Now both games are better than soccer, down here
the only people who play soccer are those who missed
the physical for the chess team cheer leading squad.

But, why the complete stoppage of play so often in
AFL, why the need for helmets and padding ?

This a a rugby prop who has played for a number
of years, you will notice he has kept his good looks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39190000/jpg/_39190844_get_meeuws_300.jpg
Rugby is a game for thugs, played by gentlemen.

Different physics. American footballers are larger and many of them are designed SOLELY to smash into each other repeatedly.

i have played both as a big guy i liked grid iron better, i think rugby is a lot better better to watch and officially i will always vote for rugby. I think the all blacks could win the super bowl with a months football training.

One thing though, a lot of people say how tough rugby players are and how weak grid iron players are because they wear Armour while rugby dosent. You get harder from different angles in football, in rugby you only get hit if you have the ball, in grid iron its from any angle the entire game. Rugby is way harder fittness wise.

Thanks Nobody; that was quite informative.
I've never played American football, but I like rugby a lot.

i have played both as a big guy i liked grid iron better, i think rugby is a lot better better to watch and officially i will always vote for rugby. I think the all blacks could win the super bowl with a months football training.

Mmmh no. That whole quarterback thing? It requires a bit more than a month's training :)

i have played both as a big guy i liked grid iron better, i think rugby is a lot better better to watch and officially i will always vote for rugby. I think the all blacks could win the super bowl with a months football training.

One thing though, a lot of people say how tough rugby players are and how weak grid iron players are because they wear Armour while rugby dosent. You get harder from different angles in football, in rugby you only get hit if you have the ball, in grid iron its from any angle the entire game. Rugby is way harder fittness wise.

The worst injury I suffered in rugby was from
hitting a ruck at speed, with another player
from the other side hitting me head on.

We both suffered broken cheekbones, teeth
missing etc.
I have often wondered why the wife puts a bag on
my head :D

The padding? Thats because in American football there's a lot more space to accelerate before you come across the next player, so the collisions will generally be worse...

Still, I do prefer rugby. Pity about the England vs Wales results.

Still, I do prefer rugby. Pity about the England vs Wales results.

Pity? For you maybe. For the rest of us, it was PARTY TIME!

;)

I like both sports. I also like football. Rugby and American football lack a proper world cup, though.

Rugby and American football lack a proper world cup, though.

Eh? Last autumn not proper enough for you? I know that England should win any proper World Cup, but it was close enough.

I need to learn how rugby is really played, since that looks quite entertaining. But yeah, with all the padding and helmets, you still feel it when you are right on the line. I played high school football and I still felt it. The helmets were put in after players were getting killed playing football way back when.

Rugby is more fun to play, as a player of both. But there are so many technical aspects of football one can admire as a fan.

Different physics. American footballers are larger and many of them are designed SOLELY to smash into each other repeatedly.

Ever Heard of Jonah Lomu? 1.96m (6'5"), 120kgs (270lb ish), with a sub-11 seconds 100m time!:eek: No wonder he ran over everyone. I personally think Rugby is far more demanding simply because you have to be FAR more aerobically fitter ASWELL as Strength and Power and Speed etc....

Edit: By the way as you can see, I'm Welsh so I was ecstatic all weekend (rugby=religion here) and we beat England in Twickenham (i.e. in London) for the first time in my life!!! :)

Both games are great fun to play. I don't think I'd be able to pick one over the other.

Edit: By the way as you can see, I'm Welsh so I was ecstatic all weekend (rugby=religion here) and we beat England in Twickenham (i.e. in London) for the first time in my life!!! :)

Ah, so they did win. My science professor is from Wales and mentioned that game as it was upcoming. Apparently a bunch of bars on the East Side open early to show those games.

I'm pretty sure any of these guys could be studs in either sport.

http://www.scrum.com/images/wallpaper/mccaw_800x600.jpg

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~dsandov1/brianUrlacher.jpg

http://partmule.com/blog16/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/shawnemerriman_59778.jpg

http://www.gralon.net/articles/vignettes/thumb-sebastien-chabal--le-nouveau-heros-du-rugby-francais-821.gif

I like the concept of constant play, physically demanding and not ending a play when the player is down however there's something strategic that I find attractive when play stops in football. Then it's back to that fast bursts of mass collision inside of a battle to win a war....moving the sticks.
I think someone once said rugby is a contact sport and football is a collision sport

In rugby, other than the scrum which is just dangerous, players move to receive a toss instead of exacting a block. In football, nearly every player on the field is hitting someone so the goals are different. In rugby, regardless of how many extra meters (yards) a player gets it doesn't matter. In football, you need to stop that guy in his tracks.

As for the padding, I think anyone who's received a helmet to their sternum will tell you it ain't fun especially after you just fought off a pulling guard twice your size.

It's also not fun getting a finger caught in a facemask. :cringe:

Rugby (union of course) is way better. No padding designed for girly-men and they have to play constantly with only a short break in the middle. I can't help but thinking that American Football might be better if there was only one set players for both defence and offence. Also the whole 15 seconds of action followed by 3 minutes of break gets old real fast. It just seems so slow. Although it farily enjoyable, prehaps an edited version would be better with just play after play after play. Usually it's on quite late at night here, so it's something to go to sleep to. I find it strange calling American Football slow, while I can quite easily watch test match cricket for 5 days, ah well.

I can't help but thinking that American Football might be better if there was only one set players for both defence and offence.

Sounds like the Arena Football League is just for you!

They generally play with one set, though they have an "offensive/defensive specialist" position.

Eh? Last autumn not proper enough for you? I know that England should win any proper World Cup, but it was close enough.

It's a nice cup, but it's not really a WORLD cup, if you know what I mean?

the real question is baseball or cricket isn't it? I think that's the question on everyones mind...

Cricket and baseball are just about as different as you get, the only real common thing is that you hit a ball with a bat, otherwise the rules of how to hit the ball are completly different and scores are worked out differently as well.

I've played both rugby and american football (albeit with training padding, not full on helmets and so on), and I can honestly say, with my hand on my heart, that...

grid iron players are puszies.
This business about getting hit all the time in football isn't washing. Prop forwards are forever smashing into one another in rugby. Be it in scrums, rucks, mauls or out in open play, they are there to do so, all game long. And they don't have to have the ball in their hand to get hit. Their physicality and their role in the game are specifically designed for constant contact and collision.

As for the type of contact made, I've had my hip dislocated playing rugby, thanks to a flying tackle, from the side, into the hip, at speed. You might call it a collision. I was off all contact sport for two years and couldn't walk for a month. You get hit hard in rugby, and it can be from any direction too.

Yet rugby players don't wear padding.

And, as a former fly half, I viewed the strategic aspects of rugby to be more challenging. This has something to do with the open ended play, which forces you to think quick, whilst under pressure and always on the hoof. In formal grid iron, you've stood around, planned it out, then go through the pre-set motion for a short amount of time. Sure, there's some spontaneity involved once in open play, but it's largely a pass, running and blocking by numbers.

The passing and kicking roles of the fly half are another demonstration of this greater complexity. A fly half must constantly play strategist, always on the hoof, passing or kicking for territory, calling movements for the backs and so on. A QB must only perform the one action or task in the play; be it a long bomb, short pass, lay off to RB or whatever. And, when played formally, he probably hasn't decided to task himself. It's just the one task and then you're off for another chat.

Both games are hugely enjoyable to play or watch. But that's my two cents.

I've played both rugby and american football (albeit with training padding, not full on helmets and so on)

If you had actually played real football then your 2c would be relevant. Both
sports are highly violent. Injuries probably occur more often in American
football, but you don't see American football fans calling rugby players p......
What is the reason rugby players don't wear more padding? :scan: So fans
can say their sport is more violent :crazyeye: ???

I think the injuries are pretty similar especially with ACL, MCL, knees, ankles etc. I think one thing that's majorly different is rugby players need to stay in the game or they're done. I think they tend to play more with injury because of it. If a football player gets carted off the field there's still a chance you may see the guy. I'd guess neither has an especially long pro career though.

If you had actually played real football then your 2c would be relevant. Both
sports are highly violent. Injuries probably occur more often in American
football, but you don't see American football fans calling rugby players p......
What is the reason rugby players don't wear more padding? :scan: So fans
can say their sport is more violent :crazyeye: ???Oh, that reminds me of another thing: Why are supporters of football so touchy about it!? :D

down here
the only people who play soccer are those who missed
the physical for the chess team cheer leading squad.

:lol: try to say this out of the US, or if you can't travel such far, at least in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=261890

Oh, that reminds me of another thing: Why are supporters of football so touchy about it!? :D

Not touchy, just don't like people spouting off when they have no idea what
they are talking about. Two different (rough/violent) sports, no reason to call one or the other p......!

I think rugby is better because
it is much more civilized
and much less wuss-like
because the rugby players
do not wear massive padding
everywhere.

Have you played either? I played High School Football and I can promise you
there is nothing 'wuss' like about it. For example I broke 2 fingers in three years as a QB. Both our TEs had their knee blown out. One defensive lineman had his leg broken, another had a dislocated elbow. Our WR suffered
a severe concussion... it goes on and on. I can just watch Rugby and tell it is not for the faint of heart. Pads do not the wuss make.

The reason why rugby doesn't have padding is there are very strict rules on tackles. In american football they are less restriction (ie you can tackle a player in the air in football but not in rugby) as a result of this there is more chance of injury so players pad up to prevent them

Cricket and baseball are just about as different as you get, the only real common thing is that you hit a ball with a bat, otherwise the rules of how to hit the ball are completly different and scores are worked out differently as well.



That's kind of my point, they are both pretty different with a couple things in common, so how much use is there in comparing? I could see if they were the exact same game but one set used pads and the other didn't. NFL europe used pads didn't they:)

The passing and kicking roles of the fly half are another demonstration of this greater complexity. A fly half must constantly play strategist, always on the hoof, passing or kicking for territory, calling movements for the backs and so on. A QB must only perform the one action or task in the play; be it a long bomb, short pass, lay off to RB or whatever. And, when played formally, he probably hasn't decided to task himself. It's just the one task and then you're off for another chat.

Both games are hugely enjoyable to play or watch. But that's my two cents.

You forgot about the whole 'I'm a flyhalf so I drop balls' thing. There's a reason we fowards are the better players, and more handsome to boot. Silly back.

Other than that, never played football for a team, played rugby for 4 going on 5 spring seasons, but still, in rugby there are tackling rules, in football there arn't. And they rely more on brute strength in football, instead of allround aspects. Like to watch and play both though

It wouldn't be fair to say that there are no tackling rules in American football. For instance, you can't yank someone down by their facemask. But there are some hard hitting collisions going on there.

Fortunately, the worst I suffered through was pinching some nerves in my rib cage area. Went to the team chiropractor every weekend then busted them again during the week.

Have you played either? I played High School Football and I can promise you
there is nothing 'wuss' like about it. For example I broke 2 fingers in three years as a QB. Both our TEs had their knee blown out. One defensive lineman had his leg broken, another had a dislocated elbow. Our WR suffered
a severe concussion... it goes on and on. I can just watch Rugby and tell it is not for the faint of heart. Pads do not the wuss make.

I've never even heard of American football or rugby.

I've never even heard of American football or rugby.

whoa, are you under a rug?

whoa, are you under a rug?

If it helps, my last name begins with "H" and ends in "sein". And my first name begins with "S". Obviously, if I said anymore of my name I would reveal my identity.

If you haven't heard of either, you owe it to yourself to check out both.

Rugby and American Style Gridiron Football have similarities, but really, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Personally, I've heard that having lots of fruit in your diet is good for you, so if you'll excuse me...

:)

Have played Rugby and Australian Rules Football, and watched a number of games of Gridiron when in the States.

It would take courage to play any of the three at the pro level. IMHO the way in which you're going to get hit in Rugby is more predictable than the other two. Best game to play = Aussie Rules. Best game to watch = