labyrinthine in execution. Hence the need for good commentators to explain the significance of each section of play to a non specialist audience. American commentators with their magic pencils and action replays have traditionally done a much better job than cricket's presumptuous old pricks like Richie Benaud who just grunts monosyllables and assumes that you knew exactly what went on. Well maybe you did if you went to a cricket school and played it all your life but I didn't and it's still a ****ing mystery.

Even given that sports without stats are for Americans are like burgers without fries both cricket and American football have enough statistics and bits of mathematical trivia to keep the nerdiest elbow patch happy. Yards rushed, pass completion ratio, number of first downs, number of sacks, number of intercepts. Compared with bowling and batting averages, length of ninth wicket stands, runs totals, wicket totals, etc etc

Both require players to wear body armour.

Both go on WAY too long.

I'm sure there's more but that will do for now.

And if there were any Americans reading this while drinking something, I fully realise that they have probably exhaled half of it through their nose by now. But I speak the truth.

Depp

I think you meant to post that here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=521

Snickers Man

Depp wrote: »

I think you meant to post that here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=521

Nope. This is the forum in which the fallacious insinuation that rugby and american football are comparable was made. So here is where it needed to be refuted.

Leslie91

Chucky the tree wrote: »

"One of the biggest hitters in the nfl....Quentan Jammer"


:pac:

Quentin Jammer certainly lays the wood but not as much as 'Lights' aka Shawne Merriman. Somewhere on youtube you'll see his hit on Priest Holmes that ended his career.

themont85

Snickers Man wrote: »

Two misconceptions that need to be nailed right now.

1) The measure of a game's greatness is not how "Big" the "Hits" can be. if it were, there would be a world wide audience for headbangers. "See how hard you can slap yourself against this wall, sonny"

Rugby is about so much more than big hits. As the law changes about wrapping your arms around the tackled man in response to the Samoan chirpractors make clear.


2) If we are trying to compare "British" games, (let's face it, it's where most ball sports were codified, even if the origins were from all over the place) to American ones then rugby is not the one to compare with American football.

The British game most like American football is in fact cricket, as I'm sure has been said before.

The similarities are not too obvious at face value, much like the Welsh and Irish languages, but as in that case if you look a little under the surface you will find much that is similar.

Primarily, the pace of both cricket and Amercan football is the same. They are both based on set piece plays which often take some time to set up, then there is a flurry of action and then they start all over again. Rugby is far more continuous.

With both cricket and American football, half the battle is how you set the field, both in offence and defence (or offense and defense) therefore

Captaincy is a huge part of each game.

Both games are simple in concept but labyrinthine in execution. Hence the need for good commentators to explain the significance of each section of play to a non specialist audience. American commentators with their magic pencils and action replays have traditionally done a much better job than cricket's presumptuous old pricks like Richie Benaud who just grunts monosyllables and assumes that you knew exactly what went on. Well maybe you did if you went to a cricket school and played it all your life but I didn't and it's still a ****ing mystery.

Even given that sports without stats are for Americans are like burgers without fries both cricket and American football have enough statistics and bits of mathematical trivia to keep the nerdiest elbow patch happy. Yards rushed, pass completion ratio, number of first downs, number of sacks, number of intercepts. Compared with bowling and batting averages, length of ninth wicket stands, runs totals, wicket totals, etc etc

Both require players to wear body armour.

Both go on WAY too long.

I'm sure there's more but that will do for now.

And if there were any Americans reading this while drinking something, I fully realise that they have probably exhaled half of it through their nose by now. But I speak the truth.

Rugby and AF are way more similar but ye cricket does of course have similarities;

In AF, it not just the defensive captain for instance, the defensive co-ordinator has a bigger role as calls the plays and can now mike up to the captain but of course can audible changes himself. The cricket captain and the coach would have a strategy but the calls on field are the captain's ones. The cricket captain is much more important.

In rugby setting the defensive field is important too, obviousely not as much differences as in AF but there are still differences. Wingers pushed back to defend the kick and up and infield to block the opposition attack. In AF the corner backs, much like wingers, can blitz or push back to defend the pass.

Defensive strategies in both are dependent on territory, which is the most important aspect of both games. Cricket doesn't have that to nearly the same extent, there is 'power plays' where there are fielding restrictions in one dayers but rugby and AF share the similarity that at any given point ball position and control are the most important. The scoring systems and choices are similar too, with field goals/penalties or drop kicks taken if the attack runs out of steam/4th down. There can be a similar gun ho approach to a penalty/4th down, a AF may go for it on 4th down or a rugby team kick to corner with a penalty spurning a shot at goal. Both need adept kickers to get themselves in the right places so rugby needs guys who can kick from hand and AF needs punters.

