NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll ignore League because it's silly. Why would someone deliberately make a game as boring as possible?

What's "better", Rugby Union or American Football?

I'm obviously quite partial to Rugby. There's something very primitive about the game...it's as close to a traditional battle as there is in the modern world. You can tell where the game comes from. I also quite like the way that the players very much look suited to different roles...there's small, quick guys but also fat dudes who look as though they're only there to add bodymass to the ruck or scrum (which is in fact the case).

Of course American Football has a few of these as well, but the body armour, the coaches with their walkie-talkies and the constant stoppages kill off a lot of the traditional, physical appeal. Of course it's still a physical game, but you don't get the feeling that it's really about who's the stronger man (or woman, whatever the case may be).

And as a bonus, the Haka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BCKZqDLUM

Obviously rugby. What number did you play?

Obviously rugby. What number did you play?
Hehe, me? I'd break my glasses. :p

Sure the poll make it look like Rugby's winning now. But the Americans will all log on over the next few hours and then BAM!

Neither. They are both great sports, worth playing and watching.

(Oh and your disdain of League speaks volumes.)

(Oh and your disdain of League speaks volumes.)
It does?

I just don't like the way tackles are handled in that game. I mean, why does the game have to stop for all intents and purposes? Why does the other side have to go backwards? It just leads to people deliberately running into the other man for no other reason than forcing them back...if you did that in Union you actually have to work for it (and sometimes a whole bunch of players ends up pushing in an impromptu scrum sorta thing, which is just the height of coolness).

Though a quick look at the origins of the codes makes me grin...

Rugby. No contest here, American Football is a joke.

rugby, I only once watched american football, and i didn't like it that much. Rugby 7 is quite cool too and i prefer both over rugby league. Is there anybody going to the world championship this summer?

American Football is a strategic game.

Just because league does not appeal to your particular sensibilities does not mean "it's silly".

If you had said - I'll ignore league because I prefer Union - or something similar, without casting aspersions on League, then it would have been reasonable. But no - you had to demonstrate the lack of understanding you have.

Unlike yourself, who it appears has never played any of these sports, I have played all three (Union, League and AF) and they are all tactically very different. Of course if you applied League tactics to Union it wouldn't work. But only an idiot would do that. If you applied Union tactics to League it wouldn't work either.

Try applying F1 tactics to a WRC race - duh. They both involve cars and competition to see who arrives fastest/first. Recognise please, that you are talking about three DIFFERENT sports.

I enjoyed playing Rugby at school before I moved onto hockey. I generally played scrum half or full back being the smaller type, and was reasonably competent, but never played competively really.

I've never played American football, or watched it really, so can't say much about it other than I don't quite understand it or the enjoyment in it. But that's common to anything you don't know much about. Arguments over which sport is 'better' are pointless and trivialise the games and the players.

Rugby. No contest here, American Football is a joke.

And an unfunny one at that.

American Football is a strategic game.
And rugby is a tactical game. Which is what makes it interesting, as well as the fact that you have to actually be quite manly to play it, instead of being an overweight pussy in bodyarmour :)

I enjoyed playing Rugby at school before I moved onto hockey.

thats insane! you get hit in the shin with sticks on cold mornings for fun?!

I prefer Rugby myself faster paced and with less padding :p

And an unfunny one at that.

I didn't say it was a good joke. :)

If you've ever played american football without the padding(backyard rules), then you might have a better opinion of it.

They're both delightful games. Especially on nice soft ground with muddy, soggy patches everywhere. :)

The answer, of course, is ice hockey.

But rugby > A. Football x 10000000

If you've ever played american football without the padding(backyard rules), then you might have a better opinion of it.

They're both delightful games. Especially on nice soft ground with muddy, soggy patches everywhere. :)

I've played both and the pads just make things worse.:(

Oh and, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN.

American Football is the godlike lovechild of rugby and chess. In my opinion, you can't even compare the two. They're really two different kinds of games. I don't even know if there IS something to compare to American Football. A better comparison would be Football/Soccer to Rugby. And we all know who wins that one.

And American Football, not physical?!?! Obviously you've never played offensive line. Or defensive line. Or linebacker. Or running back. Or tight end.

American Football is the godlike lovechild of rugby and chess.

I'd rather that rugby and chess stayed separate.

And American Football, not physical?!?! Obviously you've never played offensive line. Or defensive line. Or linebacker. Or running back. Or tight end.

Exactly why I hate these threads.

I played Linebacker and Guard for 13 years, quit a year into college because my arm broke and healed wrong. These threads attract the dumbest people who know nothing about either sport.

I'd rather that rugby and chess stayed separate.

You don't like combining strategy with 'knocking people the fuck out'?

Exactly why I hate these threads.

I played Linebacker and Guard for 13 years, quit a year into college because my arm broke and healed wrong. These threads attract the dumbest people who know nothing about either sport.

It's better than Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3 :p

You don't like combining strategy with 'knocking people the fuck out'?

You should try chess boxing.

And, yes, that is a real sport.

American Football is the godlike lovechild of rugby and chess. In my opinion, you can't even compare the two. They're really two different kinds of games. I don't even know if there IS something to compare to American Football. A better comparison would be Football/Soccer to Rugby. And we all know who wins that one.

And American Football, not physical?!?! Obviously you've never played offensive line. Or defensive line. Or linebacker. Or running back. Or tight end.

I kinda liked AF until moving to the US five years ago. Now I love it ... I guess the more that you get to know something, the more you appreciate it. Now that I have a greater grasp of the tactics and the rules, it makes more sense and is more enjoyable. I'll always love rugby (both codes), but I get to see a whole lot more AF and enjoy it immensely.

A final note: The length of an AF game is rivaled only by cricket, but once you understand the US mentality and how the game is subsidized it's easier to deal with. Going to an actual NFL game is a great experience ... and it lasts all day!

It's better than Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3 :p

Aye. Strangely the: "Xbox 360 vs Playstation 2" thread is much better.

American Football is the godlike lovechild of rugby and chess. In my opinion, you can't even compare the two. They're really two different kinds of games. I don't even know if there IS something to compare to American Football. A better comparison would be Football/Soccer to Rugby. And we all know who wins that one.

And American Football, not physical?!?! Obviously you've never played offensive line. Or defensive line. Or linebacker. Or running back. Or tight end.

Since American Football is a derivative of rugby they're much more comparable than Football/soccer.

I prefer rugby union just because of the greater variety of positions and roles players have to play. I think American football would be better if they cut the rosters more or less in half and made players play defence and offence, because the player selection would be more interesting.

Not to mention you'd have the players on the field more; at the moment your average NFL player spends something like 10 minutes a match actually playing. Compared to 80 minutes for a rugby union player who also has twice as many skills to learn.

American football is similar to chess, it's machine-like. Every player has a strictly defined role and is specifically chosen to do that one job. It's scientific, but it lacks soul I think.

You don't like combining strategy with 'knocking people the fuck out'?

Except they're not really combined imo. More like shuffled. So you get a bit of the knocking people out then a long pause when you get the chess elements then back to the knocking people out and so on.

You should try chess boxing.

And, yes, that is a real sport.

Is it like Wizards Chess? :p

I kinda liked AF until moving to the US five years ago. Now I love it ... I guess the more that you get to know something, the more you appreciate it. Now that I have a greater grasp of the tactics and the rules, it makes more sense and is more enjoyable. I'll always love rugby (both codes), but I get to see a whole lot more AF and enjoy it immensely.

A final note: The length of an AF game is rivaled only by cricket, but once you understand the US mentality and how the game is subsidized it's easier to deal with. Going to an actual NFL game is a great experience ... and it lasts all day!
And don't forget the tailgating parties!

Except they're not really combined imo. More like shuffled. So you get a bit of the knocking people out then a long pause when you get the chess elements then back to the knocking people out and so on.

No one gets knocked the fuck out in Rugby though.

On a side note, I believe NFL Europe has just closed down for good.

These threads attract the dumbest people who know nothing about either sport.

And they inevitably turn into nationalist dickwaving contests.

However, I will add that ice hockey > everything.

