Post: #26

(02-04-2013 08:29 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 07:23 PM)LooTa Wrote:  Rugby would have had a greater claim to being the tougher sport before they outlawed rucking. I've still got a scar running the full length of my nose from some over zealous rucking in my school days. Maybe they just mistook my face for the ball.

They outlawed rucking? Where?

Everywhere. has been that way for a few years at least.

Quote:a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on
the ground'

Quote:rucking which is directed at a player to remove him as an obstruction or impediment to securing possession of the ball is illegal

Post: #27

(02-04-2013 09:09 PM)LooTa Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 08:29 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 07:23 PM)LooTa Wrote:  Rugby would have had a greater claim to being the tougher sport before they outlawed rucking. I've still got a scar running the full length of my nose from some over zealous rucking in my school days. Maybe they just mistook my face for the ball.

They outlawed rucking? Where?

Everywhere. has been that way for a few years at least.

Quote:a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on
the ground'

Quote:rucking which is directed at a player to remove him as an obstruction or impediment to securing possession of the ball is illegal

I guess it's good I haven't been yellow carded yet then.

Post: #28

(02-03-2013 11:10 AM)Moma Wrote:  I haven't played either sport but I used to work with a cat who had played both. I told him that rugby seemed to be a much rougher sport and the fact that you not playing with equipment makes it potentially more dangerous.
He disagreed and said something along the lines of 'the way they collide with you in American football is much more intense hence the need for equipment'.

Can any of the rugby heads (Hooligan comes to mind) and any of the American football heads (Athlone) please elaborate on the differences and if the need for equipment is justified?

Thanks.

Its different types of stress I think. The belief though that protective gear adds a sense of fearlessness to the hit might hold some weight, but it does not really take into account how mental some guys are when they are out there either. Another thing to bare in mind is that its not only tackles that are the contact point. Very often its at the rucks and mauls, which is where the majority of your injuries occur in rugby.

When the ball is on the ground, there is no stoppage unless there is an infringement. You basically wrestle each other off the ball without coming from an offside position. Which means what we call "clean outs" around the fringes of the breakdowns.

Here is an example. Now its not the bash that you see in football, but this crunches you and sends guys to hospital. There are on average about 120-130 breakdowns in a game, and if you play in the forwards you tend to bare the brunt of it.





You also need to time your tackles and your tackle tends to be based on the size and build of the player you are bringing down. Im not going to hit a 120kg guy in the chest if he is moving, Ill hit his waist or legs. If its in a ruck though, Ill hit him in the head for all I care. If he is static Ill bash him because Ill have momentum.

Rugby requires more mobility and all players on the field are expected to carry the ball through the game. So players carry a lot of muscle and size, but there is a limit to the size you can carry without it becoming a hindrance. Football players are massive, but their fitness levels would not be high enough to play even one half of rugby. Its not only 15 minutes of action over like 4 hours with football, its pretty much non stop running, tackling and rucking for 80 minutes.

I have been at different sizes throughout my club years, but as an openside flank, anything above 98kg was too much for me and slowed me down, so I was always averaging around the 95-96 mark. You need to keep bodyfat levels in check, other than the front row of course, you cant be more than 16% or so, but anything lower than 10% is not desirable either for anyone. An international player in the same position would be coming in at about 105kg-112kg. Small by football standards, but if those guys were playing this game they would be dropping the weight for mobility too.

The Polynesians are monsters and born to play this game though. They have 5kgs on everyone it seems and its always in the fucking legs. The South Africans, of which there are tons in Aus these days, are also very big guys. I have no idea what they feed them when they are kids, but they are probably the biggest white guys I have played against on average.

Surprisingly, the Argentinians are not small either. I have been on two tours there and we had a few clubs through over the years. They carry more fat, but also very strong and big.

I think rugby is rougher overall, but football has a higher chance of the sickening injuries because of the way the guys tend to clatter each other combined with very poor technique. So one is death by a thousand cuts, the other is being hit by a car you did not see.

Post: #29

The best biggest case for rugby in my mind is the higher concentration of action. A NFL game is 60 min long but due to all the play stoppages will typically last 3 hours. A rugby game on the other hand is 80 min but will rarely go over 110 from kick off to final whistle.

I also think that adopting Rugby as a replacement for NFL games would be good for American sports overall as they would truly have to compete internationally. Today NFL/Baseball/Basketball provides little but token resistances in international games.

Post: #30

That's because they dn't have time off.

