Poll: Rugby vs. American football

[Da pyro man 999]

I would like to see a af star going against a rugby star in a scrum, with no armour. It would be rugby.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, it's been my opinion that American Football is better, and a lot more brutal on a lot of levels. Rugby being played largely without pads because it's far less expensive. Looking at it from the perspective of say building a high school Rugby team, as opposed to a high school football team where everyone needs a full set of pads and such.

I'm not a fan of either, but I've heard it said that for all of the comments about how American Football is "sissy" there are also a lot of rules in Rugby that don't apply in Football largely because of the differances in gear.

As far as Salary caps go, I have mixed opinions on the whole thing.

 

[DJ Lord Destructocon]

Canadian here, gonna have to go for rugby simply because american football is such a bad sport. It's not exciting or fun to play and you have to stop every ten seconds for a break! It's probably the only sport in the world where non-athletic people can excel.

Rugby is all around just a better sport.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I hate sport in general, so I choose neither.

I am all for salary caps though, so whichever sport pays their players the least shall be my favourite by default. I assume that's rugby because I never hear about them getting their "earned" mansions robbed.

 

[pulse2]

I saw my first rugby game a few days ago, some sort of playoff. We were bored to death, pick up ball run 5 yards get dragged down, someone gets injured. I prefer the chess match that is football.

FOr those saying no need for pads in AF, since rugby is just as hard. AF is a collision sport with high tackles allowed, vs the contact sport with low tackles that is rugby. 240 lbs linebackers running full speed into a WR across the middle would result in injury otherwise with no pads.

They don't wear pads in wrestling and I swear those moves (regardless of how fake they may be) can be brutal, explains why wrestlers enter American Football and AF players enter Wrestling. They wear hardly anything in wrestling, some look like they would take of thier pants as well if they could, wearing tight latex y-fronts, lol

Wrestling is grappling moves, AF is collision contact. Collision contact hurts more and it is alot easier to injured doing so.

Hm, point made, maybe they need padding though, wrestlers are always getting injured.

FOr those saying no need for pads in AF, since rugby is just as hard. AF is a collision sport with high tackles allowed, vs the contact sport with low tackles that is rugby. 240 lbs linebackers running full speed into a WR across the middle would result in injury otherwise with no pads.

There's two types of Rugby, Rugby League and Rugby Union, one of those (I get confused) allows high tackles as well as other rule changes and the other does not.

O okay, still the collision speed thing. Question how many ppl are injured in a game. We watched about 20 min and 3 ppl were hurt from seemingly tame tackles.

One other reason I like AF the forward pass. Adds another level of depth to the play options.

Can't really avoid that tbh, I doubt I'd appreciate football (soccer) any more then I do now if they were all padded up like they are in AF, and they get injured far more then the players in Rugby.

 

[pulse2]

I hate sport in general, so I choose neither.

I am all for salary caps though, so whichever sport pays their players the least shall be my favourite by default. I assume that's rugby because I never hear about them getting their "earned" mansions robbed.

Brutes they may be on the pitch, many of them are quite posh outside of the pitch, humourous to say the least, good to know not all of them are 'common'. The fans that watch rugby aren't raving lunatics like football (soccer) fans either, I should know, I am a footy fan ^^ I go mad all the time when Arsenal win

 

[ace_of_something]

I played as a DE in high school. I hated playing because I was the biggest man on the feild so everyone would always go for me. (Okay, the truth is I'm just a horrible football player)
There is actually a lot of variation and strategy involved in AFb that most people don't pick up on unless they really get in to the sport.


I do not know enough about rugby to make an educated choice on which I prefer. So I'm abstaining.

edit: wait, can I pick hockey? I loves me some hockey.

 

[GodsAndFishes]

I'm crap at both, but I'll still choose rugby because you keep going the entire game, rather than stopping every two seconds, that really takes the fun out of the game for me.

 

[cyber_andyy]

Rugby all the way. Pads are not needed.

 

[Lord George]

Rugby, for real men, Handegg for those scared of getting a boo boo. (That said last time I played rugby I got a stud stabbed through my arm and before that I sliced my leg right open, so maybe having armour on would be better for me.).

Ya I guess gang piling and dry-humping the shit out of each other is better.

I said better for me, I think only I should wear the Americans handegg armour, it would make the game a lot funnier for me.

 

[Will of One]

There's a difference?

 

[pulse2]

Saying that, with rugby, the only places protected are the head, teeth and groin, everywhere else is volutary, although AF style armour isn't prefferable or even used, it would just annoy me not being able to have a full perspective of the pitch around me wearing that helmet, and everything else would just make me hot, considering Rugby seasons are played mainly during the winter so the body warms up when you run, during summer with all that armour would kill me :O

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

Rugby, personally, although I have no real opinion on American Footbal since I've never played it, only watched it.

Still, I do like rugby, if only because I find it a great deal of fun to play and get involved in. It was also the only sport I scored highly in when I did PE at Secondary School.

 

[Ghostshot08]

Well when watching on TV, I prefer American football. Mostly because commercials don't make you miss anything. A commercial during rugby may mean missing a spectacular try.

As for attending a live game rugby is far superior. I don't go to AF games because here in Indiana the weather sucks during football season and the games take so long with all the stopping it becomes a miserable time.

I did play both; I enjoyed rugby more. The shorts don't come off as gay when your leg muscles are that defined. Now the real nail in footballs casket, is the feeling of invincibility the pads create in many stupid teenagers playing the game. Rugby players seem more aware of there mortality. It's not very cool when a over-pumped idiot, thinking of getting himself on a highlight reel, plants his helmet in the base of someones spine. The danger present in both sports is only made worse with the protection of pads.

