[Moma]

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.

[Hades]

In rugby they teach you to tackle differently. You basically dive towards their waists and wrap up to tackle. We also do a lot of stiff-arming and similar roughhousing but since we play on turf it never feels like a hard landing.

Now I haven't played any football (never made the cut in high school) but I am pretty sure that footballers tackle with their heads and shoulders. Having all that gear makes you feel invincible so you want to tackle harder and take more risks.

While both sports have their fair share of concussions, all the former footballers who played on our rugby team were at much bigger risk for injury due to overconfidence. One guy in particular head-tackled some poor bastard in the sternum and knocked himself out for about half an hour. He made a good recovery but we thought he died. The guy who was struck cracked his sternum and broke a couple of ribs. I think your friend is 100% correct on this.

[TheBulldozer]

American football is dangerous. I would not let my kid play it, having played myself. A couple reasons why:

1. "Safety" equipment gives free reign to attack someone at full speed. A lot of former pros argue that the way to make football less violent is to strip away this "safety" equipment so players think twice about their safety before hitting someone.

2. Fundamentals are not taught. Watch football from the 70's and 80's and you'll see very few missed tackles. In these old games you'll see linebackers square up their player, go low, and and wrap up the player around the legs. Now defenders are looking for a big hit. Fundamentals need to be taught better for receivers as well. Receivers should properly be taught to make the catch and get down. Now you see receivers looking to make a play after the catch. If you're looking to make a play, you have to expect the defender to make a play on you.

[rudebwoy]

Simple answer is - do you fancy getting hit by a 250llb linebacker wearing a "motorcycle" helmet? No amount of padding is going to make that impact feel good. Injuries in the NFL are getting out of hand now, the guys are bigger, stronger and faster.
Check out some hits on Youtube, for example James Harrison taking out Desean Jackson. Dude look like he ran into a wall at full speed.
I would disagree about the league being safer back in the 70's and 80's, those old guys took alot of dirty shots at each other.
As for Rugby, well I would love to see those guys play in the NFL.

[vinman]

Football is a lot more dangerous because of the equipment. Just look at all of the broken necks in high school, and traumatic brain injuries in the pros from a lifetime of leading with your head. The shoulder pads, and helmet protect you and give you incentive to hit higher, and harder. Rugby players are better tacklers because they use better/ safer technique

[lush1]

Rugby scrums have their own dangers and many men have broken their necks due to scrum collapses.

[T and A Man]

I have played both codes of rugby for over 15 years.

I would still assert American football is prone to much more catastrophic injuries.

The padding doesn't protect you as the tackled person, it makes the guy tackling hit you harder.

For one, the tackle/down rule makes it much more covenient to perform reckless tackles. I believe it is when a knee hits the ground right? Thus we tend to see guys diving at runners knees with their helmets just to bring the guys knee down and bring the play to the stop.

Rugby Union is a dynamic game, not a game of discrete plays like American football, they tend to tackle below the waist to bring forward motion to a halt, then contest the ball via a ruck.

In Rugby League, the play is brought to a stop when the referee decides any material motion has been stopped, and they tend to tackle higher around the chest/shoulders to ensure the player can't pass the ball away.

Rugby League players tend to have the best technique of all when it comes to tackling, a typical one-on-one tackle is a Goldberg spear.

[LooTa]

Rugby players typically don't get any bigger than 130kg, while that's probably a minimum for some positions in american football. So the question is, would you rather get cleaned up by a 130kg man, or a 180kg man?

[T and A Man]

Depends on how fast the guy is running... those 180kg guys don't tend to run too far, or too fast.

[LooTa]

Yeah, that's why guys that big don't make it in Rugby, they're just not fast/agile enough. But from what I understand about NFL (which isn't much) they spend most of their time blocking and grappling, rather than hitting it up at speed. Still, if they did mange to line you up, you wouldn't be getting up in a hurry.

[T and A Man]

I agree, they are like Sumo guys, they have conditioned themselves to be superb at a brief impulse of a collision.

But a 'mere' 130kg guy with 15+ metres can build up some force too.

[UgSlayer]

Rugby seems to take a lot of physical endurace. Football is a game where there are frequent breaks after every play. Players on offense often get swapped in between plays. I'm not too familiar with Rugby, but it seems to me like it is more of a grinding sport. Football is boring most plays but a couple of times a game something crazy happens. Factoring in my bro-science, I figure that rugby players have less fast-twitch muscle development than NFL players but more slow-twitch muscle development than NFL players.