If rugby union, they will kick the ball out of play, and gently stroll to a line out... the clock still winds down. 6 nations games have an average of 23 minutes of ball in play action.

Post: #31

I've played rugby up to county level,it's a hard sport. The thing people are not mentioning too much is that it's not just about comparing tackles ( AF has harder tackling because you can lead with your head and have protection ) but it's the physicality of the breakdown. The raking where you are basically legally stomped on and kicked to get you out of the way of the ball. Anyone remember the French captain who had his face torn open in a ruck against the ( South Africans? )? There is also some nasty gouging at the breakdown not to mention necks being broken. When I was at school our first 15's captain who was playing tight head prop had his neck broken in a scrum collapse,fortunately he recovered. There is no doubt AF is a tough sport,probably tougher,but they are not better athletes,nothing even close to a top rugby player. Modern Union since professionalism came in has gone on to produce incredible athletes. the days of having out of shape props jogging to the breakdown are over in the top teams. I find rugby far more exciting but there is certainly something magical about watching a QB throw a long pass to a receiver who turns around and the ball is there on a sixpence. How the fuck do they do that???!

The Haka:

Post: #32

There was a video some time ago about the NFL, a lighthearted thing. They were doing these incredible accuracy things, like kicking balls through tiny hoops etc. It was basically either incredible or fake. Anyone else see it?

If I'm being incredibly stupid and it was obviously fake then please, don't worry, I can take it!

Post: #33

(02-05-2013 07:40 AM)Vorkuta Wrote:  I've played rugby up to county level,it's a hard sport. The thing people are not mentioning too much is that it's not just about comparing tackles ( AF has harder tackling because you can lead with your head and have protection ) but it's the physicality of the breakdown. The raking where you are basically legally stomped on and kicked to get you out of the way of the ball. Anyone remember the French captain who had his face torn open in a ruck against the ( South Africans? )? There is also some nasty gouging at the breakdown not to mention necks being broken. When I was at school our first 15's captain who was playing tight head prop had his neck broken in a scrum collapse,fortunately he recovered. There is no doubt AF is a tough sport,probably tougher,but they are not better athletes,nothing even close to a top rugby player. Modern Union since professionalism came in has gone on to produce incredible athletes. the days of having out of shape props jogging to the breakdown are over in the top teams. I find rugby far more exciting but there is certainly something magical about watching a QB throw a long pass to a receiver who turns around and the ball is there on a sixpence. How the fuck do they do that???!

The Haka:

Good post, rugby injuries vary so much and any part of the body can be hacked off innocuously by an opposition boot, NFL seems confined to brain trauma unfortunately.

Post: #34

The helmets absolutely change the way players hit. In its oldest days there were no pads and leather helmets. Defenders obviously wouldn't lead with their head in a full-on sprint. Think of backyard football, where people play football with no pads in every neighborhood in America. It's a completely different kind of tackling than what you see on TV.

With the increasing number of NFL players committing suicide - almost all defensive players - the issue of concussions and soft brain damage isn't going away. I think removing some of the padding to change the way they hit is the only way to save the game. The NFL won't want it because the game will lose explosiveness, but I don't see the suicides stopping otherwise.

(02-05-2013 02:33 AM)Vicious Wrote:  The best biggest case for rugby in my mind is the higher concentration of action. A NFL game is 60 min long but due to all the play stoppages will typically last 3 hours. A rugby game on the other hand is 80 min but will rarely go over 110 from kick off to final whistle.

If the point is harder hits, then this actually works in favor of American football. The fact that there are so many stoppages makes it a completely anaerobic sport. It's all sprints and explosiveness. They don't have to keep up with the game, running up and down the field nonstop, slowly gassing them out. And they don't play both ways. Every possession change, one side of each team leaves the field, sits down, and drinks Gatorade.

While I don't know anything about rugby, and I wouldn't call it an aerobic sport, it's clearly not a purely explosive sport precisely because they don't get rests.

Take the most vicious rugby player in his best game and analyze all his best defensive hits. Then imagine those same plays if he didn't have to run around the field to keep up, each play was just a 5 second burst, and he got to sit down and drink Gatorade during all the offensive plays. By laws of human anatomy, all those hits would be significantly harder.

I met a professional rugby team in Beijing, China once, and that was one group of dudes I would not want to be on the other side of a bar brawl with. I have no idea how they maintain all that mass while doing so much running. I definitely agree that the typical rugby player is much better conditioned than the typical football player - excluding the running backs.