Except they're not really combined imo. More like shuffled. So you get a bit of the knocking people out then a long pause when you get the chess elements then back to the knocking people out and so on.

It's actually all happening at once if you watch all the elements at once, particularly in the college level, and even more so in the high school level.

i would rather have European Football (soccer) over American Football, but out of the 2 choices i prefer Rugby hands down.

Yes i am an American (but i am a Castilian too), BUT i absolutely despise American Football, to me it is to dam boring, and WT is with the padding? they call them selves Athletes but they wear so much body armor that you can be hit by a truck and not feel it.

that is where Rugby and Soccer come in, we have no Padding (cept shin guards [if you wear them])

and WT is with the padding? they call them selves Athletes but they wear so much body armor that you can be hit by a truck and not feel it.

Trust me, the way we hit you fucking feel it a lot more than a pussy lasso tackle that the rugby players use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEa7bqUD2ns

Trust me, the way we hit you fucking feel it a lot more than a pussy lasso tackle that the rugby players use.

That's the thing I never understood about American footballers, or at least there defensive coaches. They act like battering rams in tackles, but in every game I've seen several times a game a player will mistime or get the angle a bit wrong, clip the player he's supposed to be tackling or bounce off and the player goes on to make significant yardage after that. If they just used there arms they'd be more effective.

Rugby has big tackles, some of the battering ram nature, more of the 'dump' nature (which AF doesn't) but the players don't forget the primary reason of tackling, not to get on a highlight real but to actually stop the player from making ground.

Trust me, the way we hit you fucking feel it a lot more than a pussy lasso tackle that the rugby players use.I played American Football through School (lettered my freshman year), but i still hate the sport, (only played it cuz my pop made me). i say loose the padding and then go at it. then it might be fun to watch / play... MIGHT

*edit*
I have played Soccer for the list 25 years, i have played on school Leagues, Adult Leagues, Minor Leagues, and Indoor Leagues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEa7bqUD2ns

It's really not that impressive (also, no Mike Golic. Boo.)

You should find a video from the 60s. I remember some video where a guy had his entire bicep detached from the humerus, and slid down to his elbow. They just moved it upwards, taped it up, and put him back on the field the next quarter. :D

Rugby is a faster sport, but American football is more like a physical chess game. An American Linebacker weighs 260 lbs. (118kg) and can run 40 metres in 4.5 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEa7bqUD2ns

Also:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tc0Ut5y-GRc

Ignore the fucking terrible Nelly song.

No one gets knocked the fuck out in Rugby though.

Yes they do, frequently.

I played American Football through School (lettered my freshman year), but i still hate the sport, (only played it cuz my pop made me). i say loose the padding and then go at it. they it might be fun MIGHT

Losing the padding would be fine for high school, but for the professionals it would be quite dangerous. Those are very large men moving very fast (albeit over short distances).

Rugby is a faster sport, but American football is more like a physical chess game. An American Linebacker weighs 260 lbs. (118kg) and can run 40 metres in 4.5 seconds.

Chess > American Football. Stop trying to compare the two. Also wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare it to a less complex game? Not in terms of strategy but actual complexity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEa7bqUD2ns

See 1:54 and 3:20 for my point. Two guys go in for a battering ram hit, bounce off and the guy makes 5 extra yards

Losing the padding would be fine for high school, but for the professionals it would be quite dangerous. Those are very large men moving very fast (albeit over short distances).
I was talking lettering in High school AND College basically read it as saying i made varsity my frosh year in both High School & College.


*edit* but also look at it this way Pro Rugby they hit just as hard if not harder AND they have no body armor. American Football is for Pansies.... if you want a REAL American Sport take up Rodeo

*edit* but also look at it this way Pro Rugby they hit just as hard if not harder AND they have no body armor. American Football is for Pansies.... if you want a REAL American Sport take up Rodeo

Again, professional American footballers are much larger men than professional rugby players. It's like the difference between getting hit by a Miata and getting hit by an SUV.

However, you seem to have made up your mind and nothing I or anyone says can do anything to change it. Personally, I think they're both fine sports (neither are as good as ice hockey, but nothing is).

Again, professional American footballers are much larger men than professional rugby players. It's like the difference between getting hit by a Miata and getting hit by an SUV.

However, you seem to have made up your mind and nothing I or anyone says can do anything to change it. Personally, I think they're both fine sports (neither are as good as ice hockey, but nothing is).

But the rugby players run a lot faster, and have more distance to build up speed. A Miata at 60 and a SUV at 30.

But the rugby players run a lot faster, and have more distance to build up speed. A Miata at 60 and a SUV at 30.

Do they? 4.5 seconds to cover 40 yards is considered good in the NFL, which comes out to about 8 meters a second or 2.8.km/h. Do rugby players go that much faster than that?

*honestly doesn't know*

Do they? 4.5 seconds to cover 40 yards is considered good in the NFL, which comes out to about 8 meters a second or 2.8.km/h. Do rugby players go that much faster than that?

*honestly doesn't know*

Yes, but most of the hits are made at less than 40 yard speed. And that's less than 8 metres a second (7.2 to be pedantic, which I apologise for). Do they do the 40yd sprints in full gear, because if they don't then that'd slow them down even more.

Off the top of my head I couldn't say, I know top rugby players run low 10 seconds over 100m but official timings aren't done, so it's not definitive. But since the rugby players are lighter but still do the top level fitness and don't have to carry the padding etc I think it'd be a safe bet.

Well, quite frankly, I'm a pro football fan, and I'll tell you why.

I will NEVER be able to play professional football.

Everyone on the football field is a physical specimen. If you don't believe that, all you have to do is look at the physique of a professional football player. Hell, just watch an Under Armor commercial. These guys are beasts. I have watched a few rugby games and from what I saw, there was very little in the way of muscular definition in the players of rugby, much like the players of soccer (futbol, if you will.) Good examples of a football physique are Vernon Davis (49ers), Brian Urlacher (Bears), Sean Taylor (Dolphins), and Chad Johnson (Bengals), for those of you who want to look up what a football player actually looks like.

Everyone on the football field is incredibly quick. The slowest man in the NFL runs a 6.3 second 40 yard/meter dash. He weighs in at 350 lbs (159kg). His name is Sam Adams (Broncos). His job, however, is not to run 40 yards in a straight line. He bursts through offensive protection and chases down the ballcarrier. His acceleration is excellent, and most of the time does not need to utilize anything but a burst of strength and a burst of quickness.

Everyone on the football field (except placekickers and punters, and some wide recievers) is exceptionally strong. During the rookie scouting session before the talent draft (We hold one big one called the combine,) both Manuel Ramirez and Justin Blalock bench-pressed 225 lbs (102kg) 40 times. If that's not strong, I don't know what is.

Now, knowing what you know now, wouldn't you want some protection for your most vital and weakest spots? The pads consist of: Helmet with facemask (The brain can not be replaced, and countless concussions STILL occur every year,) neck roll (Not worn by most players), Shoulderpads (cover the shoulders, collarbones and shoulderblades), Thigh pads (absorb just enough shock to avoid breaking a thigh) and kneepads (because the patella is hard to fix.) That's it, so stop whining about the pads. At least we have sense enough to wear them.

Yes, but most of the hits are made at less than 40 yard speed. And that's less than 8 metres a second (7.2 to be pedantic, which I apologise for). Do they do the 40yd sprints in full gear, because if they don't then that'd slow them down even more.

No need to apologize for pedantry, I'll admit my math was a bit fuzzy.

Yes, they do run that in full equipment. It's true that they don't hit at the full 40 yard speed, but most football players train to get to their top speed as quickly as possible, due to the short distances covered during plays.

Off the top of my head I couldn't say, I know top rugby players run low 10 seconds over 100m but official timings aren't done, so it's not definitive. But since the rugby players are lighter but still do the top level fitness and don't have to carry the padding etc I think it'd be a safe bet.

That is quicker, but not dramatically so. Using the Miata and SUV example (which I think describes the players of both games well) it'd be like the Miata doing 60 and the SUV doing 50.

