Rugby for wimps in armour....

Neil3030

Well I thought we might as well localise the impending onslaught of posts proclaiming anti-football comments within one thread so if you've got a chip on your shoulder with regarding the game or anything like that, post it here.

All other threads on this subject will be deleted*











*This excludes non spiteful complaints with regarding specific aspects that can be discussed critically.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

You know the intenational rules series? Who would win between The Five Nations (sorry Italy, you're rubbish) and America playing a game with mixed rules?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ARGINITE

If their are few stopages the American football players wouldnt have the stamina, that would make their highly specialised players noth worth a monkeys!
I dislike the game due to the amount of stopages, otherwise its not to bad at all!

damnyanks

The padding starts a vicious cycle in American Football. If I'm covered in pad's I am more likely to luanch my body at someone

I do enjoy watching American football don't know all the rules. I think that rugby produces more all round athletes rather then someone who can just stand there and get in the way and so on. Rugby is a more team orientated sport... a starting panel of 60 player's comes across as a bit much

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

That's because ball possesion is their priority once they've got the first down. Your opponent doesn't get the ball if you go down so you are better off going down where you're tackled, if it's a good tackle, rather than trying to spin out of the tackle and risk losing possesion.

Magnolia_Fan

damnyanks wrote:

The padding starts a vicious cycle in American Football. If I'm covered in pad's I am more likely to luanch my body at someone

Hit the nail on the head!...did you see the pats v steelers game on Sunday? When Branch caught the massive throw and Iwuoma just took off through the air like a bullit and annialated him...how he held on to the ball I'll never know

Neil3030

There was an example of a move that would not be allowed in Rugby. As far as I know in rugby, you cannot simply charge your shoulder into someone like that, some attempt must be made to wrap your arms around the ball carrier.

I like the specialisation aspect of football, purely from a spectators point of view. I accept the point that Rugby may create better all-round athletes, but the standards in teams vary consistently and enourmously.

Take Italian teams in the Heineken Cup for example. They are seen as a luxury to other teams that are drawn in their group because now bonus points are practically a certaintly.

Football keeps a more or less even keel with regards the inter-team standards. The salary cap means no team can exceed an annual wagebill of $80.5m. Last placed teams get first pick from college drafts. Plus, specialisation and heavy statistical analysis of the performance of player tasks lead to a much higher standard of each task being carried out by each player.

I mean, in the English Premiership (soccer), not even the most die-hard fan of the sport would bring himself to watch...say... Norwich V Bolton unless they folloed one of the teams. And we are talking about 2 of the top 20 teams in the country?

I say specialisation is the way forward. Again, from a spectators point of view. All I need to know is that there is an NFL game being shown, and I'll watch it. I may not find out who's playing until I turn on the channel. Can anyone honestly say that about the Premiership or the Heineken Cup?

Big Ears

Neil3030 wrote:

Take Italian teams in the Heineken Cup for example. They are seen as a luxury to other teams that are drawn in their group because now bonus points are practically a certaintly.

A lot of what you said in your last post was true , but this is absolutly bull****.
There was 2 Italian teams in the Heineken Cup this year . One was the Italian Champions Treviso , who came third in their group and only missed out on second to Bath by 1 bonus point . Treviso even beat Bath . now to poor old Calvisano , they were drawn in the group of death . Biarritz , Leicster and Wasps have(well had for Wasps , the current holders) ambitions of winning the Heineken Cup , and Biarritz and Leicster have a great chance to do so .
Yes Calvisano got hammered by all the 3 teams , but not any worse hammered than the two Scottish sides were in other groups , bar a last day win for Edinburgh ? against Perpignan .

Papa Smut Italy are of a much higher standard than Scotland , and their club sides are about even . Of course thats all opinion .

Neil3030

This the same Traviso that Leinster hammered by 40 points? My point was not specifically that Italian teams are ****e, I was merely pointing out where a vast difference in standard lies.

Big Ears

Neil3030 wrote:

This the same Traviso that Leinster hammered by 40 points? My point was not specifically that Italian teams are ****e, I was merely pointing out where a vast difference in standard lies.

ya the same one , who probably couldn't be bothered playing the last game since finnishing second with the points tally the would have got from winning with a bonus point would be no good in getting them to the quarters , as it would leave them with only 18 points .

