NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright this is the thread where football fans of both sports can come to and beat the hell out of each other. Rather than going to each other's threads spouting off a moronic statement.

From what I see neither side actually understands the other and somehow automatically assumes the other side is for pansies. I want to see some logical reasons why your football is superior. Please, think before you post.

I've played American Football for twelve years of my life (in college now) so I'll begin by defending many misconceptions of my beloved sport.

The Pads
If you think the helmet, shoulderpads, hip pads, knee pads, thigh pads, and butt pads make us sissies and protect us maybe I should list the injuries I've suffered over the last few years:

Torn MCL, 2 Concussions (1 mild), Broken my front teeth, Broken my foot, Torn ligaments/tendons/fractured bone in my left elbow, dislocated shoulder, internal bleeding in left elbow, 3 broken ribs, broken left collar bone, fractured my left shin, broken more fingers than I can count, torn bicep muscel (still recovering).

Now before someone spouts off "you fragile!" I can vouche that most people who play for as long as I have acquire a lot of punishment.

The "Breaks"

Most people speculate that football players have less endurance than rugby and "soccer" players, which is true we require much less. Football can be compared to a gun. After each play the teams huddle up and reload in the huddle. In the NFL the play clock is 40 seconds long, most teams only spend 20 seconds deciding the play. Teams like the Colts who adjust the play at the line usually wear it down much further. Once ther ball is snapped the play on average lasts 8 seconds, in those 8 seconds every player is fighting tooth and nail to accomplish their objective. There is no jogging at anytime during the play. This is a collision sport, not a contact sport.

The "Fat" Men

"Oh those fat guys on the field are slow and unathletic", I completely disagree. Those fat guys have the quickest hands out of anyone on the field. A lot of them, including famed Defensive End Reggie White, take Ballet classes to improve footwork. I played on the offensive line in high school and although I was 180lbs (81.8kg) I used sheer grace and mobility to easilydefeat guys who weighed upwards of 330lbs (150kg). A slow and immobile lineman is only useful about 2% of the time when they just get in the way without moving.

No Foot in your Football

Certainly it's not used as much but every special teams unit involves kicking the ball and special teams (from a technical stand point) is a third of the game.

A person who watches this game knows almost nothing to a person who plays this game. Everyone has their own opinion on what is entertaining and to each their own. But all this bickering back and forth is degrading and embaressing to both leagues.

i think footballs better, you know, the proper one, the one were the main thing you use is your foot ;)

I don't understand how anyone could call either one of those sports "for sissies" Anyone who does has obviously never played either. Even Soccer can be extremely violent at times. Anyone who claims one is harder than the other obviously has never seriously played either. (two hand touch even gets violent with the right teams)


By the way, anyone who claims big guys aren't athletic has never watched The Bus (Jerome Bettis, Pittsburgh Steelers) run a ball.

Finally, someone who doesn't think that the punishment called American Football is wimpy. Why do you think football careers tend to be short? Football(American) is like war. Brief periods of battle seperated by not as brief periods of non-battle.

I don't understand how anyone could call either one of those sports "for sissies" Anyone who does has obviously never played either. Even Soccer can be extremely violent at times. Anyone who claims one is harder than the other obviously has never seriously played either. (two hand touch even gets violent with the right teams)

Exactly, yet there are still people out there who just won't accept anything different to what they're accustomed to.

i think footballs better, you know, the proper one, the one were the main thing you use is your foot ;)

So you don't use your foot when you play Football? I don't know how you'd score a touchdown then...:D

So you don't use your foot when you play Football? I don't know how you'd score a touchdown then...:D

i said the main thing, inamerican football the balls in peoples hands most the time :rolleyes:

No Foot in your Football

Certainly it's not used as much but every special teams unit involves kicking the ball and special teams (from a technical stand point) is a third of the game.
That is a blatant lie and you know it!
No kicking is allowed in American Football.

Seriously though since the invention of the forward passing game(I am correct when i say it didn't always exist right) circa 1910 how much kicking went on?

It's not the first time Americans misname things ("American" besides "football"), since in football feet are used WAY more than in American football, thus the former deserves the name more than the latter. American football should be called something like "armoured handball", since it fits the sport much more.

Anyway, leaving the name issue aside, I don't consider either game to be "for sissies". I do think that American football doesn't make any sense, and I find that "oh, look at how many injuries I've had" attitude to be extremely stupid. It's due to those injuries that I find no point in playing it when there are more interesting sports around (real football being one of them).