Either way, the reason they started using all that padding is because too many people were dying. Also, back when protective gear was introduced I'd say that American footballers were more general athletes, like rugby players. Over time the sport has changed so that players specialize very strongly in their position, and their positions are more specialized than rugby ones.

snip

You're kidding yourself in the extreme if you think you could play any professional sport without being absurdly out of your depth, in 'futbol' they'd easily make a fool of you.

I've seen many rugby players with lots of physical definition and they also have to have much better endurance than NFL players. Average NFL play lasts 8 seconds and all your beasts stop to have a drink and have a rest. In rugby the players have to keep on going and keep on running for much longer than that.

NFL players don't have to have that endurance or have to be able to haul their frames around the field. Lineman rarely move more than 5-10 yards per play, if that.

In a way you've made one of my points. NFL is so stats based, strength to lift x amount, speed of x amount of y distance. All mechanical, less soul.


That is quicker, but not dramatically so. Using the Miata and SUV example (which I think describes the players of both games well) it'd be like the Miata doing 60 and the SUV doing 50.

Either way, the reason they started using all that padding is because too many people were dying. Also, back when protective gear was introduced I'd say that American footballers were more general athletes, like rugby players. Over time the sport has changed so that players specialize very strongly in their position, and their positions are more specialized than rugby ones.
I'm not bothered about the padding (I should also mention I haven't a clue what a Miata is ;)) but I like to argue that rugby players hit as hard, rugby just has tackling restrictions to prevent injury (below head height etc) rather than padding.

I prefer the tactical element multiple roles bring into it, balancing one player against another. You only see it a little in TEs and RBs with blocking/running/passing abilities and in some QBs with running ability. I'd love to see WRs have to turn round and play as a corner back.

If NFL was available to me (as a non-Sky consumer) I'd watch it and I quite enjoy it, although some things would irk me. But as I suspect is the reason for most of the allegiances on this thread I was brought up playing rugby (like any Welshman) and it's my first love as a sport and will probably always be.

American football scares me a little, I was glad to hear NFL europe folded because I remain nervous about NFL expanding and preventing rugby's expansion and eventually squashing/diminuishing rugby. We haven't been professional all that long and are still relatively young and naive in some things and need more time to fully establish ourself as a firm global sport.

Chess > American Football. Stop trying to compare the two. Also wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare it to a less complex game? Not in terms of strategy but actual complexity.

American Football is just as complex as chess. You'd have to actually play/coach to understand that.

That is quicker, but not dramatically so. Using the Miata and SUV example (which I think describes the players of both games well) it'd be like the Miata doing 60 and the SUV doing 50.

It's not just that rugby players are a bit faster, they're much more maneuverable, too. The play of rugby is much more open, and the straight-line charge of American football linemen won't cut it.

A good comparison would be like a Tu-160 Blackjack and a MiG-35. The MiG is only a little bit faster than the bomber, and significantly smaller, but it could run rings around it, easy.

And rugby players have crazy stamina.

It's not just that rugby players are a bit faster, they're much more maneuverable, too. The play of rugby is much more open, and the straight-line charge of American football linemen won't cut it.

A good comparison would be like a Tu-160 Blackjack and a MiG-35. The MiG is only a little bit faster than the bomber, and significantly smaller, but it could run rings around it, easy.

And rugby players have crazy stamina.

Perhaps Mini Cooper/Ford Excursion would be a better car-related comparison (going with cars, which people generally know better than planes). Although my Miata does corner quite well :p

Still, I agree that rugby players are better general athletes, but that's mostly because American football players are so specialized in their roles. A linesman doesn't have to run 100 yards so he'll never train to. Instead he'll work on his sprinting and bulking up. Different sports call for different things.

Trust me, the way we hit you fucking feel it a lot more than a pussy lasso tackle that the rugby players use.

Yeah right.

Just like all these pussy like lasso tackles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc0Ut5y-GRc)

You've never played either have you?

Perhaps Mini Cooper/Ford Excursion would be a better car-related comparison (going with cars, which people generally know better than planes). Although my Miata does corner quite well :p

Pssch, planes are awesome. :D

Still, I agree that rugby players are better general athletes, but that's mostly because American football players are so specialized in their roles. A linesman doesn't have to run 100 yards so he'll never train to. Instead he'll work on his sprinting and bulking up. Different sports call for different things.

No dissent here.

Yeah right.

Just like all these pussy like lasso tackles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc0Ut5y-GRc)

You've never played either have you?

Good job for putting up a link that was posted probably an hour ago.

It's not just that rugby players are a bit faster, they're much more maneuverable, too. The play of rugby is much more open, and the straight-line charge of American football linemen won't cut it.

A good comparison would be like a Tu-160 Blackjack and a MiG-35. The MiG is only a little bit faster than the bomber, and significantly smaller, but it could run rings around it, easy.

And rugby players have crazy stamina.

I am quoting you, but my comments apply to all those that are dissing the American Football players on the basis that the game is not continuous, and as a result they don't need the same levels of fitness that Rugby players have to have.

I have played both sports (one of the few few that has) and I can affirm, from personal experience, that the level of fitness required is equivalent in both. The nature of the fitness is a little different, in that Rugby re4quires more aerobic fitness while American football requires more anaerobic explosion. However even this depends on the position played.

In rugby I was primarily a blind side wing forward, but I have played in 13 of the 15 positions (The exceptions being scrum half and fly half). In American football I have played as outside linebacker, corner and Defensive End. (Strange combination I know - but I am big and I was fast). As a DE I needed repetitive bursts of extreme power. As a corner I needed stamina - run, run some more and then run - all flat out and with your opponent choosing where to go.

I can assure you that a corner bac or safety needs far more stamina than a centre three quarter for example.

I still have no preference for one over the other - they are just different.

Personally I like both sports and yeh they are different.

The thing about why AF has padding is that rugby players (I think, I could be wrong, I've never played rugby before) don't seem to hit each other at full speed very often if at all while every hit in American Football is at full speed.

Good job for putting up a link that was posted probably an hour ago.

Thank you, it's what I do best :p

Football, of course.

The forward pass is a good thing.

Ugh, Rugby is light years better than crappy American Football, and I'm an American!

The only thing worse than American Football is rythmnic gymnastics.

When is the Rugby World Cup?

Can England win it again... is Jonny Wilkinson going to be able to play?

I greatly prefer Rugby simply because the action is a little more continuous. Gridiron is far too stop-and-go for me. They spend most of their time just standing around.

Even though I think Rugby is one hell of a lot more fun to play, I give massive respect to those who play American football. I never did much more than backyard games of football, so we never used pads, and generally speaking pads in high school are probably more trouble than they are worth, but when you get to college or pro games the pads are an absolute necessity.

I would certainly never survive playing college ball unless I went to somewhere like Villa Julie. Any real school has players that are big enough and strong enough that pads cannot be done without. Period.

When I transferred to a university in NZ, I got a lot of pressure to play rugby because I was a big guy… turns out I was bigger than just about everyone with the exception of 2 Maori guys. I started playing rugby, and enjoyed it quite a lot – fantastic game to play.

It really got on my nerves constantly hearing jokes like “in this country, only women wear pads” but after a little while, nobody made them anymore. It did not take long before people did not want to play against me because I had only known how to tackle like you do in American football – anyone taking 2 or 3 hits from me was out of the game. After a while, my shoulders hurt like hell, and they tended not to get up.

I played enough ‘smear the queer’* as a kid that rugby players had a hard time pulling me down. Grabbing and yanking just didn’t work too well – you had to really get some momentum up and smash into in the hopes of bringing me down (of course they went for the legs so my knees suffered) but it still generally took a few of them to do it.

Without protective pads in college or professional levels, the sheer physical impacts of American football would cause irreparable damage to the players in very short order.



*’Smear-the-queer’ is a simple game where the neighborhood kids get together and basically grab a ball. The object of the game is to simply hold onto the ball as long as possible – no teams, no rules, just be the one holding the ball. Everyone else gangs up on you trying to take it away from you – thus it is just an all out brawl of everyone wrestling, elbowing, kicking, bashing, and generally roughhousing. Despite the homophobic name, it often makes me wonder why the goal of the game is to fight tooth and nail to be the ‘queer’ and stay that way for as long as possible despite receiving serious physical violence for being ‘queer’.

Rugby, its not even close. The two sports shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath.

When is the Rugby World Cup?

Can England win it again...

No.

If any northern hemisphere team takes it (which I doubt), it will be france.

I'm thinking the convicts are going to win.

The poll question should be:

Are you from the US?

or

Have you ever played (American) football?

sour grapes, I know.

hehe

And American Football, not physical?!?! Obviously you've never played offensive line. Or defensive line. Or linebacker. Or running back. Or tight end.
Hmm...
Of course it's still a physical game, but you don't get the feeling that it's really about who's the stronger man (or woman, whatever the case may be).

I'll just restate my original point: I'm not saying that American Football is not physical, of course it is. I'm saying that Rugby feels a lot more natural. In AF tactics are everything, and in the pursuit of tactics they use things like radio contact to the coach, constant stoppages to plan what to do and so on. It's got its own appeal, but if I want to see that, I personally prefer other things.

Rugby has a "celtic village in 980AD" thing going which I like. That's the reason I prefer it.

I'm thinking the convicts are going to win.
Hmm, I've got my doubts. I think it's a toss-up between the All Blacks and the Springboks, with the odds favouring the former.

Yesterday was a bit of a fluke, given that the Kiwis have been flying half-way around the world over the last few days. If they had just continued putting on pressure they would have won easily.

Both are inconsequential to me. The Haka I've always found cool to the max though.

When is the Rugby World Cup?

Can England win it again... is Jonny Wilkinson going to be able to play?

September, No, probably.

All Blacks are favourites, but that's been more or less true since 1995 and yet...

Still can't see past them, France could if they feel like it (as ever with the French). I'm deluding myself into thinking Wales have a vague chance. If they manage to get back to 2005 form they could do well, as it is, Semis are the most to hope for :(.

Hmm, I've got my doubts. I think it's a toss-up between the All Blacks and the Springboks, with the odds favouring the former.

Yesterday was a bit of a fluke, given that the Kiwis have been flying half-way around the world over the last few days. If they had just continued putting on pressure they would have won easily.

I just like the convicts for some reason. So we shall see. Hell, maybe italy will win.

Wow, Rugby is still winning. That's a pleasant surprise.

I'll ignore League because it's silly. Why would someone deliberately make a game as boring as possible?

What's "better", Rugby Union or American Football?

I'm obviously quite partial to Rugby. There's something very primitive about the game...it's as close to a traditional battle as there is in the modern world. You can tell where the game comes from. I also quite like the way that the players very much look suited to different roles...there's small, quick guys but also fat dudes who look as though they're only there to add bodymass to the ruck or scrum (which is in fact the case).

Of course American Football has a few of these as well, but the body armour, the coaches with their walkie-talkies and the constant stoppages kill off a lot of the traditional, physical appeal. Of course it's still a physical game, but you don't get the feeling that it's really about who's the stronger man (or woman, whatever the case may be).

And as a bonus, the Haka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BCKZqDLUM

That my friend is the wrong haka - try again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL9ThdmZkFs

My own favourite has to be the new one - way to scare the opposition with the throat slitting bit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liA-xzKPzCE&NR=1

In terms of the ABs getting the Cup, I wouldn't bet money on it - they did badly against South Africa (they only won because of good fortune), they did badly against Australia (they lost last night for the first time in years), and they did badly against Canada (the performance in general was poor).

Meh. Sports are boring.

I know a lot of others have already said this basic idea, but I must agree with them. Why choose? Both are excellent sports and are rather a lot of fun, both to watch and to play!

Chess > American Football. Stop trying to compare the two. Also wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare it to a less complex game? Not in terms of strategy but actual complexity.

Chess only one piece moves at a time. In football you have 22 moving at the same time reacting to each other based on their opponent.

Rugby is closer to basketball, or hockey in terms of strategy. I tried out for my college rugby team and got kicked off for throwing elbow in a kid's neck.In all fairness he wasn't looking and should have kept his head on a swivel.

Then they tried explaining the rules and I just walked off. I thought it was just a violent version of smear the queer. :mad:

The kids on that team were a bunch of poofs though.

Body Armor

Let me break down the different parts of a football player's uniform:

Helmet: Metal with a lining of sponge on the inside. Essentially this is exactly why you needthe other pads, otherwise you're just smacking people with a hammer.

Shoudlerpads: The only things these do is protect your collarbones, which thank god I had them. If you've ever been speared in the chest and snapped your collarbone in half you'll know why.

Hip Pads: I never wore em.

Tail Pad: Never wore one.

Cup: Never wore one.

Thigh Pads: Not sure why we have to wear these, but the refs will notice if you don't have them.

Knee Pads: Same as above.

Mouthpiece: Never stopped me from breaking my two front teeth in half, but at least I never bit my tongue off like a kid I played against in high school. After I hit him he was screaming and mumbling and blood pooling out of his mouth.

I just wish we wore shinpads because the number one injury I ever received was just a defensive tackle stepping on my shin.

Rugby, for me.

I choose rugby because I played for 18 years (Wing Forward for the 1st 10, and then 2nd Row for the rest of it), so I recognise that I am somewhat biased :)

American Football is ruined for me by the constant stop/start nature of the play... it's almost as if the game has evolved to maximise the opportunities for advertisers to get their messages across :P

Like I said though, it's purely cultural bias on my part.

I'll ignore League because it's silly. Why would someone deliberately make a game as boring as possible?

What's "better", Rugby Union or American Football?

I'm obviously quite partial to Rugby. There's something very primitive about the game...it's as close to a traditional battle as there is in the modern world. You can tell where the game comes from. I also quite like the way that the players very much look suited to different roles...there's small, quick guys but also fat dudes who look as though they're only there to add bodymass to the ruck or scrum (which is in fact the case).

Of course American Football has a few of these as well, but the body armour, the coaches with their walkie-talkies and the constant stoppages kill off a lot of the traditional, physical appeal. Of course it's still a physical game, but you don't get the feeling that it's really about who's the stronger man (or woman, whatever the case may be).

And as a bonus, the Haka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BCKZqDLUM
Is that the old good haka, the newer one or the new one which is crap?
Or is it the Tongan Haka...

Meh. Sports are boring.
That is an untruth.
-----------------
American Footballers suffer from brain problems, it was on the news.-_-

Rugby is better.

See 1:54 and 3:20 for my point. Two guys go in for a battering ram hit, bounce off and the guy makes 5 extra yards

The standard tackle is wrap up and drive, which the runningback loses yards, but those are corners and safeties hitting men 280lbs and up. That runningback who fell into the endzone was actually unconcious at the time.

Rugby doesn't impress me because the huge dump tackle is nothing more than a double leg takedown, which being a wrestler for 13 years I've seen more than enough of.

Pro Rugby is closer to a mix of a cluster fuck mixed with a drunken brawl. Eventually they added a scoring system to it. :p

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4zcIyn2sIb4&mode=related&search=

American football rocks Go patriots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The standard tackle is wrap up and drive, which the runningback loses yards, but those are corners and safeties hitting men 280lbs and up. That runningback who fell into the endzone was actually unconcious at the time.
Unconscious, but he scored. First and foremost point of tackling is to stop the player. You can say things like 'yeah I knocked him out' but the point is to win, and that runningback made it over the line. Had he put in a 'pussy lasso tackle' then he stops the score.


Rugby doesn't impress me because the huge dump tackle is nothing more than a double leg takedown, which being a wrestler for 13 years I've seen more than enough of.

Most American football tackles don't impress me because many of them are nothing more than people running into each other with little skill or technique. Hence why they're often unnecessarily unsuccessful.


Chess only one piece moves at a time. In football you have 22 moving at the same time reacting to each other based on their opponent.

They don't react in any great way. Half the team is there to block/drive at the quarterback and the rest run exact routes. Football always restarts back in a basic starting point. You have slightly different objective regarding distance needed and downs left. But you always start from the same situation, in chess the number of situations that occur is an absurdly high number.


Rugby is closer to basketball, or hockey in terms of strategy. I tried out for my college rugby team and got kicked off for throwing elbow in a kid's neck.In all fairness he wasn't looking and should have kept his head on a swivel.

Then they tried explaining the rules and I just walked off. I thought it was just a violent version of smear the queer.

The kids on that team were a bunch of poofs though.

Rather than pads rugby has rules to keep players safe. Throwing an elbow in someone's neck is dangerous and hence not allowed, nor is objecting to it a sign of 'being a poof'.

Unconscious, but he scored. First and foremost point of tackling is to stop the player. You can say things like 'yeah I knocked him out' but the point is to win, and that runningback made it over the line. Had he put in a 'pussy lasso tackle' then he stops the score.

That man who scored was Earl Campbell, 280 pounds of hall of fame runningback. Lasso tackling doesn't work because if the back has any strength at all he'll run you over without breaking a sweat.


Most American football tackles don't impress me because many of them are nothing more than people running into each other with little skill or technique. Hence why they're often unnecessarily unsuccessful.

Actually most football tackles are perfect form wrap up and drive. It's the big hits that take no skill. Just opportunity, aggression, and speed.


They don't react in any great way. Half the team is there to block/drive at the quarterback and the rest run exact routes. Football always restarts back in a basic starting point. You have slightly different objective regarding distance needed and downs left. But you always start from the same situation, in chess the number of situations that occur is an absurdly high number.

Not necessarily, before the snap of the ball the formations are nearly as limitless as that of a chess board. The offense can run Power I, Splitbacks, Wing Backs, Wing Right, Trips Right, Slot Right, Quad Right, and any combination of those which makes the defense (college especially :mad:) have to spend two hours a night studying.

The Defense can also run the following: 3-4, 4-3, 5-2, 4-4, or goaline.

The adjustments such as Eagle, G, Bear, Monster, are based on what the offense lines up as (see above). The coverage numbers from 1 (man) to 9 (we just called it dime). Each position has different responsibilities based onthe coverage called. I'll list mine (that I remember :p)

Weakside Linbacker
Cover 1: Tightend if in double tight, Quarterback if he rolls out to weakside, nearest back if dropback/rolls out strongside.

Cover 2 (White): Zone: Hook to Curl: look for recievers crossing and pick slant routes underneath. Jam to the inside if heading upfield.

Cover 3 (Heart): Zone: Hook to Flat: Drop into zone pick any screens and jam anyone heading upfield to the outside.

Cover 4 (Blue): Zone: Flat: Pick any screens, jam recievers at line, watch rollout.

Cover 8 (Black): Zone: Hook to Curl. See cover 2. Jame to the outside and watch wheel routes.

There is much much more but after two years this is as much as I remember without getting my old playbook. Blitzes and alignments not included, as well as gap responsibilities and play reactions.

Rather than pads rugby has rules to keep players safe. Throwing an elbow in someone's neck is dangerous and hence not allowed, nor is objecting to it a sign of 'being a poof'.

In my opinion it was always up the player to keep themselves safe. I saw plenty of those guys in the video do exactly what I did, so I don't see it as excessive. Also kicking someone off a rugby team for being too aggressive IS a sign of being a poof.

In my opinion it was always up the player to keep themselves safe. I saw plenty of those guys in the video do exactly what I did, so I don't see it as excessive. Also kicking someone off a rugby team for being too aggressive IS a sign of being a poof.

No, it's a sign that you need control. Rugby is about technique as much as physical speed/power. A neck-high tackle at a closing speed of 10-15 metres per second could kill you. A dump-tackle at the same speed will leave you winded instead and if you handed the ball off fast enough your opponent won't be able to get back in the game before *you* can.

I mean, if it should be up to the player to take care of themselves why shouldn't I be allowed to bring a chainsaw along and just walk in front of the man with the ball until we hit the try-line?

And rugby is a tactical game. Which is what makes it interesting, as well as the fact that you have to actually be quite manly to play it, instead of being an overweight pussy in bodyarmour :)

You realize that a lot of people still get hurt badly, even with the padding? Obviously you've never heard of a linebacker.

No, it's a sign that you need control. Rugby is about technique as much as physical speed/power. A neck-high tackle at a closing speed of 10-15 metres per second could kill you. A dump-tackle at the same speed will leave you winded instead and if you handed the ball off fast enough your opponent won't be able to get back in the game before *you* can.

I mean, if it should be up to the player to take care of themselves why shouldn't I be allowed to bring a chainsaw along and just walk in front of the man with the ball until we hit the try-line?

13 years of wrestling and I have no control. :rolleyes:

The fact of matter is, the harder you hit, the more you demoralize the other team.

That man who scored was Earl Campbell, 280 pounds of hall of fame runningback. Lasso tackling doesn't work because if the back has any strength at all he'll run you over without breaking a sweat.

On the video he gets knocked backwards but rolls around the tackle and scores anyway. If the defender used his arms as well in the tackle then he stops the score.


Not necessarily, before the snap of the ball the formations are nearly as limitless as that of a chess board. The offense can run Power I, Splitbacks, Wing Backs, Wing Right, Trips Right, Slot Right, Quad Right, and any combination of those which makes the defense (college especially :mad:) have to spend two hours a night studying.

The Defense can also run the following: 3-4, 4-3, 5-2, 4-4, or goaline.

The adjustments such as Eagle, G, Bear, Monster, are based on what the offense lines up as (see above). The coverage numbers from 1 (man) to 9 (we just called it dime). Each position has different responsibilities based onthe coverage called. I'll list mine (that I remember :p)

I doubt we'd agree, and it's reasonably unprovable, so I'll drop it for the moment.


In my opinion it was always up the player to keep themselves safe. I saw plenty of those guys in the video do exactly what I did, so I don't see it as excessive. Also kicking someone off a rugby team for being too aggressive IS a sign of being a poof.
Punching someone is aggressive, but that's illegal in both sports.

If you went on a AF team and they told you to stop facemasking would you walk off? There are rules, if can't abide by them then you lack control. If you choose not to abide by them then don't play the sport. But don't say you were kicked off for being too aggressive.

Rugby. I like players firstly to be intelligent, not simply to replay rehearsed plays for a few hours, and not to wear armour over which a knight would drool.

Of course, League is better than both;)

and not to wear armour over which a knight would drool.

A knight would burst into laughter just like everyone else.

A knight would burst into laughter just like everyone else.

My mistake....:p

Rugby. No contest here, American Football is a joke. has anyone seen Australian rules Football or Aussie rules violence as I prefer to call it? Its class! A forearm smash to the face is a legal tackle!:eek:

On the video he gets knocked backwards but rolls around the tackle and scores anyway. If the defender used his arms as well in the tackle then he stops the score.

I doubt we'd agree, and it's reasonably unprovable, so I'll drop it for the moment.

Yes he should have wrapped up, drove, and hold onto dear life while his teammates surge behind him to help, but he didn't. It's fairly rare to see someone just run headfirst into someone like that and just drop. (I think the tackler got a concussion from that hit anyway.)

Punching someone is aggressive, but that's illegal in both sports.

If you went on a AF team and they told you to stop facemasking would you walk off? There are rules, if can't abide by them then you lack control. If you choose not to abide by them then don't play the sport. But don't say you were kicked off for being too aggressive.

Facemasking and throwing an elbow into someone (like a body check) are two different things. The former riskis breaking someone's neck, the latter just knocks them down.

I was always taught to play in such a way that your opponent will utterly lose his will to keep playing. I don't play dirty (stepping on fingers, facemasking, punching, etc.) I just play very rough.

Chess only one piece moves at a time. In football you have 22 moving at the same time reacting to each other based on their opponent.

Rugby is closer to basketball, or hockey in terms of strategy. I tried out for my college rugby team and got kicked off for throwing elbow in a kid's neck.In all fairness he wasn't looking and should have kept his head on a swivel.

Then they tried explaining the rules and I just walked off. I thought it was just a violent version of smear the queer. :mad:

The kids on that team were a bunch of poofs though.

Body Armor

Let me break down the different parts of a football player's uniform:

Helmet: Metal with a lining of sponge on the inside. Essentially this is exactly why you needthe other pads, otherwise you're just smacking people with a hammer.

Shoudlerpads: The only things these do is protect your collarbones, which thank god I had them. If you've ever been speared in the chest and snapped your collarbone in half you'll know why.

Hip Pads: I never wore em.

Tail Pad: Never wore one.

Cup: Never wore one.

Thigh Pads: Not sure why we have to wear these, but the refs will notice if you don't have them.

Knee Pads: Same as above.

Mouthpiece: Never stopped me from breaking my two front teeth in half, but at least I never bit my tongue off like a kid I played against in high school. After I hit him he was screaming and mumbling and blood pooling out of his mouth.

I just wish we wore shinpads because the number one injury I ever received was just a defensive tackle stepping on my shin. There is a view that most injuries in Gridiron are caused by the armour!

has anyone seen Australian rules Football or Aussie rules violence as I prefer to call it? Its class! A forearm smash to the face is a legal tackle!:eek:

*squeels with glee*

Rugby. I like players firstly to be intelligent, not simply to replay rehearsed plays for a few hours, and not to wear armour over which a knight would drool.

Moron.

A knight would burst into laughter just like everyone else.

Bigger moron.

There is a view that most injuries in Gridiron are caused by the armour!

I do not question that at all.

All my injuries came from direct shots from a helmet.

Facemasking and throwing an elbow into someone (like a body check) are two different things. The former riskis breaking someone's neck, the latter just knocks them down.

I was always taught to play in such a way that your opponent will utterly lose his will to keep playing. I don't play dirty (stepping on fingers, facemasking, punching, etc.) I just play very rough.

Throwing an elbow into someone's unprotected neck is not dangerous?

Learn the rules of the game your playing. In rugby union stepping on hands, fingers, people, can be a normal part of the game, and is rough. Deliberately elbowing someone in the neck is dirty and dangerous.

The standard tackle is wrap up and drive, which the runningback loses yards, but those are corners and safeties hitting men 280lbs and up. That runningback who fell into the endzone was actually unconcious at the time.

Rugby doesn't impress me because the huge dump tackle is nothing more than a double leg takedown, which being a wrestler for 13 years I've seen more than enough of.

Pro Rugby is closer to a mix of a cluster fuck mixed with a drunken brawl. Eventually they added a scoring system to it. :p

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4zcIyn2sIb4&mode=related&search= But at least one team plays the WHOLE Game instead of offence and defencive teams. And the armour is a bit girly!

*squeels with glee*



Moron.



Bigger moron. Er.. Do what?

*squeels with glee*



Moron.



Bigger moron.

Just so I'm clear, the man labelling people morons in a discussion (bad form anyway) is expressing delight at the thought of a sport in which violence is expected?

The very same poster who used queers as a term of abuse?

Frankly, in light of the above, I wouldn't expect you to have any appreciation of skill, subtlety or, for that matter, anything beyond big men shouting "Go Team!" and claiming to have "smeared that queer". In fact, I would be prepared to wager that, were you to watch football, you would be the macho twat labelling technical players such as Ronaldo and Fabregas "poofs".

But at least one team plays the WHOLE Game instead of offence and defencive teams. And the armour is a bit girly!

High School and College athletes play both sides of the ball and special teams.

By the time you go to the nfl, each position is so specialized that it would be near impossible to play both sides of the ball.

Again, the armor has never helped me, just cause the damn injury.

Did I slag anyone off? I thought I was being good?:confused:

Just so I'm clear, the man labelling people morons in a discussion (bad form anyway) is expressing delight at the thought of a sport in which violence is expected?

If you think sports like Rugby and AF are anything but violence, you are sorely mistaken.


The very same poster who used queers as a term of abuse?

A popular neighborhood game called "Smear the queer." I didn't invent it, and if you'll look a few pages back you'll see another poster using it to describe rugby.



Frankly, in light of the above, I wouldn't expect you to have any appreciation of skill, subtlety or, for that matter, anything beyond big men shouting "Go Team!" and claiming to have "smeared that queer". In fact, I would be prepared to wager that, were you to watch football, you would be the macho twat labelling technical players such as Ronaldo and Fabregas "poofs".

Wow, you're really good at reading aren't you?

I'm a Linebacker, it is my job to be a very angry and aggressive hitting machine. I do appreciate agility, grace, and skill; but not for linebackers. That is saved for the runningbacks. The very same position that my idol played (Bo Jackson).

You can attack my character all you want, but it hardly does this thread anything but waste time.

Did I slag anyone off? I thought I was being good?:confused:

I was talking to Chris and the other guy. :D

The other thing about Aussie rules is that the players all look like bloody Hells Angels! I mean really dodgy! Its similar to Gaelic football in such that they can play together with a few rule compramises. I watched a game between the champions of the two leagues when one goalie laid out another player with the forearm smash. He got some minor penalty and the comentator watched the replay and said it was a perfectly legal play!

has anyone seen Australian rules Football or Aussie rules violence as I prefer to call it? Its class! A forearm smash to the face is a legal tackle!:eek:

And that's just the spectators. I have a friend who won't shut up for the whole week whenever his team wins, and his team ALWAYS wins. This week they won by over 150 points so I should probably keep away from him entirely.

Bigger moron.

Did I hurt your feelings by saying that they look funny? They do :P

Then of course there's shinty were people regularly lose eyes...

Did I hurt your feelings by saying that they look funny? They do :P

More because you've been trolling through this thread since it started.

Then of course there's shinty were people regularly lose eyes...

Thank god for facemasks.

More because you've been trolling through this thread since it started.

:rolleyes: I'm sorry if I've pissed you off, but that's not what I was trying to do. Laughing at yourself once in a while is good for you.

:rolleyes: I'm sorry if I've pissed you off, but that's not what I was trying to do. Laughing at yourself once in a while is good for you.

Absolutely. Unfortunately one of these threads comes out once a month where AF is bashed utterly due to a complete lack of understanding. Also no matter how many times I defend it, it seems all my points go ignored. Especially with the god damn padding.

American Football is a strategic game.

Can someone help me out, why it's called football? It's not played with a ball, nor with the foot.

Meh. Sports are boring.

So why are you posting in a thread related to sports?

Can someone help me out, why it's called football? It's not played with a ball, nor with the foot.

The opening play of the game is the kickoff. Where the foot meets the ball.

Absolutely. Unfortunately one of these threads comes out once a month where AF is bashed utterly due to a complete lack of understanding. Also no matter how many times I defend it, it seems all my points go ignored. Especially with the god damn padding.

Ah, now that would be a problem. Sorry I didn't know (I thought American Football was going to win for the first four pages). I read some of your arguments they don't deserve to be ignored, for example I learned that the only reason you wear those amusing shoulder pads is so that people wearing helmets don't almost kill you.

So why are you posting in a thread related to sports?

To raise his post count and get his name recognised of course :rolleyes:

The opening play of the game is the kickoff. Where the foot meets the ball.

So pregnancy has to be called kissing? :) SCNR.

Seriously: Any chance to find out why it's called that?
Will check wikipedia but I am not too optimistic about that source.

Can someone help me out, why it's called football? It's not played with a ball, nor with the foot.

Well, that used to be true, but...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Wilson_American_football.jpg/800px-Wilson_American_football.jpg
They're using balls now, and...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/College_Football_CSU_AF.jpg/800px-College_Football_CSU_AF.jpg
Note the use of feet instead of wheelchairs.

Amazing, is it not?

Will check wikipedia but I am not too optimistic about that source.

Spend some time here, you'll change your mind.

[QUOTE=Dryks Legacy;12834802]Ah, now that would be a problem. Sorry I didn't know (I thought American Football was going to win for the first four pages). I read some of your arguments they don't deserve to be ignored, for example I learned that the only reason you wear those amusing shoulder pads is so that people wearing helmets don't almost kill you.QUOTE]

Nope, Rugby and EF usually get twice the votes of AF.

The helmet was meant to protect two people colliding head on. Thus early on all they wore was that little leather thing. Then they had to keep adding pads to protect the player, and next thing you know you have a pad for every inch of your body.

(Except shins, the one place we really needed them.)