Post: #35

(02-05-2013 12:19 PM)ExpatChronicles Wrote:  I met a professional rugby team in Beijing, China once, and that was one group of dudes I would not want to be on the other side of a bar brawl with. I have no idea how they maintain all that mass while doing so much running. I definitely agree that the typical rugby player is much better conditioned than the typical football player - excluding the running backs.

The biggest rugby players aren't anything like as heavy as the biggest NFL guys. However, they're still BIG. They must just eat a hell of a lot. Some guy will be naturally big. Heavyweight boxers for example rarely do weights, they're just big well conditioned athletes.

Post: #36

Play rugby in high school, then university. Then overseas.

Im American..So I go by pounds.

I never weighed more than 170. I started in high school at 145. And played with Life University at 160.

There's some giant beast of a person players out there.
But If you can take a hit..Rugby is a great sport. I prefer it over football mainly cause I was to small to even be considered.

That being said..I quit after a multiple broken noses and a shoulder injury. I couldnt risk my body for a sport when my body is my job.

Post: #37

If your coming from American football I would suggest checking out rugby league instead of union. Its a bit more similar as in after each tackle is completed the ball is dead whilst in union the ball is never dead unless its out or there is an error/penalty. The hits are harder too and they are better tacklers. In union you arent allowed to lead with your shoulder to put a hit on but you can in league which creates more spectacular collisions.

Post: #38

Of course you can lead with your shoulder, you just cant shoulder charge because it breaks ribs. You have to wrap your arms in the tackle or at least try to, and unlike league you want to contest the ball on the ground in an effort to turn it. League removes the need to turn it, you just wait until your tackle count hits and the opposition will kick it away. People call this entertainment.

League is popular in two states in Australia and parts of the UK. Its dying. Union is global, and for good reason. Its a far better game to play really, and as someone who has played both Ill take union any day. League is mind numbing it so boring in comparison, never mind a complete lack of strategy required for the game. Once you understand the intricacies of union, there is no going back.

As I say, the real injuries in rugby are not in the tackles, its around the fringes and in the rucks. Tackles, as hard as they look sometimes, account for a fewer injuries than general play around the rucks and mauls.

Post: #39

Bunch of pansies you lot!, all padded up like that, what are'ya girls?

Eat some concrete and harden up!

THE funniest bit is calling one of your sports the "World Series" and its what America teams v's America teams?

Australia11 KA6 is where its all @ [Suffer in'ya jocks!]

"Lifes about, shooting your load"

Post: #40

Rugby doesn't have the forward pass. Most of the nastiest hits you see in American football are on sacks or over-the-middle safety-on-receiver throws.

Post: #41

I'd point to the most recent NRL media deal, now making it the highest paid sport in Australasia from media, to defy the 'dying' bit.

On the basis of that, I'd suggest a good number of people in Australia call it entertainment.

Post: #42

(02-05-2013 09:08 PM)RASER Wrote:  THE funniest bit is calling one of your sports the "World Series" and its what America teams v's America teams?

Because the original sponsor of the series was 'the world' newspaper in the U.S.

Much like sport here will be the 'VB series', or the 'KFC series', or whatever.

Post: #43

Rugby League has recently signed a very lucrative new tv deal. Since Rugby became professional, League has had its back to the wall to some degree. NRL which is an Australasian competition, has been somewhat restricted by a salary cap which maybe about to change. League or NRL is somewhat insular, the ARL the Australian governing body has made the game mostly about Australia for sometime, as a result it doesn't really have the international appeal it could. State of Origin is often seen as the pinnacle of the game, is played fannatically between New South Wales and Queensland at the exclusion of anyone not willing to play for Australia at test level. In Queensland Origin is the only game they really get passionate about, international don't even compare.

Post: #44

(02-05-2013 08:40 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Of course you can lead with your shoulder, you just cant shoulder charge because it breaks ribs. You have to wrap your arms in the tackle or at least try to, and unlike league you want to contest the ball on the ground in an effort to turn it. League removes the need to turn it, you just wait until your tackle count hits and the opposition will kick it away. People call this entertainment.

League is popular in two states in Australia and parts of the UK. Its dying. Union is global, and for good reason. Its a far better game to play really, and as someone who has played both Ill take union any day. League is mind numbing it so boring in comparison, never mind a complete lack of strategy required for the game. Once you understand the intricacies of union, there is no going back.

As I say, the real injuries in rugby are not in the tackles, its around the fringes and in the rucks. Tackles, as hard as they look sometimes, account for a fewer injuries than general play around the rucks and mauls.