Real, original and European football. If any armoured handball fan can exhibit a player as thrilling as Henry, Zizou or Rooney, I would be shocked, or for that matter, a more exhilerating sporting experiance than watching a team usuch as Arsenal or Barca play.

That is a blatant lie and you know it!
No kicking is allowed in American Football.

Seriously though since the invention of the forward passing game(I am correct when i say it didn't always exist right) circa 1910 how much kicking went on?

I'm sorry I must be imagining all those kicks when I was on special teams. You know the Field Goal, Onside Kick, Kick Off.

There was on instance when the Oakland Raiders quarterback fumbled the ball and kicked it forward into the endzone where a fellow Raider fell on it and scored. This has since become illegal but don't call me a liar on a subject you obviously know almost nothing about.

I'm sorry I must be imagining all those kicks when I was on special teams. You know the Field Goal, Onside Kick, Kick Off.

There was on instance when the Oakland Raiders quarterback fumbled the ball and kicked it forward into the endzone where a fellow Raider fell on it and scored. This has since become illegal but don't call me a liar on a subject you obviously know almost nothing about.
Dont assume anything with me if you obviously don't know what i am like.

Now answer the question.

go broncos:)

all i have to say is that soccer is easier to watch

I must admit I object to American football changing ours to soccer. I would prefer they change thier own.

As to the sports, I love football/soccer and fail to understand American football, it just looks so similar to Rugby. However certainly you need skills for both and I respect peoples right to enjoy and play American Football.

*huge grin*
One of my first experiences on American soil ( I was born far far away ) involved US football.
See, I've played rugby since 14 or so.

Within my first week in the US, I got invited for a bit of footie, and got sent off the field within 5 minutes for excessive... violence.

Hey, if anyone is DUMB enough to try to tackle me above my ankles, I'll have my feet free to impart as much damage as I can on my assailant's body.
Standard procedure.

Their problem - not mine.

morale of the story: footie is for sissies.

go broncos:)

all i have to say is that soccer is easier to watch

I daresay I would thoroughly the more tactical, conceived element to American Football *shudders from the exertion of not making a snipe*, in contrast to the often less discernable tactical facets of football, however I stand by the fact football is a damnsught more glamorous, thrilling and enjoyable for the average fan.

I like both American Football and Football...I have to defend American Football goodness knows how many times a week, and now my American buddy (even if he did support the Falcons) has left my college, it's me against the lefties on the other side of the classroom.

I like both American Football and Football...I have to defend American Football goodness knows how many times a week, and now my American buddy (even if he did support the Falcons) has left my college, it's me against the lefties on the other side of the classroom.

Here in Canada we're fortunate. You can be leftist and still enjoy rhe NFL.

Well I'm going to throw rugby football into the mix, and reply to your points as well as I can.


The Pads
If you think the helmet, shoulderpads, hip pads, knee pads, thigh pads, and butt pads make us sissies and protect us maybe I should list the injuries I've suffered over the last few years:

Torn MCL, 2 Concussions (1 mild), Broken my front teeth, Broken my foot, Torn ligaments/tendons/fractured bone in my left elbow, dislocated shoulder, internal bleeding in left elbow, 3 broken ribs, broken left collar bone, fractured my left shin, broken more fingers than I can count, torn bicep muscel (still recovering).

Now before someone spouts off "you fragile!" I can vouche that most people who play for as long as I have acquire a lot of punishment.

Compared to rugby, where you have slightly smaller players (In rugby Forwards, the equivalent of lineman/linebackers tend to way between 300lbs and 350 lbs) but they hit each other without the pads (though there are certain rules about tackling, eg regarding attacking the head etc, but to make up for that they then let both teams come and step on the tackled player).


The "Breaks"

Most people speculate that football players have less endurance than rugby and "soccer" players, which is true we require much less. Football can be compared to a gun. After each play the teams huddle up and reload in the huddle. In the NFL the play clock is 40 seconds long, most teams only spend 20 seconds deciding the play. Teams like the Colts who adjust the play at the line usually wear it down much further. Once ther ball is snapped the play on average lasts 8 seconds, in those 8 seconds every player is fighting tooth and nail to accomplish their objective. There is no jogging at anytime during the play. This is a collision sport, not a contact sport.

This is one of the major reasons I don't like American football, I can't get used to the breaks, just as I start to get excited everything stops and I just defuse, it just irritates me.

