Is Rugby thougher or easier than American football?

thougher, Rugby American football?

  • Total voters
    10
skipper said:
A rugby team playing NFL would still win because by the third quarter, the NFL team would be in hospital.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about this, when you have padding and helmets its much easier to throw your self at the opposition.

i CAN NOT respect a game that stops every 8 seconds, in which the players are allowed to take steroids and wear protective padding., imagine rugby players on steroids...shiiish
Click to expand...

Not hard to imagine they are called Spring Bok's.
:)
 
rugby. no pads. more brutal. and the only way you're getting out of a rugby game is if you have bones protruding or you're dead already.

a concussion, a sprained ankle, a bone spur... none of that will get you substituted :)
 
There is saying over here that Rugby is a game for hooligans and is played by gentlemen. Soccer is a game for gentlemen but is played by hooligans.
 
hell ive played alot of rugby and before i started playing i was timid weakling now after years of getting battered iam now reasonably strong and mentally tougher however ive never played american football so i cant really say whats harder.
 
LeEnfield, that is great, and I totally agree.

Although I knew a girl who played college rugby (and I wouldnt dare make her mad, let me tell ya!), but she also played soccer. so i guess that makes her both a gentleman (for the sake of the quote) and a hooligan?

actually, now that i think about it, thats about right.

unfortunately, american rugby isn't played by gentleman. its played by hooligans who don't want to or cant make the football team. it's not at all a popular sport here. oh well.
 
mzspaztastic said:
unfortunately, american rugby isn't played by gentleman. its played by hooligans who don't want to or cant make the football team. it's not at all a popular sport here. oh well.
Click to expand...

I take personal offense to this - I play rugby and I am not much of a hooligan at all. :D

It really depends on the area, rugby is rather large in many states and is played on a serious enough level not to take American football dropouts.
 
okay. i take it back.

i have yet to meet, in person, a rugby player in america who is not a hooligan. perhaps they are just not in florida. or mass.

but i am sure you're not a hooligan!
 
Hello fellas and ladies. Hope you don't mind me getting in on your forum thingy here as I am not in the military, but I figure you guys will take your sport seriously without the stupid antics one finds on the usual sites. Anyway, I noticed some photos earlier about how tough rugby union is and the photos were actually of rugby league players. From memory, John Hopawati and Chief Harrigan squaring off and Manly legend Terry Randle giving someone a good upper-cut. To answer the original question, I voted Union as tougher than American Football for the same reasons as most others, ie no pads and less stoppages.
I disappoints me that people confuse the two rugbies as I believe League to be the better game for several reasons. The ball is in play far longer in League and so less rest. Blokes are expected to make loads more tackles. How many Union players make 40-50 tackles a game like heaps of Leagies do?? How many Union players make as many hit ups (20 and more in the forwards) as a league forward does?? I like Union, but is is just too slow and cumbersome when compared to league.
Any gents out there who have yet to form a bias about this, go and watch what are supposed to be the best international games of Union (Australia and New Zealand) and compare it to State of Origin Rugby League and the difference will be obvious.
If you cant get hold of one of those, just watch the next Union International playoff and compare it to the Australian (National) Rugby League Grand Final which is to be played on Sunday night 7.30 2nd Oct Australian Eastern St. Time. It is semi final time here starting Friday 9th and I believe sky or someone will be showing the games. Check out Shane Webke for the Brisbane Broncos and Parramatta's Hindmarsh for a mix of physical and mental toughness and stamina. There are also many very fast guys with great side-stepping ability.
Each to their own and enjoy your sport, whatever it is. Chow
 
I don't think it was an actual reference to either league or union. I think you'll find it was just Rugby in general. I gotta agree with you that league is a much more fluid game. But I still love to watch a good game of union.
 
wait wait wait...he said american football...And yet I see tons of soccer comparisons...anyway. American Football versus Rugby players..hmm..It depends on the game. If football players are playing rugby then they are gonna get killed. But if the rugby players are playin football then they are gonna get stomped on. I would have to say that rugby is the tougher playing sport but try memorizing all the plays required for football...


EDIT: its spelt "tougher" not "thougher". Sorry bout that.
 
About League neading more tackles...
what constitutes a tackle in league? just stopping them. and once they stop u push them over and everyone has to walk back 5 metres and then do it all again.

league doesnt require the brute strength and endurance that union does. its all fast running and passing and very little actual physicality, apart from cheap high tackles. look at the scrum in league compared to union. an uncontested contest? how the hell does that work

Having said that, it's still better than AFL, which is like ballet but without the sexual appeal.
 
I worked with an ex-football player named Andy Cverko from Watertown, Pa. He played for Dallas for two seasons back in the early 60's and then Green Bay where he retired and went back to college and got his Master's in Electronics Engineering. When Andy walked in the door, he had to turn sideways. While we were working together, he joined a Dallas rugby league
and always had a cut or huge bump on his head. He played offensive line in football which pansies don't usually play. He told me that, hands down, rugby was the easiest game to get hurt in that he had ever played. The fact that Andy loved it was enough proof that it was not a game for the normal man off the street. He had a bumper sticker on his car that was "It takes leather balls to play rugby."
 
If anyone is really wants to know the difference between the two sports I would define it this way.

Football is much more tactical. Its alot like chess, you have specific players designed for specific roles. And there is a great amount of time planning attacks, defence and counter attacks.

Rugby is much more physical, similar to soccer. Play only stops for penalties, trys (thats Touchdowns for us Yanks ;) ), and end of time. Because the game is much more fast paced, and the fact that they were almost no protective gear, Rugby is just brutal.
 
I guess whatever your preference is.... If you like finely tuned athletes dressed up in colorful clothing and body armour, standing at the sideline half of the time, you probably like American Football. If you like men combined with brute force you probably prefer rugby... :)
 
well, I played street hockey, and I learned a valuable lesson- hit first, and learn how to get away with murder. Never got in a fight, but I did get some nice stick checks to the head in.

As for NFL/rugby, I say rugby. It's like hockey without skates:) Just as wild.
 
As far as contact sports, I played/play football (high school), hockey and rugby (collegiate level). Hockey and rugby are the only two I've continued to play organizationally. All of them are tough, rugby and hockey are definitely more likely to get you injured, but the hits in organized football are no joke. Just because you play with pads and hard helmets doesn't make the game any less "tough."

I've gotten more broken noses, contusions and lacerations from hockey than either rugby or football.

But I still have all of my original teeth! :mrgreen:

Screw the Yankees!
Click to expand...

Go, BoSox!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top