Rugby. Football is an awesome sport, but it just can't compete with the incredible savageness of rugby. The best part of Rugby? After a match, I get this light-headed feeling of wanting to keep playing (like when I'm driving home). It combines the hits and tackling of football with the heavy finesse and running of soccer.
Oh, and in regards to American Football wearing pads, it is because of the fact that since there is forward passing receivers have to look for the ball and therefore make themselves vulnerable, and quarterbacks while passing can't look at their back (e.g. blind) side, leaving them vulnerable to big hits. If a few people must imperatively wear pads, you have to also give pads to everyone else.
This post has been edited by .sticks. on Monday, Dec 25 2006, 02:58
Oh, and in regards to American Football wearing pads, it is because of the fact that since there is forward passing receivers have to look for the ball and therefore make themselves vulnerable, and quarterbacks while passing can't look at their back (e.g. blind) side, leaving them vulnerable to big hits. If a few people must imperatively wear pads, you have to also give pads to everyone else.
And? Players are vulnerable at some point in any sport, doesn't mean they wear a lot of pads. Yes the quarterbacks and wide receivers might get a little bit of short term pain from a tackle from behind without pads, but do the pads really help that much? If they have pads, howcome they still have a lot of serious injuries (especially spinal injuries). I've played a bit of football during lunch at school(we try to keep it as proper as possible) without pads obviously, and it doesn't hurt that much. I'd like to see NFL play without pads as an experiment, and see if there were more or less injuries previously.
Im f*ckin confused, I guess you were talking about rugby quarter backs! I was on about NFL lol
Sorry to correct you, but there aren't quarterbacks in union. But I'd have to agree that quarterbacks are generally quite big.
QUOTE
Are you sure the majority of quarter backs are that size?
The majority of quarterbacks are taller than six foot. (They need to be able to see over the line of scrimmage). I think the only positions where players are generally of a "smaller" stature are the wide receivers, safeties, cornerbacks and a few running backs (mostly halfbacks).
QUOTE
And? Players are vulnerable at some point in any sport, doesn't mean they wear a lot of pads. Yes the quarterbacks and wide receivers might get a little bit of short term pain from a tackle from behind without pads, but do the pads really help that much? If they have pads, howcome they still have a lot of serious injuries (especially spinal injuries). I've played a bit of football during lunch at school(we try to keep it as proper as possible) without pads obviously, and it doesn't hurt that much. I'd like to see NFL play without pads as an experiment, and see if there were more or less injuries previously.
I would think that if pads were taken out of the sport, there would be alot more collarbone/shoulder and rib injuries. The spine is a delicate area, and is hard to protect without hindering movement. Lots of ankle and leg injuries happen from playing on the fake turf stuff you find in some American football stadiums. But does that mean they should introduce leg pads and/or leg braces? Probably not...
This post has been edited by kingzing on Monday, Dec 25 2006, 08:29
Im f*ckin confused, I guess you were talking about rugby quarter backs! I was on about NFL lol
Sorry to correct you, but there aren't quarterbacks in union. But I'd have to agree that quarterbacks are generally quite big.
QUOTE
Are you sure the majority of quarter backs are that size?
The majority of quarterbacks are taller than six foot. (They need to be able to see over the line of scrimmage). I think the only positions where players are generally of a "smaller" stature are the wide receivers, safeties, cornerbacks and a few running backs (mostly halfbacks).
QUOTE
And? Players are vulnerable at some point in any sport, doesn't mean they wear a lot of pads. Yes the quarterbacks and wide receivers might get a little bit of short term pain from a tackle from behind without pads, but do the pads really help that much? If they have pads, howcome they still have a lot of serious injuries (especially spinal injuries). I've played a bit of football during lunch at school(we try to keep it as proper as possible) without pads obviously, and it doesn't hurt that much. I'd like to see NFL play without pads as an experiment, and see if there were more or less injuries previously.
I would think that if pads were taken out of the sport, there would be alot more collarbone/shoulder and rib injuries. The spine is a delicate area, and is hard to protect without hindering movement. Lots of ankle and leg injuries happen from playing on the fake turf stuff you find in some American football stadiums. But does that mean they should introduce leg pads and/or leg braces? Probably not...
Well I just don't understand howcome they NEED pads. Well it is a dangerous game, no doubt about it, but I think there needs to be some experiment to see if pads actually really help that much.
depends... on the pro level id say american football because it has the best athletes, no offense but if you take the pads off some of the guys in the NFL and stick em in rugby heads would be rolling.