The other reason is also with the play lengths, 8 second average, I just don't see the opportunity for any sort of flair in those 8 seconds. I agree it is like war, everyone does what they're told and that's it. The best part of rugby (and soccer) I find, is when a player creates something off the top of their head, a little bit of magic the just makes your jaw drop in awe (not literally but the phrase sounds nice:) ) I don't think that can happen very much in 8 seconds.


The "Fat" Men

"Oh those fat guys on the field are slow and unathletic", I completely disagree. Those fat guys have the quickest hands out of anyone on the field. A lot of them, including famed Defensive End Reggie White, take Ballet classes to improve footwork. I played on the offensive line in high school and although I was 180lbs (81.8kg) I used sheer grace and mobility to easilydefeat guys who weighed upwards of 330lbs (150kg). A slow and immobile lineman is only useful about 2% of the time when they just get in the way without moving.
I think we're talking relative terms, compared to most of the players in Rugby and soccer, those players are slow and unathletic, because rugby and soccer require faster and more unathletic players (even props and hookers (it is an actual rugby position) who traditionally were just the biggest people they can find are now very athletic. So in relative terms that quote is true.

Dont assume anything with me if you obviously don't know what i am like.

Now answer the question.

Do you know what special teams are?

Do you know what special teams are?

Teams created for "special children" only?

I prefer Aussie Rules footy. Skill, speed, strength, stamina & the ability to absorb massive hits are all required. Four quarters of 20 minutes each, but with stoppage time they typically last for 30 minutes or more. That's 2 hours of fast, hard play. I love it! :)

That is a blatant lie and you know it!
No kicking is allowed in American Football.

Seriously though since the invention of the forward passing game (I am correct when i say it didn't always exist right) circa 1910 how much kicking went on?
We can punt the ball. Kick.
Between the poles. Kick.
Then there's onside. Kick. Offside. Kick.
Kick-off.

There's always been kicking. Forward passing game? Invented? Huh?
Since the invention (invention as in: the pigskin was invented) of the forward passing hame, the stuff listed above has been going on.

Now answer the question.
Well...we have. There's been a good amount of kicking since the invention of the forward passing game. Its not like dribbling the ball is even possible on a field like that and hand offs are unpractical in most cases.

Did you express yourself correctly?

- snip original post -
Wow, that post was really... reasonable! And interesting, too. So, I guess I actually completely agree with what you said. And dissing other people's sports is pretty stupid anyway (at least when not joking, that is).

That said, I still don't like American Football. Granted, I've hardly ever even watched it, but the few times I did, it just didn't do anything for me. I saw the 1998 (? The one the Denver Broncos won? And if I just made up that team, don't hate me, okay? I'm trying!:p ) Super Bowl, and that one had a few moments that were pretty exciting what with the underdogs winning. But the game as such is just way too much only short bursts of action. Like Tomasalia said:This is one of the major reasons I don't like American football, I can't get used to the breaks, just as I start to get excited everything stops and I just defuse, it just irritates me.

The other reason is also with the play lengths, 8 second average, I just don't see the opportunity for any sort of flair in those 8 seconds. I agree it is like war, everyone does what they're told and that's it. The best part of rugby (and soccer) I find, is when a player creates something off the top of their head, a little bit of magic the just makes your jaw drop in awe (not literally but the phrase sounds nice ) I don't think that can happen very much in 8 seconds.That's exactly how I feel (Qualifier: well, that's how I feel about soccer. Rugby? Not so much. Waaaayy to brutal, IMO).

I know, though, that ideally you should spend some time on a sport to see how it really works and then decide if you like it or not. But at the same time, I had hardly ever seen a basketball game before I went to the US, and I immediately got into it and loved it. Basketball is even better than soccer, IMHO, in regard to excitement; it's just not very big here, so there's just not the kind of large event or large-scale enthusiasm as with soccer.


Long story short: whatever floats your boat.

It's fine if you don't like the sport by all means I understand. I haven't sat down and watched an entire season diligently for years. Yet there is still a sense of nostalgia I get when Jack Tatum comes over the middle and breaks apart another man's helmet.

I would like to get involved in rugby somehow whether spectating or playing, (the previous more likely) and I have fun playing soccer just not watching it.

Teams created for "special children" only?

Think the invasion of Normandy in 12 seconds, it takes a large set of grapes to blindly rush into a "wedge" at full speed. In fact I got knocked cold on kick return and got my first concussion. :D

The whole point of the thread is just to show some appreciation for each other's sport.