Private Joker

Lets just hope the Americans don't cop on to rugby, because if they do they'll dominate the sport, because if all those huge college football players start playing rugby and if they get a few decent coaches no other country will have a look in.

Pherekydes

Private Joker wrote:

Lets just hope the Americans don't cop on to rugby, because if they do they'll dominate the sport, because if all those huge college football players start playing rugby and if they get a few decent coaches no other country will have a look in.

Football evolved from rugby, so there is no going back, only forward.

I've heard lots of drivel as regards protection, but most other contact sports use some sort of protection, such as gum shields and shin guards. Why protect your shins or your gums while leaving your most valuable organs open to serious injury? Dumb in the extreme.

As regards specialisation mitigating against all-round athletes, I'll take the cream of the NFL anyday. There are lots of world class sprinters, hurdlers, jumpers, throwers and decathletes in the NFL. If you check the old Superstars' results, you'll see they were dominated by NFL players.

Vikings

Ok as a response to this thread i am going to post up a quote from a player on the iafs board:

ahh...... the old Rugby v's american football argument...
read the link , amusing to say the least...

I love true ignorance when it comes to debating this point.

'we dont wear pads cause we are real men who play rugby'

actually the majority of rugby players do wear pads now days, they also wear gloves and head guards very similar to the ones american football players first wore wen the game was invented.

when was the last time someone was speared into their cheekbone with someone elses head in rugby? or hit by more than one person at a time.. and i dont mean a pushy shovey ruck.. what about a hit shreading a knee.. oh thats right rugby players 'tackle' round the thighs..

see the main difference between american football and rugby is that the ball goes foward in american football and not backwards, which tames the whole rugby thing considerably.. it slows it down, reduces the speed and reduces the likelihood of huge untimely collisions that can result in horrendous injury... after all rugby is a CONTACT sport, football a COLLISION sport, everyone knows that.

In Rugby the only person that gets 'tackled' is the ball carier, in american football hitting is the order of the day, sometimes by 5 players onto one ball carrier, hitting exists off the ball by everyone on the field the WHOLE time unlike rugby.

and lastly, the pads or weaponary make the intensity of the hit infinitely greater, would u drive a motorbike quicker with leathers and helmet, course u would.. same principle..

Rugby is a nice sport.. bit of contact there alright.. but wen it comes down to it.. it aint even in the same arena as football

That sums it all up nicely, when i'm in the mood for an argument ill post up my thoughts.

por

Rugby people will always go on about how their sport is tougher than American Football, I agree with the quote in IncredibleBulk's post above on that one.

And as for who is the better athlete, I agree with Slow coach, put the cream of the NFL up against the cream of world rugby and I'll put my money on the NFL.
Is there a rugby player to compare with Michael Vick ?

As for the game being too slow, well that's the way it's played so it's something to get used of and people should stop expecting it to be continuous action. When the play end listen to what the commentators have to say and the way they describe the plays, very enlightening.

Best of luck to the American Football forum.

pickarooney

Which sport's rules do you reckon are more complex? I've never watched more than a few American football games, understand the main principles of the game, but nothing beyond that. Having watched rugby on and off for 20-odd years - I basically watch any match that gets shown here - I'm still very shaky on a lot of the rules. I wouldn't consider my judgement of offside to be very reliable for example.
Rugby just seems to be very hard for teams/players to really improve at. Italy has been playing long enough that you would expect them to be a good side by now, certainly consistently better than Ireland, given the pool of potential players they have. Obviously, rugby is well down the list of most popular sports in Italy, but from what I can gather relatively few people play the sport at underage in Ireland. Italy is a country that invests quite a lot in sport, and has many successful teams in different games - soccer, cycling, volleyball, handball, basketball for example, so the infrasstructure is definitely there for promoting rugby, yet they're stll lagging considerably despite entering the professional era at the same time as everyone else.
I've gone on a bit on a tangent here, sorry for that, but to get back to my original point, I've seen American football teams being formed in European countries - Holland, Germany and do relatively well, whereas their rugby teams are atrocious. Mind you, their AF teams would probably be considered dire were they to play against proper American Football teams.

Earthhorse

I'd definitely wager that rules for American football are more complex than for rugby.

There's a writer for Fortune magazine who always uses the rules for American football and English football (soccer) as an analogy. Whereas the FIFA official rules is a slim publication, with a decent sized font and plenty of white space on each page, the NFL official rules is a doorstop of a document with plenty of paragraphs, sub paragraphs and clauses to ensure nothing is left to chance. (He was using this in relation to American tax code and tort law which is needlessly complex).

Basically English games leave a lot to the judgement of the referee whereas American games, especially football, like to leave no stone unturned. The basic rules of American football are pretty simple, in my opinion, and people only struggle with them because the way the game is played is so unique. But the devil's in the detail and you really need to be living and breathing the game to have a full comprehension of the depth of its rules.

por

Earthhorse wrote:

But the devil's in the detail and you really need to be living and breathing the game to have a full comprehension of the depth of its rules.

And that is one reason why people here find it hard to get into the game. The analysis you get on Sky from the pundits is average at best (I hate Kevin Kadel or whatever his name is).
I had little interest in the game until I lived in the US and watched games from dawn till dusk on winter Sundays, when the game is all around you you are not long learning the rules, tatics, etc.

Neil3030

Jeff Reinebold has been an excellent addition to the Sky Sports team. Very learned, concise and, most of all, sensitive to the fact that a lot of people watching over here need extra help and education. Good character as well!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Vikings

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Hmmm ... for some reason I do not beleive this point one bit!

Pherekydes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It says on his website that his best for 100m is 10.8 (and I'd say that's manual). Most NFL teams would have many players who could easily beat that. Michael Bennett ran 10.17 in college.

As regards all round athleticism, footballers often excel at other sports, most usually track, basketball and baseball.

As for the old 'no endurance' argument, note that Drew Bennett ran a marathon off his football training under 3 hours. How many rugby players could manage half that?

por

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You obviously have never seen Vick play, or know anything about him then.
The thing about Vick is that as a QB he is not a great passer of the ball (he is below the league average in QB Rating), and that was a big criticism of him prior to him entering the NFL.
Where he excels is in his running ability and his decision making, a fine example was against STL in the playoffs a few weeks ago, in the 1st or 2nd play of the game he found himself in trouble behind the line of scrimmage, before you knew it he was out of bounds 47 yards further up the field. If you can find a clip of it it’s well worth seeing.

daveirl wrote:

And then we have to go into how pathetic the NFL's anti drug rules are. Wow a four match suspension for a positive test. That is disgraceful.

The NFLs drug policy is working quite well, and seeing as they get paid for 16 games a year a 4 game suspension is a 25% pay cut.

Chucky the tree

put vick on a rugby team and he would be milled.

i personnally think the "which is better arguement, nfl or rugby" is a stupid one. its like comparing Hurling and GAA football. both sports are very different.

rugby players would do terrible in the NFL and NFL players would do terrible playing rugby. Both players are trained very differently to achieve very different goals. In both sports there's no similiar position i can think off, only possibly place kicking.

xm15e3

Chucky the tree wrote:

put vick on a rugby team and he would be milled.

....rugby players would do terrible in the NFL and NFL players would do terrible playing rugby. Both players are trained very differently to achieve very different goals. In both sports there's no similiar position i can think off, only possibly place kicking.

I don't know about this assumption. Igor Olshansky played HS football in the states for less then 2 years before getting a Div 1 scholli. He played 3 years college, and is now a starter for the Chargers at DE. And he didn't even play rugby, he was a b-ball player.

I'm starting to believe outstanding athletes are simply that. The right body type and a couple years with skilled trainers and coaches and they can compete.

Being a QB might be a different story.

skittishkitten

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Not all NFL Football players are 300 lbs. The Running backs and Quarterbacks are usually alot lighter. The "big guys" on the front of the line are basically blockers and usually they do very well at it. It's the Quarterbacks and Runningbacks that move the ball. They have to be light enough TO move the ball and 300 lbs just won't cut it. I would think if you take a good Runningback and gave him the appropriate training, he could very easily impress some of the rugby people.

Pherekydes

Chucky the tree wrote:

i personnally think the "which is better arguement, nfl or rugby" is a stupid one.

Of course it's not. Football evolved from rugby in the way humans evolved from the apes.

Sangre

skittishkitten wrote:

I would think if you take a good Runningback and gave him the appropriate training, he could very easily impress some of the rugby people.

And vice-versa with some centres and wings and the odd flanker.

But the thing is you again can't really compare especially due to the style of tackling and blockers. Also I dont think you'll ever a runningback do a stunning chip and chase while at full speed, nor will you see a winger jump about 4ft in the air to dodge a tackle.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MizzKattt

I live in the south of the US. American football is the heartbeat of many towns here. If you live in one such town, you are either playing the game, coaching the game, cheering the game or talking about why you are missing the game. From what I gather (because I'm not a huge fan), its more a mental game of strategy, finesse, and intimidation. I personally enjoy watching a rugby game over an American football game because of the constant movement and the short shorts!

ozhawk66

Originally Posted by por
Is there a rugby player to compare with Michael Vick ?

Come on he's a quarter back that doesn't even remotely relate to any postition on a Rugby team. How about Jonah [http://www.jonahlomu.com/index.php] he can run as fast as any American footballer, tackle, kick and pass. That's what I'm talking about when I'm saying that Rugby players are far more well rounded atheletes than the 300lb atheletes you see in the NFL.

And then we have to go into how pathetic the NFL's anti drug rules are. Wow a four match suspension for a positive test. That is disgraceful.


Michael Vick is the equivelent of the #7 jersey in league. You can thank the players Union for the 4 game suspensoin limit, but that's only for a 3rd offense. A 4th can bring a season long suspension and they are forced into some sort of rehab program for 1st, 2nd offenses etc...

ozhawk66

>>put vick on a rugby team and he would be milled.<<


Vick is 6 ft and 215 lbs and would be MUCH faste than anyone on the rugby league field. I've seen Vick get hit hard enough to do a full 360 degree summersault and bounce right back up. I seriously doubt rugby leaguers would be fast enough to get a clean hit on him let alone one with some meat behind it.

Big Ears

It doesn't matter how physically good he is if he would be tactically inept on a rugby pitch .

'would be MUCH faste than anyone on the rugby league field'

thats extremely unlikely .

Although if you mean someone that quick for his weight then yes he would be much quicker than rugby players of the same weight .

'I seriously doubt rugby leaguers would be fast enough to get a clean hit on him let alone one with some meat behind it.''

So let me see evertime he would get the ball he would score ? , because thats what your pretty much saying .

ozhawk66

It doesn't matter how physically good he is if he would be tactically inept on a rugby pitch .


I guarantee Vick ran the 'option' in high school and college - which is similer in philosophy to the game of rugby itself. It's just "pitched" differently.

'would be MUCH faster than anyone on the rugby league field'

thats extremely unlikely .

VERY likely as Vick's time in the 40 yd is around 4.2-4.25 seconds. Needless to say,there aren't that many leaguers motoring at that speed, let alone at that weight.


Although if you mean someone that quick for his weight then yes he would be much quicker than rugby players of the same weight .

'I seriously doubt rugby leaguers would be fast enough to get a clean hit on him let alone one with some meat behind it.''

So let me see evertime he would get the ball he would score ? , because thats what your pretty much saying .


No, I didn't say that nor did I imply it. I said it would be very hard for a league player to get a clean hit on the man in reply to the comment of Vick getting milled.

I don't even like Vick that much. I think Dante Culpepper would be a better example for the #7 jersey. Culpepper weighs in at 265 lbs and runs a 4.7 40 yard time.

birdiewhistler

well look at rugby players and football players. Football players are huge. My best friend plays offensive line for the University of Iowa. He is 6'5" and weighs 325 pounds. And none of its fat. he benches 390 pounds and cleans 330. So it doesnt matter if you play rugby or whatever. If that man was running at you full speed I am pretty sure you might like a little bit of padding.

paulcr

I live in Minneapolis Minnesota home of the Vikings. I've got to say that when it come to comparing athletes from one sport vs. another it truely is impossible. Linemen in general and defesive more specifically (American Football) are really not great athletes in the true sense of the word. Many are overweight and are there to plug up the middle of the line to stop the run. Offensively they are there to push open a hole for the running back to get through. The skill position players are the true athletes, those being receivers, running back, corner backs, linebackers. I wouldn't group quarterback there since most can't run at all and if they can't throw they are pretty much useless. Vick is a prime example...if wouldn't win anything until he stops running and starts looking down field...but thats a whole differnet subject. I know first hand watching Daunte go through the same process. A true athlete can do do many sports well and excell at there chosen sport superbly....all others are players.

ozhawk66

birdiewhistler wrote:

well look at rugby players and football players. Football players are huge. My best friend plays offensive line for the University of Iowa. He is 6'5" and weighs 325 pounds. And none of its fat. he benches 390 pounds and cleans 330. So it doesnt matter if you play rugby or whatever. If that man was running at you full speed I am pretty sure you might like a little bit of padding.

There's only a couple of guys on my Hawkeye roster that come close to that description at 6'5" - but not 325 lbs.

fish_stroker

damnyanks wrote:

The padding starts a vicious cycle in American Football. If I'm covered in pad's I am more likely to luanch my body at someone

I do enjoy watching American football don't know all the rules. I think that rugby produces more all round athletes rather then someone who can just stand there and get in the way and so on. Rugby is a more team orientated sport... a starting panel of 60 player's comes across as a bit much

the thing is if u watch rugby do they launch themselves anyway without the pads! no care for ur own wel being! jus as long as u gain sum ground and keep the ball! dats rugby!
also the 80 mins kills and u have barely any breaks! especially if ur a forward! ur constantly doing sumthing whether it b scrum lineout or whatever!
and u do this all while having ur body tataly dystroyed and keep working it anyway!

fish_stroker

skittishkitten wrote:

Not all NFL Football players are 300 lbs. The Running backs and Quarterbacks are usually alot lighter. The "big guys" on the front of the line are basically blockers and usually they do very well at it. It's the Quarterbacks and Runningbacks that move the ball. They have to be light enough TO move the ball and 300 lbs just won't cut it. I would think if you take a good Runningback and gave him the appropriate training, he could very easily impress some of the rugby people.

i agree sum of them wud be gud but i don no if they wud have the mentalitly for it without the pads! to be brought up wit ur "shield" and have it taken away wud make u feel quite defenseless and i dont think they cud take the hits without it especially not take the hit then get back up and run on and do this repeatadly for 80 mins!!

ozhawk66

[PHP]he thing is if u watch rugby do they launch themselves anyway without the pads! no care for ur own wel being! jus as long as u gain sum ground and keep the ball! dats rugby!
also the 80 mins kills and u have barely any breaks! especially if ur a forward! ur constantly doing sumthing whether it b scrum lineout or whatever!
and u do this all while having ur body tataly dystroyed and keep working it anyway![/PHP]



Not even close when comparing to the NFL! And don't give me the 'runnin for 80 minutes' BS line! I know, cause I watch league down here ,Down Under!

fish_stroker

whatever compare the running times between a player for rugby and a player for the nfl!!!(an average estimate not a player who don run in rugby and 1 dat does in nfl) bet all i own the rugby 1 is higher! and jus cos ur from"down under" don mean anything!

Pherekydes

Rugby players train like rugby players, and so have a rugby player's endurance.

But many NFL players train like track athletes.

The requirements of the game are one thing. The realities are something completely different.

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

whatever compare the running times between a player for rugby and a player for the nfl!!!(an average estimate not a player who don run in rugby and 1 dat does in nfl) bet all i own the rugby 1 is higher! and jus cos ur from"down under" don mean anything!

1st off, I wish you'd spend some time typing and come across as somewhat cognitive....


And if your gonna sit there and stand by the runnin for 80 minutes argument, I'll tell you your coming from the land of OZ.



ps) I'm not FROM Down Under.

fish_stroker

Slow coach wrote:

Rugby players train like rugby players, and so have a rugby player's endurance.

But many NFL players train like track athletes.

The requirements of the game are one thing. The realities are something completely different.

yeh like rugby is closest to long distance running whereas as nfl is closer to a sprinter!!

and ozzyhawk dude look at the forwards even when der not running der always active! der in the scrums lineouts etc....dey dont stop! dey keep on moving! nvr realy getting a break!

Chucky the tree

lay off the crack man, its not doing you much good.

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

yeh like rugby is closest to long distance running whereas as nfl is closer to a sprinter!!

and ozzyhawk dude look at the forwards even when der not running der always active! der in the scrums lineouts etc....dey dont stop! dey keep on moving! nvr realy getting a break!

How old are you, anyway?

Davey Devil

Not old enough to find all the keys on the keyboard.

fish_stroker

im 17 why? what difference does that make?
as for me being on crack?? im not!!!

fish_stroker

Davey Devil wrote:

Not old enough to find all the keys on the keyboard.

i can type...i just like my way better!!