Football vs. Rugby

rhinoceross

rhinoceross

Member
I've played both...here is what i think. In north america Football is way more serious and players in the NFL are probably better athletes ( although probably more drugged up as well) than like US and Canada team rugby players. In Europe however where rugby is huge I am positive that you would find some way better athletes than any american Football player...by better i mean better endurance, stronger, tougher. The nature of Rugby requires players to be more fit than Football requires its players to be. As for the hitting, the biggest hit ive ever taken was in Football, but thats because I dont play rugby againts good people. In short, the best rugby team in the world could win a football game against the best football team in the world with a little practise. discuss.
 
They compared these in sports science, bigger hits come from football. But, I'd say neither sport could just go beat the other. This is like the boxing/UFC arguement. A rugby team can't beat a football team in football and vice versa, they train for completely different types of games, the only common factor is hitting. Football is a lot of stop and go, while rugby is a lot of running. There barely even the same sport, if there was no hitting then they wouldn't even be compared
 
Football evolved from rugby im fairly sure, they are pretty similar...drop goals, converts, laterals, scrum and d line/ o line facing off. I dont know, I still think with a little training the All Blacks could win the Super Bowl over the Pats.
 
the thing about rugby is everything is a lot more controlled, the tackles are more precise, and done with actual technique, whereas in football, its often just a 300 pound man throwing his body on top of you which would account for the bigger hits. its surprising to hear that football actually has a much higher major accident rate than rugby because of this
 
Football is just an easier version of rugby. The rules are whack, they wear helmets an body Armour in football whereas in rugby it is flesh to flesh. Rugby is a game of 15 men on and maybe 5 or 6 may get subbed for half a game whereas the other 10 have a full 80 minutes of full on rugby. Football has more people who come on and off for offensive/defensive plays and get rested.
 
The patriots would crush any rugby team in football, brady is one of the best QB's of all time. Also Rugby players are little compared to the nfl players. In football people are jacked or super fat for a lineman, rugby players have running bodies, there kind of big but they're small compared to football players. This is like the UFC/boxing arguement. People always compare the 2 but you can't there different. If a UFC fighter went into a boxing match with mike tyson in his prime they would get leveled in about a minute. If mike tyson in his prime fought in a UFC fight he would get destroyed in a minute. I don't understand why people argue about this stuff, they're 2 very different sports. A team of rugby players becoming a football team would be like playing a bunch of corner backs, fast but little, not effective overall. Football into a rugby team would be like 7 fat guys that couldn't move, a running back mowing people down, a QB getting raped by anything on the field and wide receivers being mediocre rugby stars.
 


flash_video_placeholder.png

 
As an American i have an uncontrolable bias towards American football, but you have to pay rugby its dues. I'll agree its difficult to take one team and put it up against another in anothers sport, but that doesn't mean you can't compair the overall sports against one another

AFL and NRL players get more athletic respect from me than teams from the NFL. non-stop movement, with hard hits and no pads. In the thread that innitiated this one, someone said that pads allowed for a faster game and harder hits. Harder hits, maybe, but you've got pads on, when compaired to no pads, it just seems weak.

NFL is about specialization, you can't play football with your mates, unless you happen to have some mates that are really fat, and some that are really quick, and one that's really good at throwing and another thats good at kicking -- footy on the otherhand requires that each player be able to play the game without any sort of specializaiton.

I enjoy the NFL more because i grew up around it, but after watching AFL and NRL theres just more respect for them

 
i think theres a couple things wrong with the football part of the video. its not a real player, so the data isnt as accurate as the rugby one. and the fact that the dummy wasn't moving. thats going to lessen it a little and put more force on the tackler. and they never measured to see how much force the tackler felt...if they did it would have been much more then the rugby player
 
this is completely wrong. you can just play football with friends. maybe not competitively, but you can still play. same with rugby. you can't just play competitively, but you can always get a pickup game going. they both need their special plays (kickers, qb/scrum half, forwards/linemen, backs/rb n faster players. they both need their specialzed players but rugby everyone learns a lot more and is better all rounded

i agree you can't put sport vs sport if you were to say patriots vs a rugby team. of coarse the pats would win. but the pats wouldnt stand a chance against a rugby team either
 
thats all i was saying, maybe i don't understand aussie rules enough, but from what i saw it's easier to get a game going with fewer modifications of the game than with american football--

you have to get rid of the entire line of scrimage, or limit rushes, and basically change the game entirely

 
that sports science video is biased, they used some half ass rugby team from south cal. compared to an nfl player. i am positive the results would be much greater using someone from the all blacks
 
That claim was funny....hahahahahaha this thread makes me laugh. There is no metal involved at all in rugby besides cleats. Football you get hit by 300 pounds of force each play+a metal facemask going into your body with each hit. Rugby has more endurance athletes but that's about the most you can get on that. My friends hate playing football but love playing rugby because you dont get hurt as easily. Football is more bad ass because its head to head each play.
 
its so gay how they use like the best hitter in the NFL and then use some random rugby players who arent that amazing. also the football player got to use some crazy high tech dummy
 
california club teams are bunk. Rugby is far more technical and a completely different sport. all players on a rugby team need to be able to think, most players on a football team just need to hit something.
 
could you imagine players like LT or Ray Lewis if they had dedicated their lives to playing rugby instead of football?

if that were the case with every NFL player the Americans would have a CRAZY rugby team
 
you make no sense. the video showed how much force there is in a football hit, how can you go and say another number out of no where? bad ass for being head to head, thats more of just being retarted. and just because your friends are pussies and cant take the demand of football doesnt make rugby a "weaker" sport. and the facemasks barely make contact...its the actual helmet dumbass
 
i agree that if some of the best athletes in the nfl played rugby, then the us would have a good team, but that could also go the other way for rugby players playing football. both sports are started at young ages so obviously they'd have to spend their lives learning the game, but i feel like the us is different because so much money and focus is put into sports that kids are pressured more to do well at sports, not just succeed because they have skill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top