But the risk taken by NFL players when it comes to size disparity is huge. Imagine being an under 6 foot, under 200 pound slot receiver like Wes Welker doing a crossing pattern in a zone defense, getting thrown the ball, and getting cold-cocked without seeing it coming by someone like Joey Porter, a 6 foot 3 250 pound monster who can run a 4.6 second 40 yard dash. It's like hitting a tennis ball full speed into a rolling bowling ball.

I've looked up big hits from rugby by Brian Lima (I did a quick google search and found he was one of the bigger hitters in Rugby League play) and he does hit hard, but I'd rather take a hit from him without pads with my eyes on him or at least seeing him in my peripheral vision than a padded hit by Joey Porter with my eyes on the ball any day of the week.

175 lb Desean Jackson getting hit by a 183 lb Dunta Robinson. It's the speed of impact and unpredictability that makes the hit more devastating than the size of the defender.

[Magic Bullets]

Funnily enough America were once the Olympic champions in rugby in 1927. It is growing at a pretty fast pase in the states. Rugby Union is now a professional sport which originated from the English school of Rugby in the 1820s during a soccer game when William Webb Ellis picked up a ball during a game of soccer, it gradually gained momentum and spread throughout the British Empire and to Europe and most of the world, it is virtually played in every country on earth although not neccessarily as a national or main sport. Derivitaves of the sport include Rugby 7s which is about to become an Olympic sport, U.S. sprinting sensation Carlin Isles is said to be the fastest player in the world, a name to watch and Rugby League which was originally a breakaway code during the late 19th century. Rugby League is 13 man game, played mainly in Australia,NZ, UK, the Pacific Islands and is gaining popularity throughout Europe, Russia and the US.

[ElJefe]

The six nations tournament is on right now. Find a pub and check it out and get your own impression. The worst thing about Rugby in my opinion is the level of drinking in the semi-pro and amateur clubs. My first team-meeting I had to chug 9 beers in under an hour. It was pretty gross.

[bojangles]

aye the 6 nations, love it. think NFL is more damaging to the body, though some of the injuries in rugby are ridiculous, like torn testicles etc

[Teedub]

(02-04-2013 09:58 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

The six nations tournament is on right now. Find a pub and check it out and get your own impression. The worst thing about Rugby in my opinion is the level of drinking in the semi-pro and amateur clubs. My first team-meeting I had to chug 9 beers in under an hour. It was pretty gross.

Yeah I don't like that side of male bonding, the initiation ceremonies etc. I'm not American, but I know the fraternities have these too. If I want a drink, I'll drink it at my own pace - not when some jumped up prick tells me to.

Perhaps I'm just boring.

[lush1]

(02-04-2013 11:01 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 09:58 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

The six nations tournament is on right now. Find a pub and check it out and get your own impression. The worst thing about Rugby in my opinion is the level of drinking in the semi-pro and amateur clubs. My first team-meeting I had to chug 9 beers in under an hour. It was pretty gross.

Yeah I don't like that side of male bonding, the initiation ceremonies etc. I'm not American, but I know the fraternities have these too. If I want a drink, I'll drink it at my own pace - not when some jumped up prick tells me to.

Perhaps I'm just boring.

Not to mention all the homo shit that goes on - I've heard stories of people downing 'dirty pints' that have been spunked in etc. Rugby players are almost as gay as squaddies.

[clever alias]

rugby is muck more likely to break your nose
football is more likely to get brain damage

[Giovonny]

The physical contact is similar. They are both dangerous. Helmets and padding just allow American football players to be more aggressive and lead with their head. In rugby, players can't lead with their face because they will break their nose. In American football, the head and face are protected, leading to more head on head collisions.

Would american football be safer without the helmets and padding???

Because players would stop leading with their head?

[Magic Bullets]

Super 15 is about to start in a few weeks time, it is a provincial competition involving 5 teams each from NZ, Australia and South Africa and probably the most intense competition outside internationals.

[Teedub]

(02-04-2013 01:18 PM)lush1 Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 11:01 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 09:58 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

The six nations tournament is on right now. Find a pub and check it out and get your own impression. The worst thing about Rugby in my opinion is the level of drinking in the semi-pro and amateur clubs. My first team-meeting I had to chug 9 beers in under an hour. It was pretty gross.