I always thought that way back when, the rumours of O'Gara going to be a kicker in the NFL were stupid and he would have made a much better punter. He(up until this year at least) was imo the best tactical kicker from hand in the game. Obviousely there are differences in the ball but O'Gara would have had that too as a kicker. The value of a good tactical kicker and territory were the cornerstone of Munster Rugby until 2006 when they got by with limited back line but excellent territorial control/kicking. The value in the NFL of that is important too, for instance this year in a playoff game between the Chargers and Colts, the Chargers punter effectively won them the game by putting them in the right areas of the pitch.

The hits in both are not comparable. In rugby hits are usually far more straight on. There are rules on hitting in the air which are 'slightly' looser in the NFL. In AF the speed is different and the padding obviousely.

Rugby and AF are very similar in a lot of ways more than just territorial need for domination and ball control. Far more so than cricket anyway, imo of course:)

The pace of the game may be similar in AF and cricket but thats just it. And stats are more important to baseball which is similar to cricket in a number of ways of course. Rugby and stats are used too, but not by pundits as much, its more game to game in rugby analysis than AF which is season orientated.

Trojan

I've always thought that Chess was the next closest sport to Rugby Union. Bear with me a minute here: the similarities are not too obvious at face value, like a fine St Emilion and a bottle of Buckfast, but if you look a little under the surface you will find much that is similar.

First of all, we have the flow from defence to attack, phase after phase of play, different defensive and attacking formations and maneuvers. Then look at the myriad of shapes and sizes necessary for each position.

Take the backline compared to the pawns. They're all the same size and complete weaklings. Try to get them to run straight in attack but they're running to the side 90% of the time.

The obvious exception to the pawn/ladybacks is the outhalf - otherwise known as the queen. One of the most important attacking players in the game, a massive blow when they're lost. Often found getting into trouble and needing to be bailed out by tougher players.

The rooks are the props: tough as nails and fantastic in a straight line, but as soon as you need a sidestep, you're in serious trouble.

The flankers are obviously the bishops, with their fast movement and strong attack. They particularly like going after the opposition queen.

Locks, well, they're a couple of big horses really, I don't think we need much further explanation for that. Can jump well, but can't run straight and always getting into trouble in unexpected places.

Needless to say, the hooker is obviously the king. Tough as his prop brothers, with whom he sometimes interchanges, but with all the skills and moves of the queen (albeit perhaps a touch slower). A true king amongst men.

amacachi

Loving how many RL hits are in the videos, as well as how many illegal RU tackles are in there too.

By the rules the hits go AF>RL>RU.

Put an AF player on a Rugby pitch of either kind and laugh at him after 4 or 5 minutes when he looks for the oxegen mask.
Put a Rugby player on an AF pitch and watch him get pummelled when he turns his back to catch the ball, watch him not be fast enough, and watch him barely break a sweat throughout the match.

Completely pointless comparison, AF and Ice Hockey are more comparable in terms of physical conditioning thanks to how Ice Hockey has gone over the last few decades.

Spiritoftheseventies

some obvious differences. American football there is a lot of moves off the ball. far more stop start.

d'Oracle

Some absolutely mental talk in this thread.
No offence snickers man, but this thread is about who has the bigger hits.
Not which is better, or which compares with which.

As a pick-up put-down fan of NFL and A big fan of cricket and rugby,
I have to say comparing cricket to NFL is a daft as a box of frogs.
You have some fair points, but they would struggle to be tangential to the topic. Plus it goes without saying that Rugby and NFL have common origins.

Trojan, that post is brilliant.

Trojan

For my next trick, I shall compare Golf with Snakes & Ladders.

Spiritoftheseventies

[Jackass] wrote: »

I know people have enjoyed making comparrisons to the two sports in the past and I came accross the below video on youtube which is kind of interesting.

Personally, I'm sceptical about the findings....the rugby player hit another human, who he's tackling and putting down (i.e. Dump tackling) so that's got too be taking away a huge amount of the force of the hit, where as the "football" player is hitting a crash test dummy, on a tackle frame, being supported at the back, which allows him to tackle through the dummy at full tilt without having to line up the victim and without having to have any concern for the impact.

If they had gotten the rugby player to line up a tackle bag, he could dive straight through it, just like the football player could.....so they should have had the same format for tackling....either both on tackle bags...or both lining up somebody who is receiving a pass for accuracy...

Still, interesting to see and I know the football jocks think American football is far more physical and hard hitting, but I don't know The debate can rage on. Personally, I still think rugby hits are bigger in actual game play.

why is their yellow triangle with an exclamation mark beside your name

up them Schteps

Trojan wrote: »

For my next trick, I shall compare Golf with Snakes & Ladders.