Im f*ckin confused, I guess you were talking about rugby quarter backs! I was on about NFL lol
Sorry to correct you, but there aren't quarterbacks in union. But I'd have to agree that quarterbacks are generally quite big.
QUOTE
Are you sure the majority of quarter backs are that size?
The majority of quarterbacks are taller than six foot. (They need to be able to see over the line of scrimmage). I think the only positions where players are generally of a "smaller" stature are the wide receivers, safeties, cornerbacks and a few running backs (mostly halfbacks).
QUOTE
And? Players are vulnerable at some point in any sport, doesn't mean they wear a lot of pads. Yes the quarterbacks and wide receivers might get a little bit of short term pain from a tackle from behind without pads, but do the pads really help that much? If they have pads, howcome they still have a lot of serious injuries (especially spinal injuries). I've played a bit of football during lunch at school(we try to keep it as proper as possible) without pads obviously, and it doesn't hurt that much. I'd like to see NFL play without pads as an experiment, and see if there were more or less injuries previously.
I would think that if pads were taken out of the sport, there would be alot more collarbone/shoulder and rib injuries. The spine is a delicate area, and is hard to protect without hindering movement. Lots of ankle and leg injuries happen from playing on the fake turf stuff you find in some American football stadiums. But does that mean they should introduce leg pads and/or leg braces? Probably not...
Well I just don't understand howcome they NEED pads. Well it is a dangerous game, no doubt about it, but I think there needs to be some experiment to see if pads actually really help that much.
You do realize that these pads weren't there when the game first stated out, right? The equipment has evolved into what they are today from the Harvard-Yale game in the late 1800s to today. The helmets you see now weren't around until around the 50s, and even then, the face masks you see today (other than the newest ones) weren't invented until the 70s. This equipment didn't evolve because it just seemed logical; it was necessary. In 1905, one year alone, there were 18 deaths during football games. The game was f*cking banned because it was too brutal. And the fact that you're comparing your lunch-time football session to playing a real game is hilarious, you really don't understand how bad it is to get blindsided from behind from a 270 lb. defensive end.
Im f*ckin confused, I guess you were talking about rugby quarter backs! I was on about NFL lol
Sorry to correct you, but there aren't quarterbacks in union. But I'd have to agree that quarterbacks are generally quite big.
QUOTE
Are you sure the majority of quarter backs are that size?
The majority of quarterbacks are taller than six foot. (They need to be able to see over the line of scrimmage). I think the only positions where players are generally of a "smaller" stature are the wide receivers, safeties, cornerbacks and a few running backs (mostly halfbacks).
QUOTE
And? Players are vulnerable at some point in any sport, doesn't mean they wear a lot of pads. Yes the quarterbacks and wide receivers might get a little bit of short term pain from a tackle from behind without pads, but do the pads really help that much? If they have pads, howcome they still have a lot of serious injuries (especially spinal injuries). I've played a bit of football during lunch at school(we try to keep it as proper as possible) without pads obviously, and it doesn't hurt that much. I'd like to see NFL play without pads as an experiment, and see if there were more or less injuries previously.
I would think that if pads were taken out of the sport, there would be alot more collarbone/shoulder and rib injuries. The spine is a delicate area, and is hard to protect without hindering movement. Lots of ankle and leg injuries happen from playing on the fake turf stuff you find in some American football stadiums. But does that mean they should introduce leg pads and/or leg braces? Probably not...
Well I just don't understand howcome they NEED pads. Well it is a dangerous game, no doubt about it, but I think there needs to be some experiment to see if pads actually really help that much.
You do realize that these pads weren't there when the game first stated out, right? The equipment has evolved into what they are today from the Harvard-Yale game in the late 1800s to today. The helmets you see now weren't around until around the 50s, and even then, the face masks you see today (other than the newest ones) weren't invented until the 70s. This equipment didn't evolve because it just seemed logical; it was necessary. In 1905, one year alone, there were 18 deaths during football games. The game was f*cking banned because it was too brutal. And the fact that you're comparing your lunch-time football session to playing a real game is hilarious, you really don't understand how bad it is to get blindsided from behind from a 270 lb. defensive end.
You do realise rugby has had more deaths in the first 5 years than American Football has ever since it was first played? And still rugby doesn't go over board with padding. Rugby had about 200 deaths in the first year alone when it was first played (1830 something?). There are still deaths (5 South African club players have died this year) & very serious injuries (a 19 year old got a stroke after a high tackle 5 months ago in NZ) today! So don't give me that bullsh*t they need pads, they need to put a dress on more than anything.
This post has been edited by All-Blacks on Wednesday, Dec 27 2006, 01:55
Forum's #1 Hawkguy fan Group: Andolini Mafia Family
Joined: Sep 28, 2002
QUOTE (All-Blacks @ Dec 24 2006, 00:54)
QUOTE (darthYENIK @ Dec 24 2006, 19:41)
I'd say (American) football, as I did in the other topic of the exact origin.
As for who's bigger. William Perry (AKA 'the refrigerator'), weighed almost 400lbs. And the fridge probably is not the biggest (only in popularity).
Korey Stringer is the heaviest NFL player weighing at 359 lbs/162.8 kg. Bill Cavubati of Fiji is the heaviest international rugby player in the world, weighing around about 353 lbs/160kg. Theres not much in it, so stop going on about whos bigger because both sports have huge players!
I wasn't talking currently the biggest. The Fridge retired in 93' or 94'.
Having played rugby for over 10 years I would say both games can be brutal I would have to say rugby is the tougher of the two. Both sports have big athletes but you have to be much better conditioned for rugby(no timeouts only for injury) 80 minutes can seem like an eternity if you're not in shape. Plus the social aspect, the third half was always a blast
Why would someone argue that Rugby is a tougher sport because there have been more deaths? Poor taste friend. That in the United States professional view is reason for there to be safety implements, like pads, to protect players and insure no deaths. That is a really poor post. They are two different sports, you can't really compare them apples to apples, on which is tougher. Yeah, rugby is hard because you have no pads, but at the same time, the NFL is hard to even get into, and athletic wise I would say far superior (my opinion). You talk about conditioning, but some of those guys get off the field and right on to a bike to stay lose and warm. It is also a very specific position type of sport, where you have athletes of all caliber playing at different areas, for instance lineman are bigger, slower guys, but some of them could dead lift a Cadillac.
Oh, and in regards to American Football wearing pads, it is because of the fact that since there is forward passing receivers have to look for the ball and therefore make themselves vulnerable, and quarterbacks while passing can't look at their back (e.g. blind) side, leaving them vulnerable to big hits. If a few people must imperatively wear pads, you have to also give pads to everyone else.
And? Players are vulnerable at some point in any sport, doesn't mean they wear a lot of pads. Yes the quarterbacks and wide receivers might get a little bit of short term pain from a tackle from behind without pads, but do the pads really help that much? If they have pads, howcome they still have a lot of serious injuries (especially spinal injuries). I've played a bit of football during lunch at school(we try to keep it as proper as possible) without pads obviously, and it doesn't hurt that much. I'd like to see NFL play without pads as an experiment, and see if there were more or less injuries previously.
Just think about it. All those injuries WITH pads.... Picture getting hit like this with no protection...
We have people in the NFL that are almost paralyzed wearing pads and if they played without them we wouldn't have many football players.I have a lot of respect for Rugby players (I've never seen a bunch of players that were so good at wrapping up) but it's just stupid to downplay a sport because of protection. It's like saying the soldiers of today aren't as tough as the ones of the past because of the protection and weapons. It's all dangerous and it can't be held by the same standards because of the style of play.
This post has been edited by ryuclan on Saturday, May 17 2008, 22:10
American non-Voter at Heart Group: The Connection
Joined: Jan 19, 2004
There are some obvious differences that kind of balance out the padding thing.
Rugby has fairly specific take down rules while football is practically open field combat, for time you could even use your helmet as a weapon but im not so sure about that rule now.
So honestly its a tough call, although I have to say the average non QB football player is larger then a rugby player.
There are some obvious differences that kind of balance out the padding thing.
Rugby has fairly specific take down rules while football is practically open field combat, for time you could even use your helmet as a weapon but im not so sure about that rule now.
So honestly its a tough call, although I have to say the average non QB football player is larger then a rugby player.
sh*t Qb's are getting bigger and more like RB's who are getting like LB's which are gettin like DL's.......anyway football is a crazy sport. You play in the hot ass sun, the cold ass winter snow, and all for a big ass trophy. One game series, no second chances, go hard or go home. I can't comment on rugby because I've never wathched a full match.
Also about the helmets, if you have ever played on the line then you know how much head bumping goes on. If NFL players took off helmets for just a few weeks then we would have a lot of injured and possibly incapacitated players.
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
almost certain death 
