OT: Rugby vs American Football

These arguments are never about sports.  They are always about politics.  "Our national sport is better than yours!"

So you have many Americans who have no problem enthusiastically watching Football, then Basketball, then Baseball - all very different sports - freak out about Soccer.  Because it's un-American.

Likewise many Brits who follow Soccer, Rugby, and Cricket, are bewildered how anyone could watch American Football.  Because it's not "their" sport.

It's a pointless argument.  Just agree to disagree with them.

I'd like you to tell this guy that he's not the greatest athlete in the world.

I'll pitch in my 2 cents, just because I've played a decent amount of rugby (union) in Australia & spent the rest of my life watching football in America ... the two sports involve running & tackling, but are pretty different besides that.

Firstly, the philosophy of rugby is just different.  Football is truly a game of inches, & rugby is a game of team momentum, flow, & opportunity.  Football players hit with the intent to stop you in your tracks, & rugby players simply need to bring you down.  Also in rugby, the only players doing the colliding are the ball carrier & the opposing players directly in front of him, so he is very rarely taken by surprise.  So what you see is a lot more wrapping up in rugby, & the tacklers will often match their momentum more to the runner to get a good lock on him, rather than oppose it diametrically.

The end result here is far more superficial injuries like cuts, scrapes, & blood in rugby.  However, there are less of the crushing-type injuries we see so much of from the brutal hits of football.

I'm sure you've all noticed that football players can look very different from one another based on what position they play ... Obviously this is because the line relies on size, receivers on speed & jumping ability, backs on strength & agility, etc.  This is a little bit less true in rugby union, even though there are positional differences, & even less true in rugby league (another popular version in Australia).  In rarer forms of the game (like sevens, where they play seven to a side), the players really start to become homogenous in build, because they all need to be balanced between speed, endurance, & strength. 

So let's touch on that for a moment - football players are simply more explosive because they give 100% for a few seconds, then take a break.  Rugby players are active for long stretches of time ... although they may be simply jogging around for much of that time, making consecutive tackles is really tiring (and in fact underlies some offensive strategies in rugby league, where the offense tries to run straight at the same few defenders repeatedly to wear them down).  Even playing touch rugby, I got pretty winded just by jogging backwards each time the ball was reset.

So in conclusion, as far as which is the tougher game, I think it's just a matter of preference.  As far as the athletes themselves: If you're looking for superlatives - like the biggest, fastest, strongest - you're going to find them in football, but each one at the expense of the others.  Rugby players tend to be more balanced in their traits.

Ok I've already written too much, so I will stop here.  Both games are really fun!

I think your first mistake is having English friends.

...will completely replace traditional American football punting someday

Rugby players are, in my opinion, better overall atheletes. Everyone can run and hit and do it for long periods with no breaks. In football, you have guys who are stronger or faster but not often both and lack endurance.

you can hit harder with pads on

This is like arguing which version of The Office is better. UK or USA? Can't we all just have our own preferences?

Nah, that'd be no fun and we must debate since we are on the interwebs.

     As someone who's played rugby since '95, I enjoy the topic.  There are a lot of contrasts/comparisons to be made.  In my opinion, footballl is definitely a more violent sport, but rugby is more physically demanding.  With the armor and type of tackling allowed in football, the collisions are more violent with more frequency.  With rugby, high tackles above the shoulders are not permitted and an attempt to wrap up the ballcarrier must be made.  No flying shoulder hits and diving in to a players knees.  The tackler would be penalized.

     As far as being physically demanding, rugby demands 40 minutes per half without downs or huddles.  The scrumhalf (think roughly as QB equivalent) not only has to make passes and decisions from the base of the scrum, but he also has to defend, tackle, field kicks, etc.  Picture Matt Stafford or Joe Flacco doing the same (although guys like Elway, Young, Cunningham, et al could have excelled at rugby as well).  Tackling/being tackled, getting up, chasing down play, repeat, is exhausting.  That goes for packies (big guys) and backs alike.

     Which one someone prefers is largely a function of where they're from.  Particularly from a spectator point of view, nothing IMO beats a U-M football Saturday.  But if I'm playing, nothing beats a rugby Saturday and one of the best parts of the game, the 3rd half.   

since we are talking about athleticism... I arbitrarily choose to define athleticism as a combination of speed, reflexes, strength, and coordination.

therefore the best athlete in the world is none other than:


edit: embed fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfLwmZx4QI

 ...okay this was a shameless reason to post a video of Leo Mesisi.

Saw a fair share of rugby when on vacation in NZ / Australia. Was slightly intrigued, but I've been indoctrinated in football as long as I've been following it. Football is better 

Rugby players, when under duress, simplyl lateral the ball to a player and eliminates all chances of getting hit from oncoming defender. If hit is made, player is penalized. If Stehphen Jackson, or Hell, Ray Rice for that matter were to run over an unpadded rugby player, game over. simple. no argument to contrarty.