Rugby is far more fun, but I just like AF because it seems more competitive.

Seriously: Any chance to find out why it's called that?

It's called football because it evolved at the same time as rugby football, and both are derived from soccer/football.

Also:

While it is widely believed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") originated in reference to the action of a foot kicking a ball, there is a rival explanation, which has it that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.

So pregnancy has to be called kissing? :) SCNR..

...Brilliant!

I don't get American Football at all.

I don't get American Football at all.

Well I could spend the next hour or so trying to explain all the little things about it, but I'm tired and in dire lack of coffee. :(

It does?

I just don't like the way tackles are handled in that game. I mean, why does the game have to stop for all intents and purposes? Why does the other side have to go backwards? It just leads to people deliberately running into the other man for no other reason than forcing them back...if you did that in Union you actually have to work for it (and sometimes a whole bunch of players ends up pushing in an impromptu scrum sorta thing, which is just the height of coolness).

Though a quick look at the origins of the codes makes me grin...

Because it leads to more dynamic play than one team having dominance if they never loose the ball tis why.

League is far more fun to play than union. But in any case i voted rugby.

Again, professional American footballers are much larger men than professional rugby players. It's like the difference between getting hit by a Miata and getting hit by an SUV.

However, you seem to have made up your mind and nothing I or anyone says can do anything to change it. Personally, I think they're both fine sports (neither are as good as ice hockey, but nothing is).

I think Phil Vickery or Sheridan might have something to say about that actually. Or the majority of Rugby Forwards. Padding doesn't count as part of the man :)

I don't get American Football at all.

One team of 11 players tries to run the ball to the end zone, another team of 11 tries to stop them. Once the ball carrier is downed, play stops and resets on that spot. The team has 4 chances to move the ball 10 yards, upon which the counter is reset. If all 4 chances are used, the ball is turned over to the other team, which then goes on offense. A team can kick the ball between the 2 uprights in order to score a half-point.

It's rugby with downs instead of scrums, and forward passing.

I think Phil Vickery or Sheridan might have something to say about that actually. Or the majority of Rugby Forwards. Padding doesn't count as part of the man :)

I shook hands with the Steeler's offensive line when I went to one of their games out in Pittsburg. I'm 6,1" 210lbs, and I felt like a damn child. These guys had to all be close to 6'8 400lbs of muscle.

I was actually afraid to shake their hands for fear of them accidently taking it off. Although I'm certain HGH and Steroids played a part in that.

I shook hands with the Steeler's offensive line when I went to one of their games out in Pittsburg.

Ew... you must incinerate your hands...

It's called football because it evolved at the same time as rugby football, and both are derived from soccer/football.

Also:

Probably its either because it's played on foot or because it allows
kicking the "ball" by foot.

And most probably we'll never find out which one ist true or both.

Concerning the ball


If ball- was native in Germanic, it may have been a cognate with the Latin foll-is in sense of a "thing blown up or inflated."


Ok, that is also true for egg-shaped balls :)

Ew... you must incinerate your hands...

No. Except for the Raiders, the Steelers are my favorite team.

Spend some time here, you'll change your mind.


I wasn't argueing or judging about the sport itself. Just wondering where the name comes from.

Well, that used to be true, but...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/College_Football_CSU_AF.jpg/800px-College_Football_CSU_AF.jpg
Note the use of feet instead of wheelchairs.

Amazing, is it not?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/7m_Penalty_Handball.jpg/731px-7m_Penalty_Handball.jpg

Well, I would not call that Horse Riding.

No. Except for the Raiders, the Steelers are my favorite team.

You poor, poor, soul. :(

I wasn't argueing or judging about the sport itself. Just wondering where the name comes from.

I'm pretty sure he was commenting on the quality of Wiki, not the sports at hand...

You poor, poor, soul. :(

If I were an Eagle's fan (live in Jersey), I would most definately kill myself with a can of chunky soup. Just to spite McNabb.

If I were an Eagle's fan (live in Jersey), I would most definately kill myself with a can of chunky soup. Just to spite McNabb.

Yeah, Eagles suck too.

I've noticed a strange trend: Pennsylvania seems to have no good sports teams.

Phillies, the Pirates, Eagles, Steelers, Penguins, Flyers... ick. Bleh.

The only good team the whole state has is the Hershey Bears, and that's just 'cause it's the farm team for the Caps.

Steelers just won the Superbowl a few years ago...

Steelers just won the Superbowl a few years ago...

Yeah... so? Ravens own the Steelers.

Seriously though, the Steelers are rivals with every single team I like: Ravens, Bengals, Patriots... (well, I used to like the Pats, but then they started winning Superbowls left and right. I hate being accused of jumping on the bandwagon.)

NFL players don't have to have that endurance or have to be able to haul their frames around the field. Lineman rarely move more than 5-10 yards per play, if that.

So other than the fact that they have a line of guys atleast their size and strength pushing against them for the duration of the play might have something to do with that.

Yeah... so? Ravens own the Steelers.

Seriously though, the Steelers are rivals with every single team I like: Ravens, Bengals, Patriots... (well, I used to like the Pats, but then they started winning Superbowls left and right. I hate being accused of jumping on the bandwagon.)

Then you should support the vikings, Good team but the rest of the NF hates them so they don't get any where.(yes I am just lying to myslef so I don't think about the fact that they haven't gotten to the play offs in years...)

Yeah... so? Ravens own the Steelers.

Seriously though, the Steelers are rivals with every single team I like: Ravens, Bengals, Patriots... (well, I used to like the Pats, but then they started winning Superbowls left and right. I hate being accused of jumping on the bandwagon.)

I remember watching the Pats win 36. I was around seven. Been a football fan ever since. (Not a mad one, but still one)

Then you should support the vikings, Good team but the rest of the NF hates them so they don't get any where.(yes I am just lying to myslef so I don't think about the fact that they haven't gotten to the play offs in years...)

Or he could be a Lions fan. They're still in the rebuilding phase after having won the championship in 1957...

I remember watching the Pats win 36. I was around seven.

:eek:

I remember Superbowl 36. In the US Army in Germany you get the next day off since it's on in the middle of the night. I didn't really care about the game but it was an excuse to drink. Also, we used to piss off this guy in our unit from Massachusetts because we kept telling him that the game was fixed, with the Patriots winning after 9/11 and all.

Being an extremely patriotic american, im all for bashing other peoples cultures in favor of (obviously superior) american ones, but honestly, i hate american football, there are too many stops and it is treated as if it were more important than other things (like taking school/work off for the superbowl?) So in this case i will side with rugby...

I remember Superbowl 36. In the US Army in Germany you get the next day off since it's on in the middle of the night. I didn't really care about the game but it was an excuse to drink. Also, we used to piss off this guy in our unit from Massachusetts because we kept telling him that the game was fixed, with the Patriots winning after 9/11 and all.

I still remember the power kick. 00:17 till endgame.

Yeah, Eagles suck too.

I've noticed a strange trend: Pennsylvania seems to have no good sports teams.

Phillies, the Pirates, Eagles, Steelers, Penguins, Flyers... ick. Bleh.

The only good team the whole state has is the Hershey Bears, and that's just 'cause it's the farm team for the Caps.

You mean Sidney Crosby and friends? :)

On topic, Hockey pwns them all. Hardcore.

But for those who are saying that AF is for wimps, babies, pussies, etc...please, next time you are over here, hit me up. We can play with pads, without pads, on a field, in a mud pit of a back yard, or on the beach. Doesn't matter, you will walk away understanding that no, it isn't a sport for someone who is a wimp.

Or he could be a Lions fan. They're still in the rebuilding phase after having won the championship in 1957...



:eek:

I remember Superbowl 36. In the US Army in Germany you get the next day off since it's on in the middle of the night. I didn't really care about the game but it was an excuse to drink. Also, we used to piss off this guy in our unit from Massachusetts because we kept telling him that the game was fixed, with the Patriots winning after 9/11 and all.

Someone said that to me too...and I still don't get it. Wouldn't they make the Giants win then?

Actually, now that I re-read that, making the Giants win would be way too unbelievable ;)

I was up at my sisters and partook in the riots that occured right after. Gotta love Boston.