It's fine if you don't like the sport by all means I understand. I haven't sat down and watched an entire season diligently for years. Yet there is still a sense of nostalgia I get when Jack Tatum comes over the middle and breaks apart another man's helmet.

I would like to get involved in rugby somehow whether spectating or playing, (the previous more likely) and I have fun playing soccer just not watching it.



Think the invasion of Normandy in 12 seconds, it takes a large set of grapes to blindly rush into a "wedge" at full speed. In fact I got knocked cold on kick return and got my first concussion. :D

The whole point of the thread is just to show some appreciation for each other's sport.
I always found Kick returns the most interesting part to watch. And I always wondered why the biggest players on the team didn't simply get annoyed with never getting the ball and simply take it off the small guys ;)

If you want to watch rugby, try and see New Zealand, the way they currently play is the way rugby should be played, fast, hard and never stopping, and brilliant to watch. Best side in the world at the moment bar none.

I always found Kick returns the most interesting part to watch. And I always wondered why the biggest players on the team didn't simply get annoyed with never getting the ball and simply take it off the small guys.

Lmao we had a kid who was 330lbs (150kg) who actually got the ball on kick return in practice. This was no fat kid either, he was in a weight lifting program since he was 7 and benched pressed over 400lbs. Then we all got yelled at for moving out of the way.

He also had anger issues so it was best to avoid him when possible...

I don't understand how anyone could call either one of those sports "for sissies" Anyone who does has obviously never played either. Even Soccer can be extremely violent at times. Anyone who claims one is harder than the other obviously has never seriously played either. (two hand touch even gets violent with the right teams)


By the way, anyone who claims big guys aren't athletic has never watched The Bus (Jerome Bettis, Pittsburgh Steelers) run a ball.
Ive played both soccer and football in leagues and through schoo, neither is a walk in the park. Soccer you need endurance and lots of it. Football you need to be really quick off the break and asses the situation instantly. Soccer you need to asses the sitaution instantly as well, consider your options in passing etc.

This is one of the major reasons I don't like American football, I can't get used to the breaks, just as I start to get excited everything stops and I just defuse, it just irritates me. But thats what makes it so awsome!!! The anticipation and the tacticalizing! Although yes it is a bit of a let down when its jsut like a two yard run. But the limitedness of plays it what makes the plays so awsome

The other reason is also with the play lengths, 8 second average, I just don't see the opportunity for any sort of flair in those 8 seconds. I agree it is like war, everyone does what they're told and that's it. The best part of rugby (and soccer) I find, is when a player creates something off the top of their head, a little bit of magic the just makes your jaw drop in awe (not literally but the phrase sounds nice:) ) I don't think that can happen very much in 8 seconds. Thats the thing though. Most (american football) plays are like three seconds. then you get plays where just ridiculous stuff happens and not only do jaws drop, but... ya. ridiculous stuff happens. If you want to see jaw dropping, put effort into finding some tape of Barry Sanders. He is, in my opinion, by far the best athelete in any sport, and jsut essentially ridiculous.


I think we're talking relative terms, compared to most of the players in Rugby and soccer, those players are slow and unathletic, because rugby and soccer require faster and more unathletic players (even props and hookers (it is an actual rugby position) who traditionally were just the biggest people they can find are now very athletic.
OK. Lets jsut say that although they look unathletic. They are not. Most NFL lineman can run a 40 (yard dash) in five seconds. ridiculously fast. Ridiculously strong. On a personal note, the best prop I've know was unable to play football because he didn't have enough agility or hand skills (to play line[and was to slow for other stuff].

As someone whos played all three for many years here's my take: (its cause I live in Canada, the mosaic of culture)

American Football: People get seriosuly injured when they try to hard. The static (is that rght word) nature of the game allows people to hit crazy-hard all game long. The pads make the hits hurt less, but they also make serious injury more likely. No, you cannot be out of shape and play football. It is jsut a different kind of shape from the other two(wide receivers on some teams basically run sprints the whole game and then jog back to the line, unless they get a catch in which case they can rest before sprinting again) . Playing Half-Back is possibly the most tiring thing invented (when you get the ball alot)

Soccer/Football: In my experience requires the best shape of the three. I never realy had much kicking accuracy so I just played stopper. Lots of fun. It gets alot more physical then you would think if you just read the rules.

Rugby (Aussie football?): I changed my mind. This is the most demanding sport. Unfortuantly we don't get alot of televised professional rugy in Canada, and our team sucks. I think our government is actually trying to breathe life into all levels of Canadian rugby. Anyways I find that, at my level at least, there are less serious injuries and more bruises/cuts/sprains/concussions. Also ridiculous fun and ridiculous hardness.

PS do people in the US not play rugby?

Most Americans propably never heard of Rugby.

Armor just makes things worse. Take boxing, for instance. When they first invented boxing gloves, injuries increased greatly. One infamous fight ended with one guy's eye just hanging out of the socket. Just literally hanging. Why? Because when gloves were given to boxers, they hit harder. They used hits they never used before. Probably the same thing with American Football, which is one of the few complex activities Americans truly enjoy as a whole(mostly watching). Give them armor and they'll just hit harder.

Most Americans propably never heard of Rugby.


what a ridiculous(sp) statement. You act like we don't live in the INFORMATION age.

what a ridiculous(sp) statement. You act like we don't live in the INFORMATION age.
You're acting like we(Americans) give a damn.

You're acting like we(Americans) give a damn.
perhaps the majority doesn't, but there are american's who do like it.

*snip*

Rugby (Aussie football?): I changed my mind. This is the most demanding sport. Unfortuantly we don't get alot of televised professional rugy in Canada, and our team sucks. I think our government is actually trying to breathe life into all levels of Canadian rugby. Anyways I find that, at my level at least, there are less serious injuries and more bruises/cuts/sprains/concussions. Also ridiculous fun and ridiculous hardness.

PS do people in the US not play rugby?

Nope, Aussie Rules is definitely not Rugby. It's a completely separate code & very different. Rugby orginated in England, whereas Aussie Rules (hence the name! ;) ) evolved here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football

Nope, Aussie Rules is definitely not Rugby. It's a completely separate code & very different. Rugby orginated in England, whereas Aussie Rules (hence the name! ;) ) evolved here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football

I love aussie rules too. And if anyone says that its weak and sissy, all you have to do is ask how many times has James Hird had his face smashed in (thank you Collingwood)

Do you know what special teams are?
Yes.http://70.85.81.229/3630/189/emo/blat.gif

We can punt the ball. Kick.
Between the poles. Kick.
Then there's onside. Kick. Offside. Kick.
Kick-off.

There's always been kicking. Forward passing game? Invented? Huh?
Since the invention (invention as in: the pigskin was invented) of the forward passing hame, the stuff listed above has been going on.
I was joking about kicking.
*Shit*

I heard from one of those BS NFL Films presents showsthat there were way to many deaths in Football back in the day so they allowed a forward passing game.

It also explained Kicking.-I already knew how to kick a ball.


Also during the New England Patriots vs 'Someone' Christmas eve game they were explaining how to pass a ball.-It isn't that hard.

okay, first my take on
Gridiron: It's a hard game, I always find it very bering to watch 'cause of all the breaks and the shorness of the play. However I can understand why others would love it. I had a ex-american footballer in my Rugby team once, he played at number 8, and in his first match he broke (This was on the oppersitions side)4 ribs, a coller bone, arm, and leg after doing an American football tackle on there number 8. He was sent off immidetly. The tackles people put in in Gridiron are massive, but can't be gone without pads.

Football: I'm a big football fan and out of the sports I watch it requires you to be the fittest. The skll levels are phenominal, the skill some players have over the ball is incredable. As a defender I know how hard it is. And for those that say it's for sissys then thur completly wrong, I've broken my leg twice playing football, and my knee once (Studs up takles all of them). Theres a lot of physicality in football that goes unnoitced.

Rugby: Ah, my own sport. This requires the widest veriaty of skills I balive. every player needs to know how to tackle, pass, beat a man, maul, ruck, kick and the forwards have to be able to scrum and do line outs. Every popsition is specalist, you can't just slot in where ever. For instance, a lock can't play hooker and a hooker can't play flanker. (Or they can, but not well.)