Yeah I don't like that side of male bonding, the initiation ceremonies etc. I'm not American, but I know the fraternities have these too. If I want a drink, I'll drink it at my own pace - not when some jumped up prick tells me to.


Perhaps I'm just boring.

Not to mention all the homo shit that goes on - I've heard stories of people downing 'dirty pints' that have been spunked in etc. Rugby players are almost as gay as squaddies.

Pretty interesting. I went to a state, comprehensive school and college, but ended up going to a uni that was (unbeknownst to me before I went) well known for having a disproportionate amount of former boarding school pupils. Not just private school, but boarding school. I'd never met one before I went.

Rugby is very popular in said schools and I basically left with the knowledge that the 'gay' shit that goes on in supposedly hyper-masculine rugby is ridiculous. Only British posters will understands me when I mention that the homoeroticism in very posh men is quite obvious. I'm talking a specific type of posh, what are known as 'Rahs'.

[lush1]

It reminds me of a comment by Sir Winston Churchill. On being told that one of his cabinet members had been arrested on Clapham Common for buggering another man, Churchill asked "Wasn't it snowing last night?" to which the aide replied yes "Makes you proud to be British" says Winston.

[Excelsior]

The differences between these two games were best explained by this article, which I'll quote now in full.

Pads and Helmets: Rugby vs. Gridiron

Quote:

I visited Australia a decade or so ago; a rugby match was on the TV at a local pub. Being one of the few identified Americans in the establishment, it wasn’t too surprising that the topic of gridiron (NFL-style American football) eventually came up among my Aussie hosts. Despite my largely failed attempts to convince the crowd that gridiron was every bit as rough as rugby, all I could garner was at best total dismissal, and at worst contempt. The perception outside the U.S. is that American Football is just bastardized rugby with thick padding designed to avoid the physical harm associated with the Union sport. Interestingly, most Americans hold an inverse perception: that rugby is gridiron without the pads, and as such, rugby is perceived as senselessly violent.

The misconceptions between rugby and gridiron are rooted in the belief that gridiron and rugby are similar sports. The truth, however, is far from this, as anyone who's ever played both sports can attest. In rugby, the only collision (i.e., running at speed for the purpose of forcing a player to the ground) is when one has the ball. The other 29 lads on the pitch are there for support. In American football, 21 of the 22 players had better be colliding with someone on every down - at full speed. In gridiron, there is collision while blocking. In rugby, the equivalent is called "obstruction" and is illegal, thus there are far more opportunities - requirements - for player collision in American football.

The styles of tackling are also very different. In rugby, the object is to bring the player to the ground in order to force a turnover. In gridiron, on the other hand, the purpose of tackling is to not yield a single millimeter of turf to the opposition advance. Rugby is largely about possession and gridiron is largely about territory. This creates two immensely differing approaches to tackling.

In rugby, the tackler (ideally) wants to wrap up around the upper legs, and drag the runner to ground. Sooner is better than later, but a few feet doesn’t matter much. In gridiron, the tackler prefers a head-on collision, the hard plastic helmet connecting to the opponent's chest; a wrap up around the waist or lower subsequently follows, and then a drive backwards as far as the tackler can go. The ground is the forceful end of a preferably very long trip on an American tackle. Without a helmet, an American football player would not likely live or walk for very long in such a contest. In rugby, a tackler may not grab around the shoulders and neck (at least when the ref is looking). In gridiron, virtually any means of bringing the ball carrier to the ground is legal, so long as the facemask isn't grabbed. This broad interpretation of the tackling rule sets gridiron far apart from its rugby counterpart, and greatly changes the amount of violence with which the objective may be carried out.

In rugby, a runner must absorb the impact of a tackler's flesh-and-bone shoulder and arm along with the variant inertial energy associated with the tackler's speed, mass and angle of attack. In gridiron, a ball-carrier must absorb all these things, plus the impact of a hard, plastic helmet and shoulder pads behind the force of a tackler whose mass is often greater than his rugby counterpart. By the way, there is little protection for most American football players between the sternum and the groin, which happens to comprise the precise target area of a gridiron tackler. Also, the pads are not the soft rubber found in rugby equipment. They are hard, reinforced plastic designed for the purpose of diffusing energy. Wearing gridiron pads gives one a visceral sense of invulnerability that cannot be truly replicated in rugby. Thus, the force used in gridiron tackling tends to be less restrained by the fear of injury, conscious or otherwise. There are plenty of fearless rugby tacklers, but they will rarely throw their careers (and possibly lives) away by running face-first into a head-on collision with a sprinting ball-carrier.