Being an extremely patriotic american, im all for bashing other peoples cultures in favor of (obviously superior) american ones, but honestly, i hate american football, there are too many stops and it is treated as if it were more important than other things (like taking school/work off for the superbowl?) So in this case i will side with rugby...

...the superbowl is on sunday...people don't have to take the day off.

They may take the next day off for a hangover, but that has nothing to do with football itself.

Neither really, both are good to watch on television though.:p

Rugby for me, for all the time i spent palying murder ball at prep school or being a big lumbering prop

I kinda liked AF until moving to the US five years ago. Now I love it ... I guess the more that you get to know something, the more you appreciate it. Now that I have a greater grasp of the tactics and the rules, it makes more sense and is more enjoyable. I'll always love rugby (both codes), but I get to see a whole lot more AF and enjoy it immensely.

A final note: The length of an AF game is rivaled only by cricket, but once you understand the US mentality and how the game is subsidized it's easier to deal with. Going to an actual NFL game is a great experience ... and it lasts all day!Huh? Cricket completely trounces AF in terms of length. A game of (test) cricket can last for up to 5 days.

Whereas AF only last for 4 quarters made up of 15 minutes (do the players have no stamina?)... whereas Rugby union is two halves of 40 minutes and football (soccer) is made up of two halves of 45 minutes. Seriously... dude... what the fuck?

Heh... I seem to remember the main schism between soccer and rugby occured when football teams were trying to standardise the rules of the game. The Football association wasn't going to allow players to kick other players so the rugby teams stormed out in protest. Hah.

Then you should support the vikings, Good team but the rest of the NF hates them so they don't get any where.(yes I am just lying to myslef so I don't think about the fact that they haven't gotten to the play offs in years...)

Nah, I don't really care for the Vikings. I don't actually hate them ,though.

Or he could be a Lions fan. They're still in the rebuilding phase after having won the championship in 1957...

I'll hate any team that comes from Detroit. Fucking Red Wings. *shakes fist*

You mean Sidney Crosby and friends? :)

You know what my favourite part of EA's NHL '07 is? Being able to annihilate Sidney Crosby with my hero, OV. I try to injure him every single game I play against the Pens.

I hate how fucked up the roster is for the Caps, though. No Semin, no Mike Green, no Erskine, no Jurcina, yet Petr Sykora is on the team.

On topic, Hockey pwns them all. Hardcore.

Fuck yeah! Ice hockey is the best. :D

You know what my favourite part of EA's NHL '07 is? Being able to annihilate Sidney Crosby with my hero, OV. I try to injure him every single game I play against the Pens.

I hate how fucked up the roster is for the Caps, though. No Semin, no Mike Green, no Erskine, no Jurcina, yet Petr Sykora is on the team.
Ya know, I love and Crosby....mostly love, because he's great to watch, but no one should be a year younger than me and that good at a sport.

Any clue what the roster for the B's is like? That'll decide if I should try it or not.


Fuck yeah! Ice hockey is the best. :D
Me and you? Yeah, we'll get along fine.

Ya know, I love and Crosby....mostly love, because he's great to watch, but no one should be a year younger than me and that good at a sport.

Yeah, the fact that he's just a little under 2 years older than me makes me realise I've wasted my childhood by not training for ice hockey.

And I just don't like Crosby because of the whole Pittsburgh-Caps rivalry thing, and the Ovechkin-Crosby rivalry. Sure, he's a great player, but he's the star of the Caps' worst rival.

Any clue what the roster for the B's is like? That'll decide if I should try it or not.

Let's see here...

Goalies: they have Tim Thomas, but the back-up and minors goalies are different.

Defense: Alberts, and Chara are there, but no other current D-Men are. Instead you've got Mara, Leetch, and Brad Stuart.
Dammit, You've got Milan Jurcina! And he's rated terribly, too.

LW: Axelsson and Sturm are both there.

RW: Mowers, Donovan, and Glen Murray are there, but that's it.

C: Bergeron and Savard are there, but that's it.

Here's the NHL '07 Bruins roster if you're looking for anyone specific (I don't follow the B's, so I don't know if you traded anyone good away last season):
http://sports.ign.com/nhl07/boston.html

Me and you? Yeah, we'll get along fine.

I should think so. :D

I'll ignore League because it's silly. Why would someone deliberately make a game as boring as possible?

What's "better", Rugby Union or American Football?

I'm obviously quite partial to Rugby. There's something very primitive about the game...it's as close to a traditional battle as there is in the modern world. You can tell where the game comes from. I also quite like the way that the players very much look suited to different roles...there's small, quick guys but also fat dudes who look as though they're only there to add bodymass to the ruck or scrum (which is in fact the case).

Of course American Football has a few of these as well, but the body armour, the coaches with their walkie-talkies and the constant stoppages kill off a lot of the traditional, physical appeal. Of course it's still a physical game, but you don't get the feeling that it's really about who's the stronger man (or woman, whatever the case may be).

And as a bonus, the Haka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BCKZqDLUM

it really is not about who is stronger,american football is about who is faster and more violent,shock and awe if you will...lol...rugby does not have regular collisions with the ferocity of impact that amer. ball does,and not at the frequency.
sure a soccer player bumps heads once in a bit,but then they writhe around on the ground looking for a card,worthy of emmy's
i respect rugby more then soccer af far as pure brutality and violence goes,but they also spend most of the time hugging in a scrum,and the other half grabbin each other dicks,kinda gay if you ask me...just kidding..lol...but in american ball,you have collisions every play that dislodge teeth,and if you want to see a scrum of guys,check out the lineman mauling eachother.
nothing compares to the sheer violence of american football...nothing can,american football has violent collisions of massive men,rudgby has massive men hugging and dragging eachother down..ergo the armor.

hell my kid dislocated his shoulder and broke his collarbone 2 years straight,in traning before the season started....i had to ride the bus both times with my ex crying about her kid,and yes he had on "armor"
i dislocated my jaw getting drilled from the blind side with a helmet on..lol...great fun...my helmet was twisted around my head so i was looking out the ear hole...they actually had to cut my helmet off...all good.

So other than the fact that they have a line of guys atleast their size and strength pushing against them for the duration of the play might have something to do with that.
That's why they can have large frames, since there role doesn't ask them to run very far for very long. Rugby players on the other hand do, so can't have so much muscle to carry around.

It's called football because it evolved at the same time as rugby football, and both are derived from soccer/football.

Actually I think that AF evolved from rugby, and rugby developed alongside football/soccer (or rather rugby and soccer have common ancestry before they divided).

I'll hate any team that comes from Detroit. Fucking Red Wings. *shakes fist*

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/74018704.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1932BBB80AB57C97602BA917F0DC0C965CCA7CFF610D5B4FC25

Fuck yeah! Ice hockey is the best. :D

God damn right it is!

Yeah, the fact that he's just a little under 2 years older than me makes me realise I've wasted my childhood by not training for ice hockey.1 year younger than me. But one of my friends just got drafted (well, they got the rights to him atleast) to San Jose.

And I just don't like Crosby because of the whole Pittsburgh-Caps rivalry thing, and the Ovechkin-Crosby rivalry. Sure, he's a great player, but he's the star of the Caps' worst rival.understandable



Let's see here...

Goalies: they have Tim Thomas, but the back-up and minors goalies are different.

Defense: Alberts, and Chara are there, but no other current D-Men are. Instead you've got Mara, Leetch, and Brad Stuart.
Dammit, You've got Milan Jurcina! And he's rated terribly, too.

LW: Axelsson and Sturm are both there.

RW: Mowers, Donovan, and Glen Murray are there, but that's it.

C: Bergeron and Savard are there, but that's it.

Here's the NHL '07 Bruins roster if you're looking for anyone specific (I don't follow the B's, so I don't know if you traded anyone good away last season):
http://sports.ign.com/nhl07/boston.html
ah...alright. decent.

And yeah, the Bruins philosophy of trades: trade away the best players with the most experience (samsonov, thorton...).


I should think so. :Dyou like hockey. that makes you a good person *nods*