So...rugby for me.

 

[JimmerDunda]

I prefer Rugby because it flows better. I have watched and played AF and it is constantly stop-starting, very frustrating!
You can hardly laugh at rugby shorts when American Footballers wear very tight 3/4 lengths!
I don't see the need to wear body armour when the hits and tackles are equally as hard in Rugby

I have watched professional European rugby matches. Trust me, we hit a lot harder and we are a lot bigger and stronger.

Yes that's a bit racist if you don't mind me saying,you might as well say that all Brits are pussies compared to the Americans.

Yes you can hit harder and look bigger because your wearing fucking armor!

Ok first, Racism is discriminating against someone for their human traits. Last time I checked USA and Europe are primarily white so that throws your argument out the window.

And ya, I don't know how you think you won with that second point but ya, we hit harder, therefore we wear gear. If we didn't there would be a fuck ton more football related injuries in the USA right now.

 

[JimmerDunda]

I prefer Rugby because it flows better. I have watched and played AF and it is constantly stop-starting, very frustrating!
You can hardly laugh at rugby shorts when American Footballers wear very tight 3/4 lengths!
I don't see the need to wear body armour when the hits and tackles are equally as hard in Rugby

I have watched professional European rugby matches. Trust me, we hit a lot harder and we are a lot bigger and stronger.

Yes that's a bit racist if you don't mind me saying,you might as well say that all Brits are pussies compared to the Americans.

Yes you can hit harder and look bigger because your wearing fucking armor!

Ok first, Racism is discriminating against someone for their human traits. Last time I checked USA and Europe are primarily white so that throws your argument out the window.

And ya, I don't know how you think you won with that second point but ya, we hit harder, therefore we wear gear. If we didn't there would be a fuck ton more football related injuries in the USA right now.

Its still racism,if i say that all Americans are fat or all Germans are Nazis, that's racist.

Rugby makes AF look like a Tupperware party!
In rugby, you can just keep driving it and driving it- play dirty if you want. If the ref doesn't see it, it's not illegal. Football- you stop every 5 seconds so you don't get a chance to do anything. You run for 5 yards, get the whistle blown, stand around for a while, start playing again, maybe kick it, and then repeat. It's useless. just because you get injured a lot doesn't mean it's a tougher sport. Maybe it means you're a weaker player? And it isn't a statistical fact or whatever that you have more injuries in football anyways... There is a difference between being hurt and being injured- hurt is getting a boo-boo, injured is dislocating your shoulder while driving somebody twice you size into the ground. I know there is a lot more contact in rugby than in football. Harder hits too.

Again you fail to use the right term. Saying all Germans are Nazi's is not racist, its stereotyping. Hating someone because they are black or Jewish is racist. Please try to make sense before you refute an argument against me, kid.

As for the second part, blah blah blah, it just comes down to who likes the sport better so I am not even going to deal with that anymore.

 

[JimmerDunda]

I prefer Rugby because it flows better. I have watched and played AF and it is constantly stop-starting, very frustrating!
You can hardly laugh at rugby shorts when American Footballers wear very tight 3/4 lengths!
I don't see the need to wear body armour when the hits and tackles are equally as hard in Rugby

I have watched professional European rugby matches. Trust me, we hit a lot harder and we are a lot bigger and stronger.

Yes that's a bit racist if you don't mind me saying,you might as well say that all Brits are pussies compared to the Americans.

Yes you can hit harder and look bigger because your wearing fucking armor!

Ok first, Racism is discriminating against someone for their human traits. Last time I checked USA and Europe are primarily white so that throws your argument out the window.

And ya, I don't know how you think you won with that second point but ya, we hit harder, therefore we wear gear. If we didn't there would be a fuck ton more football related injuries in the USA right now.

Its still racism,if i say that all Americans are fat or all Germans are Nazis, that's racist.

Rugby makes AF look like a Tupperware party!
In rugby, you can just keep driving it and driving it- play dirty if you want. If the ref doesn't see it, it's not illegal. Football- you stop every 5 seconds so you don't get a chance to do anything. You run for 5 yards, get the whistle blown, stand around for a while, start playing again, maybe kick it, and then repeat. It's useless. just because you get injured a lot doesn't mean it's a tougher sport. Maybe it means you're a weaker player? And it isn't a statistical fact or whatever that you have more injuries in football anyways... There is a difference between being hurt and being injured- hurt is getting a boo-boo, injured is dislocating your shoulder while driving somebody twice you size into the ground. I know there is a lot more contact in rugby than in football. Harder hits too.

Again you fail to use the right term. Saying all Germans are Nazi's is not racist, its stereotyping. Hating someone because they are black or Jewish is racist. Please try to make sense before you refute an argument against me, kid.

As for the second part, blah blah blah, it just comes down to who likes the sport better so I am not even going to deal with that anymore.

Racism is when you hate someone's race, I'm British-British people are a race,so you can be racist to people who are the same skin colour but are from a different nationality!

Racism to Jews is called sectarianism,same goes if your a racist to any religion,Kid.

Your last statement made no sense,you didn't read it...because? your Arrogance? stupidity?

Before your Ego shoots itself from embarrassment.
You thought i was a child? We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.

I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

Perhaps you should look the "term" race because I don't think it means what you think it means. A race of people is usual determined by heritable traits. What you speak of is to hate someone because of their NATIONALITY, which is completely different than a trait. A nationality is composed of people with traits. Now if you were referring to me being racist to the average white male British Citizen, then I should hate myself, because almost all White males in the USA, UK, and rest of Europe share very similar traits.

Perhaps you are better off saying you were a kid so you don't look like such an idiot for the horrible education you received.