American football V Rugby

LEIN

I had a right laugh at this.

So true.

I_smell_fear

Why should these two sports be compared? they are really only similar with regard to the ball and the tackle (slightly)

LEIN

I_smell_fear wrote: »

Why should these two sports be compared? they are really only similar with regard to the ball and the tackle (slightly)

My gut feeling here is that it was put together for fun?

.ak

DD9090 wrote: »

My gut feeling here is that it was put together for fun?

You mean, it wasn't a thesis done by a student studying Sports?

Chucky the tree

Is a gum shield optional in rugby? Thought it was compulsory.

Skid

We must be due another 'ROG is going to the Miami Dolphins' rumour by now?

He has been playing way above NFL standard for years

.ak

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Is a gum shield optional in rugby? Thought it was compulsory.

It is. But there's also a few things wrong with the American football thing... i.e elbow pads etc.

The average time played is completely wrong too, but probably close in ratio.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

It is. But there's also a few things wrong with the American football thing... i.e elbow pads etc.

The average time played is completely wrong too, but probably close in ratio.

That 11 minutes for an American football game is right, wall street journal ran it a while back. Not sure about rugby.

Podge_irl

Love both sports, prefer rugby.

etloveslsd

Both better than soccer

Trojan

As a rugby player and fan, I like the suggestion that we're more hard core

But it's not the case. They're two different sports with different physical requirements, and if anyone is in doubt that American Football players aren't tough as nails, go try out with your local team (there are some in most countries these days). The hits are harder, and the shorter plays they have are bloody intensive.

[Jackass]

Gum shields are optional. Our own Ronan O'Gara never wears one.



Some say this is down to his preparation for the NFL however, others say it's because they are mainly used for protection when going in to contact / tackling, so there isn't much point.

boynesider

I have tried to like American football and I even tried playing it once at college, but I just don't get it. It seems like a vastly inferior game to rugby on so many levels. Most of the players dont even touch the ball (I think?), and as someone who has grown up playing rugby, GAA and soccer that just seems totally bizarre to me.

Now I know many people love it and I respect that completely but I would say that a large part of it's appeal lies in the whole showbiz side of it rather than in its actual merits as a sport.

As for toughness? No comparison. Leaving aside the tackling aspect, the demands of rugby union on the body after a few phases of intense play is pretty much unmatched in any other sport. I even remember seeing an interview once with a former professional american footballer who was screaming to his coach to take him off two minutes into his first rugby match.

ScrubsfanChris

American Football spawned from the early days of Rugby Football, but since then have become more and more different.

I love Rugby and like A. Football, but to be comparing them for which is best is stupid and juvenile.
I know the picture is a joke, but some people aren't going to see it that way, predict major rage coming

Fight_Night

I much prefer rugby as a sport but the athleticism in the NFL and the brutality of the hits is just on a different level. Rugby gets you more cuts and bruises but playing Football(american) will get you far more serious injuries, ie. concussions and neck/back breaks. Yes they have protective gear but that just allows more aggressive hits so they cancel each other out. But as they say: Apples and Oranges.

Justin10

I was thinking of how much this comparison never made sense to me when I was younger even though I knew very little about American football because it wasn't on tele.

I think Rugby is one of the toughest games on the planet but it is in no comparison to American football in anything, except the ball looks the same.

American football is much more skill full game, the equipment is needed as guys are hit on their blind side for example on special teams, which is in no comparison to a Rugby tackle as you can brace yourself for most hits in rugby.

Rugby is extremely tough in the sense that it years teams down.

There is no comparison and people who do compare are a bit uniformed or naive.

thebaz

with my dodgy shoulder damage , am jealous of shoulder pads - some of the hits in rugby today is going to leave a lot of damaged and arthritic joints , in years to come , I think , or maybe I was just unlucky - so NFL protection may not be macho , but may be wise

etloveslsd

The hits in American football are a different level, 200 pound plus guys running into each other at full pace with a 10 yard run up. They need pads. That's taking nothing away from rugby players, constant punishment for 80 minutes.

Running backs would be the most like rugby players, taking the ball across the game line into collisions.

Not many of them are still going past 30.

boynesider

Rochey18 wrote: »

I was thinking of how much this comparison never made sense to me when I was younger even though I knew very little about American football because it wasn't on tele.


There is no comparison and people who do compare are a bit uniformed or naive.

I hear this one a lot but i don't get it. There is actually a large basis for comparison between the two (which is probably why so many people compare them to each other, instead of to something like badminton).