Once you get to high level in rugby it becomes almost immpossable to swap positions. The game can become very exciting, lst nights Tigers game for example, and has a lot of history behind it. However it can be dull if the forwadrs get there way and play 10 man rugby.

http://www.usarugby.org/natteams/
us rugby teams. The eagles, there improving steadly and I expect them to be in the top 15 by 2012.

http://www.usarugby.org/natteams/
us rugby teams. The eagles, there improving steadly and I expect them to be in the top 15 by 2012.
They had a bloody awesome game against France last year in one of the mid west states.
Hercus seems pretty decent if only they could get Willis McGahee and some other NFL players to play.

http://www.irb.com/WR/
IRB rankings, they suprise me actually: Samoa and the Arguies are ahead of scotland, and the US and Canada are closing in on Italy. Personally I feel that the US, Canada and Argentina need to form there own competion, or join the 6N or the Tri-Nations. The churchill cup is good, but it's only England A and NZ Maori.

They had a bloody awesome game against France last year in one of the mid west states.
Hercus seems pretty decent if only they could get Willis McGahee and some other NFL players to play.
They did, there really improving. I can see rugby having 18 top nations in 10 years. that is 15 nations that can compete we already have 12 and if we can bring the US, Canda, Japan, Ungary, romanaia and portugal into the fold then we'll really be on track. the IRBs decision to award the games to NZ didn't help though.

(even though you are a Kiwi you have to agree, surley!)

They did, there really improving. I can see rugby having 18 top nations in 10 years. that is 15 nations that can compete we already have 12 and if we can bring the US, Canda, Japan, Ungary, romanaia and portugal into the fold then we'll really be on track. the IRBs decision to award the games to NZ didn't help though.

(even though you are a Kiwi you have to agree, surley!)
I most certainly will agree.
Why would anyone want a final in Auckland, it is a hole.

I most certainly will agree.
Why would anyone want a final in Auckland, it is a hole.
Aye, adn it did nothing for Rugby as a game. No offence but NZ struggled with 30,000 lions fans (I was one of them!) how it will cope with 50,000+England fans, plus hundreds of thousands from otehr nations I don't know.

American Football is way too stop start. It's even worse than Rugby League...

Now football flows. That's why I like it :D

Oh, and anyone who thinks (real)football isn't violent has never seen Millwall... (OK they're no way near as bad as they were but still... and there fans are even worse. They destroyed one of our coaches last season...)

American Football is called American Football, because it evolved from Rugby Football. In Rugby you use your feet much less than in Assossiation Football yet it is called Rugby ''Football'', so give the Americans a break. When they came up with the idea of forward passes and armour, its only because people where dying at the line of scrimmage. They thought they could just widen the pitch, but a massive field had already been built that was narrow, so they just added armour and forward passes with a line of scrimmage that wasnt locked until the play was in motion. I may be wrong but that is my understanding of ''Football'', it is like Rugby Football, but American, hence the name American Football.........

American Football is called American Football, because it evolved from Rugby Football. In Rugby you use your feet much less than in Assossiation Football yet it is called Rugby ''Football'', so give the Americans a break. When they came up with the idea of forward passes and armour, its only because people where dying at the line of scrimmage. They thought they could just widen the pitch, but a massive field had already been built that was narrow, so they just added armour and forward passes with a line of scrimmage that wasnt locked until the play was in motion. I may be wrong but that is my understanding of ''Football'', it is like Rugby Football, but American, hence the name American Football.........
Rugby Football is named Football as it started when William Webb-Ellise picked up the ball in a football match and ran with it. That was at Rugby collage so they named the new game Rugby Football.

Aye, adn it did nothing for Rugby as a game. No offence but NZ struggled with 30,000 lions fans (I was one of them!) how it will cope with 50,000+England fans, plus hundreds of thousands from otehr nations I don't know.
Especially seeing as 20,000 Drunkards were happy to spend 4,5 ,6 weeks in campervans but World Cups are more sophisticated.

I don't know how it happened but Portugal became half decent.


Greece also became a World Rugby Super Power by losing to Austria 48-3 back in October or November.:p

Especially seeing as 20,000 Drunkards were happy to spend 4,5 ,6 weeks in campervans but World Cups are more sophisticated.

I don't know how it happened but Portugal became half decent.


Greece also became a World Rugby Super Power by losing to Austria 48-3 back in October or November.:p
There improving because a lot of NH sides are sending 'A' teams out to play them

Did you hear the idea baout the Pumas playing in the 6N, there base being in Spain?

There improving because a lot of NH sides are sending 'A' teams out to play them

Did you hear the idea baout the Pumas playing in the 6N, there base being in Spain?
No i never heard that.
Maybe because it is the Cricket season now even though Super 12 errr 14 pre season matches are taking place.......

