Why aren't there more injuries in rugby?

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

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

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

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

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

anonymous_joe wrote: »

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

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

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

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

anonymous_joe wrote: »

But they're not as lean or skinny.

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

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

brianthebard wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kickupthehole wrote: »

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

Wendyball players are soft.

brianthebard wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CoachBoone wrote: »

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

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

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

Paul O'Connell against New Zealand?

anonymous_joe wrote: »

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

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

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