They are field sports, played by teams rather than individuals, they have full contact tackling, same shaped ball, tactical kicking, goal kicking for points, divisions between backs and forwards, similar names and essential duties for positions (eg half-backs, full backs), and of course the fundamental objective of the game which is to advance the ball to one end of the field to score.

I would nearly say that there are more essential similarities than differences between them. And when you consider that there are literally thousands of sports played around the world, it isn't really surprising that people compare the two of them because of these common traits.

Judgement Day

etloveslsd wrote: »

Both better than soccer

So is Tiddlywinks.

JaMarcus Hustle

boynesider wrote: »

I would nearly say that there are more essential similarities than differences between them.

You'd be incredibly wrong if you did though.

ahnowbrowncow

etloveslsd wrote: »

Both better than soccer

Cause you have to spend your career in a gym rather than actually having any technique?

Tox56

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Cause you have to spend your career in a gym rather than actually having any technique?

Yes, that's absolutely right

ahnowbrowncow

Tox56 wrote: »

Yes, that's absolutely right

It is, isn't it

Teferi

etloveslsd wrote: »

The hits in American football are a different level, 200 pound plus guys running into each other at full pace with a 10 yard run up. They need pads. That's taking nothing away from rugby players, constant punishment for 80 minutes.

Running backs would be the most like rugby players, taking the ball across the game line into collisions.

Not many of them are still going past 30.

There is a cause and effect at play here. Have you seen pictures of early football? The football players of old are geared up very much like a modern rugby player. Scrumcap, shoulder pads etc. As more money was put into the sport, players got bigger the pads needed to be bigger but therefore the hits got bigger.

Yeah, the tackles are way more powerful in football but the goal of tackling in football is completely different to the goal of tackling in rugby.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the two sports are basically incomparable.

errlloyd

Ah lads its a funny joke.

I think we can all respect the incredibly high level American Football is played at. A lot of their moves are Leinster v Cardiff stuff week in week out, and when it's played well its a joy to watch!

I think I heard life expectancy for linesmen in the NFL is only 56 or something, which is slightly upsetting to be honest, these guys live their life for a sport, they make head banging collisions probably 30 or 40 times per game! Helmet or not that's gonna suck.

Like to be fair to both of us, we probably all get off a bit better than AFL players. I haven't watched a huge amount of it, but they seem to get the worst of both worlds, random ass tackles from anywhere, and no protection (oh an rock solid ground!)

boynesider

JaMarcus Hustle wrote: »

You'd be incredibly wrong if you did though.

Mind explaining to me why? I'm not being smart, I would really like to know.

ahnowbrowncow

errlloyd wrote: »

I think I heard life expectancy for linesmen in the NFL is only 56 or something, which is slightly upsetting to be honest, these guys live their life for a sport, they make head banging collisions probably 30 or 40 times per game! Helmet or not that's gonna suck.

I think it's more to do with weight and obesity, these guys weigh 300lbs or more and it's not all muscle. Probably get even heavier when they stop playing. That's a lot of strain for their hearts.

Plus there is a new study that shows they actually live longer than the general population in america

Samich

This is like the argument you see in rugby youtube video comments :pac:

You can't really compare them. Let American Football players play without protection and you would have deaths every week.

etloveslsd

Teferi wrote: »

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the two sports are basically incomparable.

I agree, some earlier comments were implying AF players were soft for having pads, I was just stating why they need them.

Madworld

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14725789

Good article on it.

Chucky the tree

boynesider wrote: »

Mind explaining to me why? I'm not being smart, I would really like to know.

well there are far more essential differences. Forward pass vs no forward pass, not every AF player being allowed touch the ball, hitting players off the ball, no kicking allowed etc.

matthew8

Madworld wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14725789

Good article on it.

I would love if Americans could set up a good rugby league around the same time as the super rugby. It would fit in well with the NFL offseason and I'm sure some of the guys who are just below NFL standard would make for a great spectacle.

I remember when I was in Washington DC a few years ago, just beside the basin there was a rugby match and judging by the amount of people there it was the equivalent of AIL division 3 and the guys playing astonished me. It was every bit as physical and just as fast as a typical Leinster match in the rabo. There's just a huge potential to tap into among guys who dedicated their whole life to NFL but find they can't make any teams who would still make awesome rugby players.

boynesider

Chucky the tree wrote: »

boynesider wrote: »

Mind explaining to me why? I'm not being smart, I would really like to know.

well there are far more essential differences. Forward pass vs no forward pass, not every AF player being allowed touch the ball, hitting players off the ball, no kicking allowed etc.

Seems like small details tbh, and I still think the similarities I listed earlier outweigh the differences.

Nermal

Samich wrote: »

You can't really compare them. Let American Football players play without protection and you would have deaths every week.