It does make sense for the Puma's to play in Europe seeing as most if not all play there.

No i never heard that.
Maybe because it is the Cricket season now even though Super 12 errr 14 pre season matches are taking place.......

It does make sense for the Puma's to play in Europe seeing as most if not all play there.
And, they need a big comperteion, seeing as the Tri-nations won't lket them in. Personally I thin that the Tri nations should include a pacific island team, and argentina,

Most Americans propably never heard of Rugby.

Armor just makes things worse. Take boxing, for instance. When they first invented boxing gloves, injuries increased greatly. One infamous fight ended with one guy's eye just hanging out of the socket. Just literally hanging. Why? Because when gloves were given to boxers, they hit harder. They used hits they never used before. Probably the same thing with American Football, which is one of the few complex activities Americans truly enjoy as a whole(mostly watching). Give them armor and they'll just hit harder.
No, many American's have heard of rubgy. Then go and play with the pig-skin.

I might suggest that gloves and armor didn't make peolpe hit harder. The gloves allowed peolpe to, for example, hide lead and nails, which hurt more. Except that was a long way back, like in the fifites and sixties. Nowadays, that isn't such a problem. I'd cite it as better physical training. But there's a lot of reasons for that. Football, as in soccer, has more injuries than any other sport, year after year. Not too much armor there.

Having not played American football and seen it once or twice and not fully understood it, I cannot profess to having an informed opinion on it. The only thing I will say about American Football is that compared to Football, it is much more complicated and increased complication of the rules leads generally to a less interesting sport which can only appell to a limited audiance. This is why football has taken on so well all around the world where as American football hasnt really spread very far. I also think its a level of arrogence on the part of the Americans to rename a sport which is more applicable to the name football than their version. I would also like to point out that Americans have no reason to be proud of their ranking in the FIFA tables. Those rankings are based on the number of wins they have, not the teams over which they have victories. Of course the USA football team can beat Guam, the Soloman Islands and the Central African Republic several times, but could they beat Brazil or Holland?

But thats what makes it so awsome!!! The anticipation and the tacticalizing! Although yes it is a bit of a let down when its jsut like a two yard run. But the limitedness of plays it what makes the plays so awsome
Thats the thing though. Most (american football) plays are like three seconds. then you get plays where just ridiculous stuff happens and not only do jaws drop, but... ya. ridiculous stuff happens. If you want to see jaw dropping, put effort into finding some tape of Barry Sanders. He is, in my opinion, by far the best athelete in any sport, and jsut essentially ridiculous.

I prefer rugby, when a tackle happens, there's usually a slight pause in movement, but then it goes again much faster than American football, it's like compressing the idea of play calling into a few seconds while still playing, go left or right, which move to use, a big forward driving, a chip over the top; just as many options and decisions to be made, without the stoppage in play.

I just find it stops any excitement, they make a few yards, everything stops, people run off to celebrate, and eventually go back to the game.


OK. Lets jsut say that although they look unathletic. They are not. Most NFL lineman can run a 40 (yard dash) in five seconds. ridiculously fast. Ridiculously strong. On a personal note, the best prop I've know was unable to play football because he didn't have enough agility or hand skills (to play line[and was to slow for other stuff].
Well that comes down to a question of how good the prop actually was. Traditionally in rugby props were basically there to lift in line-outs, push in scrums, and try and get to as many rucks and mauls as possible. In the modern game, at the highest level, then that is no longer the case and they cover a lot of ground and show some amazing hand skills (especially those obscenely good New Zealanders).

With Argentina playing rugby, the problem always is the distance from the other nations. But hopefully they can, and Japan aswell. Rugby needs more development outside the big 8 nations.

Never played gridiron but from what I've seen it's 5 seconds of violence followed by 20 seconds in which I can go put the kettle on. And I just don't get the rules.

Rugby is a far more tactical game I think, it needs a sustained drive to score and it has a lot of scope for individual and team brilliance.

Football is a simple game. Far less rules than either of the others but that means you have far more scope to do crazy things (Anyone else see the Liverpool-Luton match? Alonso from his own half in the last minute=goal of the year).

Never played gridiron but from what I've seen it's 5 seconds of violence followed by 20 seconds in which I can go put the kettle on. And I just don't get the rules.

Rugby is a far more tactical game I think, it needs a sustained drive to score and it has a lot of scope for individual and team brilliance.

