Rugger vs Yank Football

[nips]

Whilst i've been living stateside I have enjoyed watching many a game of American Football. Now I appreciate they are padded up to death, but I still believe it is a more physically gruelling sport than Rugby (union and league).

I think American Footballers would have no problem playing in a game of rugger but I reckon a decent rugby player would struggle against several six and a half foot, twenty odd stone brute.

Opinions.

Ps. All this from the fingertips of a Rugby player/fan.....

 

[sheldrake]

Bollox

My regimental team played the Septics at both rugger and "football" over a weekend. We thrashed them at rugby and lost narrowly at "football".

That, I believe, speaks volumes and blows your theory all to 5h1t.

Whilst I would accept that the knock you can get from a helmet or shoulder pad is harder and indeed the armour is used offensively, when you stick the nut on them in the scrum (shame on me ) or crush their sternums in full on locomotion tackles, they don't like it one little bit sir, not one little bit!

 

[Praetorian]

Not as physically demanding.

Ruck, Sprint, Ruck, Sprint, Ruck, Sprint, Get Ball, Get Tackled, Get Stamped on, Roll Away, Sprint, Ruck.

Thats 4 Phases, about 40 Seconds worth of play, if that. Then you might get a lineout or a scrum to break it up. Which are fucking knackering if you happen to be a lifter or a front rower.

Compared to Hut...1.2.3.4.5....Break, theres no comparison. Rugby is physically and CV demanding, as well as mentally demanding due to reading the game over a period of time than American football. As well as that, you don't need to be the slightest bit fit to play American Football,especially at a lower league level, which I assume we are referring to here.

 

[nips]

Not as physically demanding.

Ruck, Sprint, Ruck, Sprint, Ruck, Sprint, Get Ball, Get Tackled, Get Stamped on, Roll Away, Sprint, Ruck.

Thats 4 Phases, about 40 Seconds worth of play, if that. Then you might get a lineout or a scrum to break it up. Which are fucking knackering if you happen to be a lifter or a front rower.

Compared to Hut...1.2.3.4.5....Break, theres no comparison. Rugby is physically and CV demanding, as well as mentally demanding due to reading the game over a period of time than American football. As well as that, you don't need to be the slightest bit fit to play American Football,especially at a lower league level, which I assume we are referring to here.

I'm actually referring to professional level. I disagree with the 'bold' statement, 80% of NFL players are built like brick sheethouses, not many rugger players can fit that description.

Anyway, I wasn't out for an argument, just wanted some unbiased opinions.

 

[Praetorian]

Yeah, I admit that, I was merely stating that at amateur level there is a serious doughnut scoffing trend in American Football.

Even so, I still think rugby is more demanding and a more entertaining sport as a whole than American Football, as well as being more enjoyable to play. I had a crack at American Football once, and couldn't stand the breaks.

 

[Praetorian]

80% of NFL players are built like brick sheethouses, not many rugger players can fit that description.

This is not a piss-taking question, but how many times have you seen one with no armour on?

Oh, and Rugby wise, just look at the pack of any international squad!

 

[Sympathetic_Reaction]

I have played both at Uni level, and my thoughts are the following.

AF players are not as fit, and generally struggle past about 10 minutes of 'constant' play.

The main issue in AF is injury caused actually by the padding, specifically the helmet. I have seen more injuries caused by helmets than I ever saw in rugby. You get more bruises and cuts in AF due to the padding and the short sharp hits you get.

Rugby players tend to be fitter, and be able to do more than one thing at the same time, i.e. pass and run..

Overall Rugby is tougher in the fitness and spread of skills required, AF is worse for injuries and you tend to be more specialist in your skills. AF players do tend to be stronger and more agressive, but that doesn't always make them tougher, take away the pads and they are very nervous.

S_R

 

[Horridlittleman]

Not as physically demanding.

Ruck, Sprint, Ruck, Sprint, Ruck, Sprint, Get Ball, Get Tackled, Get Stamped on, Roll Away, Sprint, Ruck.

Thats 4 Phases, about 40 Seconds worth of play, if that. Then you might get a lineout or a scrum to break it up. Which are fucking knackering if you happen to be a lifter or a front rower.

Compared to Hut...1.2.3.4.5....Break, theres no comparison. Rugby is physically and CV demanding, as well as mentally demanding due to reading the game over a period of time than American football. As well as that, you don't need to be the slightest bit fit to play American Football,especially at a lower league level, which I assume we are referring to here.

I'm actually referring to professional level. I disagree with the 'bold' statement, 80% of NFL players are built like brick sheethouses, not many rugger players can fit that description.
Anyway, I wasn't out for an argument, just wanted some unbiased opinions.

At a professional level are you saying that the entire England pack caused controversy by all having a BMI that registered them as obese - when in fact it was because they were all built like brick out-houses (and not through too many pies!)

Its horses for courses. A massive yank footballer is not going to catch a whippet of a winger who can turn on a six pence - hence the general difference in build between forwards and backs.

I had a similar experience to Sheldrake, a bunch of Brits (incl a couple of Gurkhas) destroyed the Americans at both Rugby and their own "football", in fact they complained that we were too rough in the rugby!!!!!

 

[nips]

80% of NFL players are built like brick sheethouses, not many rugger players can fit that description.

This is not a piss-taking question, but how many times have you seen one with no armour on?

Oh, and Rugby wise, just look at the pack of any international squad!

Ummmmmm...never seen one without a top on, but a friend of mines son used to be a training hand and would see them all naked in the shower when he scrubbed their middle leg.....I checked out the photos by accident.......

 

[toomanyagais]

Having never played AF I can't comment on their levels of fitness, however, they do look like pretty well built boys to me!! Whether that is steroid induced I don't know.

Rugby players these days, especially in the professional game are getting bigger and fitter, but I reckon this makes them more succeptable to injury, look at Johnny.

Put an old fat lad on the park on a Saturday afternoon and he will be available all season, alchohol and the layers of fat act as natural anesthetics and padding. I played for 20 years with this philosophy.

 

[the_guru]

AF is like Cricket in a way, n that you are only on the field half the time, with a different team for offence and defence. It is also much more stop start than Rugger - especially League. Plenty of time to get your breath back in AF, and most of the team NEVER touch the ball.