Nope, they'd learn quick enough to tackle properly and not to lead with their heads.

irishbucsfan

Nermal wrote: »

Nope, they'd learn quick enough to tackle properly and not to lead with their heads.

They've been told repeatedly to not lead with their heads for the past decade and they're still doing it. Hopefully the sad demise of Junior Seau will teach them a lesson but I doubt it tbh.

knockoutned

Ignoring the band, I see a lot of similarities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

parsons487

[Jackass] wrote: »

Gum shields are optional. Our own Ronan O'Gara never wears one.



Some say this is down to his preparation for the NFL however, others say it's because they are mainly used for protection when going in to contact / tackling, so there isn't much point.

gum guards are only compulsory if you have braces

twinytwo

errlloyd wrote: »

Ah lads its a funny joke.

I think we can all respect the incredibly high level American Football is played at. A lot of their moves are Leinster v Cardiff stuff week in week out, and when it's played well its a joy to watch!

I think I heard life expectancy for linesmen in the NFL is only 56 or something, which is slightly upsetting to be honest, these guys live their life for a sport, they make head banging collisions probably 30 or 40 times per game! Helmet or not that's gonna suck.

Like to be fair to both of us, we probably all get off a bit better than AFL players. I haven't watched a huge amount of it, but they seem to get the worst of both worlds, random ass tackles from anywhere, and no protection (oh an rock solid ground!)

Thats why in the states if you dont make it out of highschool/uni the guys stop playing, there is no such thing as playing at the weekends with the local team... it takes too much out of you body. The biggest problem with american football is their approach to the tackle, there are virtually no rules except for not catching by the face guard faceguard.... ever tried being on the bottom of a dog pile? When u get a guy who is 6'3 18/19 stone built like a tree running flat out, shoulder first into someone who is looking behind them.... you could be wrapped in a bubble, that is still going to do some serious damage

prospect

Watched an American football game once.

It was ridiculous to be honest.

The amount of blatant forward passes that went unpunished was incredible.

chelseaaremagic

further to boynesiders comments...the rules changed in 1924 in NFL to allow the quarterback throw the ball forward .......

Q_Ball

Just to add to what Chucky posted.

I've played both for the last two years (admittedly not at quite at Leinster and NFL standards ) so I'll try provide a few answers

boynesider wrote: »

They are field sports, played by teams rather than individuals,

So is soccer, GAA, hurling, hockey etc. Not really grounds for comparison, too generic.

boynesider wrote: »

they have full contact tackling,

It's a different type of tackling. In rugby you learn to wrap and drop, falling knee-hip-shoulder. Psychologically you're bracing yourself for the impact, and that takes a bit of the sting out of the tackle.

In american football, a form tackle has you driving your shoulder into their chest (below their shoulders), face mask on the ball, wrapping high on the opponents back and driving up and through the runner. Of course it's never really ends like that, it's more like the tackler using their body as a missile.

For example, in the last game of the AF season we played UL. I was on punt return. At one point I was returning the ball and skipped passed two diving tackles (which can blow a knee if they hit you correctly). Within three steps after avoiding the second tackle I ran straight into one of their line men. This guy was big, easily front row in rugby. He picked me up and drove me straight into the ground, shoulder into my chest in a spear tackle. Completely allowed.

boynesider wrote: »

same shaped ball,

Roughly the same shaped ball. A rugby ball is more elongated and rounded at the tips. America footballs are fatter in the middle and pointier at the ends. Much easier to catch a rugby ball, due to the size and it not be gunned at you.

boynesider wrote: »

tactical kicking, goal kicking for points,

This is probably where the two sports are the most comparable and it's a fair point. Then again, so do most ball sports...

boynesider wrote: »

divisions between backs and forwards,

This I have to disagree with. What's a forward in AF? Is the comparison based on each side having big and bigger guys? The O-Line isn't comparable to a scrum, there is no analogous ruck or maul in AF, The O-Line aren't expected to run in AF and don't get the ball. They skirmish one-on-one or sometimes one-on-two (or one-on-none if they mess up ) to protect the quarter back and block for the running back. Physically and mentally it's incredibly draining.

boynesider wrote: »

similar names and essential duties for positions (eg half-backs, full backs),

Because I love playing wide receiver in rugby, catching those forward passes

The only position that shares a name is "half back", but has completely different responsibilities. The most similar position in both sports, role wise, as was mentioned earlier, is running back. Get the ball, get past opposition line and try and score. Generally speaking, that could be any position in rugby.

boynesider wrote: »

and of course the fundamental objective of the game which is to advance the ball to one end of the field to score.