Football is a simple game. Far less rules than either of the others but that means you have far more scope to do crazy things (Anyone else see the Liverpool-Luton match? Alonso from his own half in the last minute=goal of the year).
Nah, that goal was overrated, all he had to do was hit the target and bounce it in.

Nah, that goal was overrated, all he had to do was hit the target and bounce it in.

Yeah, Rooney's strike against Newcastle was better, or Zidanes in the Champions League final 2002 against Bayer Leverkusen.

Real, original and European football. If any armoured handball fan can exhibit a player as thrilling as Henry, Zizou or Rooney, I would be shocked, or for that matter, a more exhilerating sporting experiance than watching a team usuch as Arsenal or Barca play.

I agree with most of that, but not the Arsenal bit. Compared to other teams they hang on to the ball too much in the oppositions half. I prefer wathching when a team will attack on the break.

I agree with most of that, but not the Arsenal bit. Compared to other teams they hang on to the ball too much in the oppositions half. I prefer wathching when a team will attack on the break.

Couner-attacks do look great, but Arsenal in full flow are something else (and thats coming from a United fan:p )

And, they need a big comperteion, seeing as the Tri-nations won't lket them in. Personally I thin that the Tri nations should include a pacific island team, and argentina,
As long as it isn't that Joint Pacific Islands team.
I don't see the Tri Nations expanding to more teams anytimesoon as they just added two more rounds of matches for each team.

A problem would be Aregentina traveling to Sout Africa and Vice-versa.
Also many (all) of the argy's players play in Europe and it would be hard to form a team betweens seasons or in the Northern Hemisphere Playoffs.

American Football revolves around contact. If these boys played without helmets and pads it would be suicide. I remember a couple of boys being killed years ago from playing (the weekend football game at the local park or school.. with no protection ...oh hell what's the "nick"name of it-- my memory sucks -- its on the tip of my tounge!) football without any protection ... and these were kids. Just imagine a 250 lb train coming at you full force with nothing in between. It would be stupid.

Is it sandlock football? Ugh.. now this is bothering me. What's the name I'm thinking of?

Just imagine a 250 lb train coming at you full force with nothing in between. It would be stupid.

a bit like the old days in Rugby Union before it went all professional

a bit like the old days in Rugby Union before it went all professional

Well hell.. kudos to the rugby players then lol, I'm not familiar with the game, but I don't at all consider them wusses. I've seen enough of A game to know they aren't that. But how much of the game is based on contact? I mean.. is it a definate or does it just depend?

edited to remove my stereotype of certain ppls being badasses.

I supose it all depnds really I can rember getting a couple of fingers broken once and the usaul cauliflower ear

Well hell.. kudos to the rugby players then lol, I'm not familiar with the game, but I don't at all consider them wusses. I've seen enough of A game to know they aren't that. But how much of the game is based on contact? I mean.. is it a definate or does it just depend?

edited to remove my stereotype of certain ppls being badasses.

Well all tackles involve someone ending up head over tip and scrums (half of each team ganging up to barge the opponents) happen every few minutes (being as they are a kind of penalty...). If someone hasn't been knocked over in any given 60 seconds then the ref's called an awfully long break.

I love Rugby.

I'll have to watch some rugby games. Either way, I enjoy american football (mainly from the history-- some of the present players I could do fine without-- but it's all about money in the end.. sad but true) and I know them boys have to be able to take some hard ass hits, and alot of them suck it up and drive on..and there are some that get "hurt" mighty damn easy.. and I'll leave out my stereotype on that one. I can't stand basketball.. can watch baseball sometimes.. but football is my favorite.

As long as it isn't that Joint Pacific Islands team.
I don't see the Tri Nations expanding to more teams anytimesoon as they just added two more rounds of matches for each team.

A problem would be Aregentina traveling to Sout Africa and Vice-versa.
Also many (all) of the argy's players play in Europe and it would be hard to form a team betweens seasons or in the Northern Hemisphere Playoffs.
The time zones arn't that far apart, and it's no diffrent to South Africa-new Zealand. Not many fans travel from place to place.

And I think it would have to be a joint pacific islands team, (As there should be in the Super 14) as Samoa, Fiji ect. couldn't compete on there own.

Southern Hemsphere rugby has really shocked me over the last few years with it's arrogance and lack of vision-not including argentina, the two new Super 14 teams (Couldn't just one have been from the PAcific Island/Argantina?)

a bit like the old days in Rugby Union before it went all professional
Aye, reaber Deano!