Quote: (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.