Again, not a basis for comparison. That's the fundamental objective of most field sports

boynesider wrote: »

I would nearly say that there are more essential similarities than differences between them. And when you consider that there are literally thousands of sports played around the world, it isn't really surprising that people compare the two of them because of these common traits.

They're compared because, as you said, they're both physical sports with roughly the same shaped ball. There's an elitism on both sides with a disdain for the other sport. They're both tough and enjoyable in different ways.

Podge_irl

A D lineman getting his hands on the ball is way, way funnier then anything in rugby.

Tox56

They probably aren't comparable basically because positions are so specialised in American football. A wide reciever doesn't have to learn how to tackle or position himself in defence (Fionn Carr this is your calling), but they are similar to wings in rugby in that they are fast, and they are there to score tries/touchdowns. Flankers are kind of like linebackers, and then again they aren't, ditto for outhalf and quaterback. Centres similar to running backs? Cian Healy similar to running backs?

It's a difficult one, you can see the two sports are related, but they still aren't really that much alike.

Tox56

Podge_irl wrote: »

A D lineman getting his hands on the ball is way, way funnier then anything in rugby.

Mike Ross popping up in midfield?

4PP

Rugby is a sport, American Football a show/spectavle/event. Both need highly specialized athletes but Rugby is first & foremost aimed at winning before entertaining. Blahdy Blah DyBlah the opposite applies to our cousins.

Nermal

Q_Ball wrote: »

It's a different type of tackling. In rugby you learn to wrap and drop, falling knee-hip-shoulder. Psychologically you're bracing yourself for the impact, and that takes a bit of the sting out of the tackle.

In american football, a form tackle has you driving your shoulder into their chest (below their shoulders), face mask on the ball, wrapping high on the opponents back and driving up and through the runner. Of course it's never really ends like that, it's more like the tackler using their body as a missile.

From the limited amount of AF I have seen: they are always trying for the 'killer' tackle, hoping to dislodge the ball or stop the carrier's progress AND bringing him down, instead of using his momentum to make him do it himself. I think it leads to many missed tackles for relatively small occasional gains in yardage.

Sometimes you see guys diving straight at one another's knees also, which is horribly dangerous. Thankfully, most of the time they miss completely and the ball carrier just jumps over them.

Benny Cake

4PP wrote: »

Rugby is a sport, American Football a show/spectavle/event. Both need highly specialized athletes but Rugby is first & foremost aimed at winning before entertaining. Blahdy Blah DyBlah the opposite applies to our cousins.

Pure nonsense. As a fan of both sports I can guarantee you American Football is every bit as focused on winning as rugby is...... Anyone following the debacle in the NFL regarding the referee strike will know how important the integrity of the game is to players & supporters...

mikemac1

Haloti Ngata is one of top 10 players in the NFL imo.
And if you say that's too high well definitly top 20

Had some succuss at rugby, he was the star player when his highschool won a national championship

I've been struggling badly to find videos or photos

This short clip is all I have

With his parents nationality he could have played for Tonga if the American football didn't work out if that's what he wanted
Or the USA too of course since he is a US citizen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh1OaSHUX9s

Q_Ball

Nermal wrote: »

From the limited amount of AF I have seen: they are always trying for the 'killer' tackle, hoping to dislodge the ball or stop the carrier's progress AND bringing him down, instead of using his momentum to make him do it himself. I think it leads to many missed tackles for relatively small occasional gains in yardage.

Sometimes you see guys diving straight at one another's knees also, which is horribly dangerous. Thankfully, most of the time they miss completely and the ball carrier just jumps over them.

Yup, they'll try to strip the ball first chance they get. If you force the fumble you have the opportunity to turn over the ball and gain possession. Using the opponents momentum, the player can still gain a half a yard or more, which could be the difference between 4th and 1 or a 1st down. American football can be a game of inches sometimes.

They're not always trying for a killer tackle, but they do tend to launch themselves which can be quite spectacular. Missed tackles can be a combination of a lot of things though.

RoundBox11

I actually signed up to play American Football in college this year but since signing up have had to quit.

But the first thing they made us watch was this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5QyCAUCPbxs

It's a pretty scary video outlining how dangerous the sport can be. Basically we have to watch it before we play so that were fully aware of the risks.

It's amazing really, a lot of americans think rugby is far more dangerous because of the lack of pads, helmet etc. What they don't realise is the level of discipline and fairplay in rugby which minimizes catastrophic injuries. The contrast in fairplay is actually unreal. These NFL players really go for each other with the full intent of taking the player out. If you look at rugby players like Stephen Ferris who could easily knock the ****e out of somebody with a tackle, but yet he has the sense not to.