I'm a rugby league man, brought up in the north of England in the heartlands of rugby league but now I prefer Union more so it seems the better plays from League do too. I can see Sam Tomkins crossing codes soon and he is absolutely phenomenal.

Post: #45

There has long been talk of a hybrid game combining union and league, lots of corporate interest. I think the best to cross codes are Brad Thorn and Sonny Bill Williams. Many Kiwis are brought up on both codes as league is becoming more common in schools in New Zealand than ever before.

Post: #46

(02-05-2013 11:45 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  I'd point to the most recent NRL media deal, now making it the highest paid sport in Australasia from media, to defy the 'dying' bit.

On the basis of that, I'd suggest a good number of people in Australia call it entertainment.

There is little love for it around the world though, where the game is growing quickly. League is massive in New South Wales, but for the most part its only the size of the population there that sustains it. The game is dying bud, and while it may be big in Australia, its only big in Australia. No one cares about it, and to be fair, as a lover of both, I can say I think union is far superior in almost every way.

Aussies love the tries and the bash, but there is more to rugby than that. They find union boring because there are fewer tries.

To me its like cricket.

League is like ODI cricket

Union is like test cricket

Post: #47

It may only be big in Australia, but at least it is big somewhere meaningful.

RU is big in NZ and the welsh valleys, it is a second tier or third tier sport everywhere else. Even Australia, the historically third best nation in the world, the gamne is the preserve of a handful of GPS old boys, and dwarfed by RL in the magnitude of 10 to 1

The fact that NZ's 4 million people have kept it pretty much dominant for the history of the game shows no one else even bothers to dedicate any resources to it.

Then to compare to the NRL's most recent deal.

Put every single cent for every RU comp in the world, then take away the 6 nations.

Sanzar
Whatever the english comp is at the moment.. Aviva Premiership or something?
Elite 14
The Celtic league
Heineken cup
italian league
japan
The IRB world cup deals divided by 4
even espns payments for argentinain club rugby
etc, etc

add every thing up except the 6nations, and it still comes out less than the NRL deal.

that makes it akin the the NFL, admittedly on a smaller scale. The NFL may be geographically constrained, but it still dwarfs RU.

RU has no critical mass anywhere, it's probably a good thing in that it make international games relatively even.

RL isn't losing ground anywhere except some marginal decline in the north of england. Whether this is a long term trend, it is yet to be seen.

But RL can't be dying if it isn't shrinking materially in its admittedly small geographical spread, otherwise it's been dying since 1895.

Post: #48

RL has been shrinking in Northern England, RL's heartland is Lancashire and Yorkshire, without Leeds, Warrington, Wigan, Bradford, St Helens, Rugby League in England would be finished. Luckily attendances are slowly growing again but not as huge as in the late 80s and 90s, where a lot of grounds were full.

Post: #49

Dude, honestly, I dont quite think as a typical league fan that you appreciate just how big Union is globally. This is something I hear all the time from league fans, but they dont understand that half the world does not even know its still played. It might as well be the AFL outside Aus. Union is smaller in Aus than League, but globally League is seen as something only Australians play and Poms dabble in.

The only reason NZ have dominated the game like they have is because the NZRU and ARU have ensured that the islands remain undeveloped. South Africa for years has been trying to get Tonga, Somoa and Fiji into the Super comp and also been pushing for a Pacific Islanders team who would probably kill everyone. NZ in particular has pretty much raped the islands of their players, which combined with the rugby culture has ensured that the game is their game.

Heineken cup games are sellouts, and we are talking 80,000 capacity stadiums here. The game is massive and its growing every single year. League is big in one state in the entire world bro. South African Currie Cup games, these are not even super games they are just their provincial games, see crowds of 40,000 plus. Thats without the stars playing.

The SANZAR deal alone though is worth $450 million or so, but that is only spread across 15 teams who play 14 games only. Then there are the international test matches, which League does not have because no one but Australia plays this game. Sure, we get the Poms out from time to time or NZ throw us a game, but the international season is about 12 tests on average. This is on top of the franchise, provincial and club rugby. Viewership is in the millions for these games.

18 million people watched the live 2011 world cup final in NZ. Consider the timezone NZ is in

Bud, no comparison. You might as well be talking AFL when you talk League these days.

Post: #50

Didnt they just find out that a lot of former NFL players get brain damage and kill themselves or others? I think I heard something like that on npr.