When a rugby player's tackling is imminent, he (hopefully) has someone nearby that the ball can be passed to - granted, this is not a certain way to avoid a tackle, but in theory, it moves play away from him. In gridiron, all play ends when and where the ball runner is crushed - no one passes the ball in American football but the quarterback.

Having played both sports, I can say that while the tackling differs, one method is no less bearable than the other in their respective environs. Crippling injuries or death would occur if someone attempted to use American-style tackling in rugby (I know - I made that foolish mistake in one of my early matches and nearly paid dearly for it). American tackling in rugby may also result in "over-commitment," that is to say, running at so great a speed at the ball-carrier that a successful reaction to a side-step or a reasonably competent pass is impossible (remember, in American football, there is no passing once the ball leaves the line of scrimmage). This lends credence to my theory that while former gridiron players are impressively capable of good hits in rugby, they tend to be vulnerable in getting burned by a smart, experienced backline player.

This is not to say, however, that rugby tackling is "weak." It is not. Within the confines of the laws, it, too, has its own terrible aspect of violence; but one that is appropriate for a bunch of ruggers trying to bring down anyone who has the ball. As a backliner myself, I have both given and received my share of bone-jarring rugby tackles. But I rarely felt the kind of impact I routinely encountered in American football, even when accounting for the pads.

To those who would deride the comparative aggressiveness of American gridiron football, I would say this: you may intelligently criticize only when you have played both sports. My sense of it is that ruggers who have never played a down of football cannot meaningfully comment on the difference between the two sports. The truth of the matter is that if a skeptical rugger were to strap on gridiron armor and play just one half of American Football, they would not hold the same opinion of the sport’s violence. Being aggressively flattened a dozen or so times by 25 stone (350 pound) behemoths tends to make one a believer.

Postscript, by Wes Clark

I asked Bob to write this article because I have seen this “rugby vs. gridiron” matter come up again and wish to refute it in a lasting form available on the Internet. Like Bob, I, too, have played both rugby and gridiron (in high school).

The claim for false machismo based on ruggers not wearing pads (“Pads are for girls” is a frequent catchphrase) is flawed on a very basic level, since any rugger or rugby spectator will assure you that the claim is now false. It may have been true years ago, but the rise of professionalism has changed things. The best and toughest ruggers in the world now play with pads of some kind. Try telling them they’re girls. And as for helmets, while it is true that scrumcaps aren’t hard like a gridiron helmet, they still are designed to offer some protection. Ostensibly for forwards, even some backline players wear them.

A rugby pal of mine (another fellow who played both games) described it best when he said, “Rugby is a contact sport. Gridiron is a collision sport.” As Bob states in his article, there are collisions going on at various parts of the field in every down. This is wearing upon muscle and bone, to say the least. And consider that for all its legendary violence, rugby is indeed a lifetime sport, and Old Boys and “Golden Oldies” leagues abound, with some players being quite advanced in age. (Click here for a tale of a 96-year-old Roman, and here for an account of a 90-year-old Japanese rugger.) There simply is no such thing as Old Boys Gridiron! Americans who, in their thirties or forties, still find themselves wanting to play football commonly play a variation called “flag football,” where tackling is prohibited. (A tackle is considered to have been made when a flag, or bit of fabric, is pulled from the waistband of the shorts.)

Finally, consider the playing careers of the respective world class rugger and NFL star. Both and considered to be in their prime in their twenties and perhaps early thirties. But a professional, world-class rugger can still play a respectably competitive game of rugby in his forties. (I’ve seen this.) There is really no question of an NFL star playing gridiron in his forties – he is too badly battered!

Having written all this, I will go on record as stating that I prefer rugby; it’s more fun to play and certainly more fun to watch! But I agree with Bob: Before non-Americans mindlessly criticize gridiron as being soft, they ought to try it. I am certain they will find it far tougher than they think.

[LooTa]

Rugby would have had a greater claim to being the tougher sport before they outlawed rucking. I've still got a scar running the full length of my nose from some over zealous rucking in my school days. Maybe they just mistook my face for the ball.

[Hades]

(02-04-2013 07:23 PM)LooTa Wrote:  

Rugby would have had a greater claim to being the tougher sport before they outlawed rucking. I've still got a scar running the full length of my nose from some over zealous rucking in my school days. Maybe they just mistook my face for the ball.

They outlawed rucking? Where?