Slice of toast WITH butter Vs. A Butterfly

Spiritoftheseventies

mikedragon32 wrote: »

Oh yeah... That's what I've been doing wrong. :eek:

as in a clothesline tackle

Aidric

Some monster hits in those video compilations, shame about the accompanying metal music in some.

d'Oracle

Aidric wrote: »

Some monster hits in those video compilations, shame about the accompanying metal music in some.

+1

Frickin hate that.

Snickers Man

d'Oracle wrote: »

Some absolutely mental talk in this thread.
No offence snickers man, but this thread is about who has the bigger hits.
Not which is better, or which compares with which.

That's not what the title of the thread says. It simply says "rugby vs American football." And it is perfectly fair game, and within topic IMHO, to deflect a comparison between the two games away from a narrow focus on "Big Hits".

Rugby is about so much more than that and in fact the law makers have been clamping down, quite rightly, on the ability to hit people harder and harder. Ask Bakkies Botha and his bewildered armband-wearing team mates if you doubt that.

d'Oracle wrote:

Plus it goes without saying that Rugby and NFL have common origins.

So do the English and the Germans. But neither likes to be mistaken for the other any more.

Trojan, that post is brilliant.

I know he was trying to be a smart arse but in fact the comparison between rugby and chess has been made many times before, and by some eminent former players and commentators on the game. Like the legendary ex Lion Cliff Morgan for one.

d'Oracle wrote:

As a pick-up put-down fan of NFL and A big fan of cricket and rugby, I have to say comparing cricket to NFL is a daft as a box of frogs.

No it's not. I've made my case, no need to repeat it...

themont85 wrote:

the captain but of course can audible changes himself.

..as even the mont85 concedes at least in part in his post. And as he is somebody who believes in the existence of the verb "to audible", it is clear we don't even speak the same language.

d'Oracle

There is usually a problem with judging something on name alone....

For example, take the time Nelson Muntz went to see Naked lunch.


Funnies aside, I have absolutly no interest in anything else you have to say.

themont85

Snickers Man wrote: »

..as even the mont85 concedes at least in part in his post. And as he is somebody who believes in the existence of the verb "to audible", it is clear we don't even speak the same language.

Apologies 'call an audible' then. Have to keep the pedants happy.

And that is all I find similar, the fact that the captain can set the field,but the cricket captain has a much bigger role than the AF one.

Rugby and AF clearly are far similar than that of cricket imo and most others I'd guess. Rugby as one of the codes of football was always a sort of hyprid between soccer and AF. Soccer is continuious energy used, non stop basically apart from half time. AF has an incredible amount of energy excelled in one play. Rugby can have 2-3 minutes spurts of play then a scrum/lineout or whatever.

Snickers Man

themont85 wrote: »

AF has an incredible amount of energy excelled in one play. Rugby can have 2-3 minutes spurts of play then a scrum/lineout or whatever.

As I said, the pace of cricket and AF is what I think comprises the most essential likeness between the two. Certainly, the physical skill sets are completely different, but the staging and mental calculations that go into both games are very very similar.

And let me hasten to add, this is not the unique view of a crank with too much time on his hands. Just as there is significant prior art in the case of Trojan's likening rugby to chess, the comparison between cricket and AF was pointed out to me many years ago by somebody who loved both games.

I didn't invent the point of view; I am just happy to share it. As indeed are many other people I have met since, including some who actually play American football in Ireland.

But I admit one of the attractions of expressing this point of view is watching Americans spontaneously combust when they hear their great macho game likened to that ******y limey pastime that is played in pyjamas in between munching on cucumber sandwiches.

[Jackass]

bayviewclose wrote: »

why is their yellow triangle with an exclamation mark beside your name

It's just a marker for the thread...like if you were to quote this post, down the very bottom there's a list of faces and thumbs up and thumbs down, and that sign. Just happened to throw that in there for the craic! But it's nothing to do with me, just a thread icon.

Hazys

As a big fan of both i'd have to say the hits in the NFL are much bigger and dangerous than professional rugby, for many reasons:

The average NFL player is much bigger and faster than the average rugby player tru the fact that its been professional for much longer, so better training and weightbuilding not to mention the use of steriods. See LT in the 80's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVDZE8LnjYI

Rules in tackling, no wrap aroud in NFL or do you have to let a player land before you hit them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Y9wt3XkHo

Stop and start, players can go 100 miles an hour on plays and especially on designed plays to mark a certain player where they can line them up, instead of getting up off the ground from a ruck to make a tackle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9jgP1brUn8

Specialized tacklers, half of an nfl team is made up of guys who are trained just to hit only as opposed to rugby players who have to attack and defend. Sick hit (excuse the pun):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCO0sRPJEZ8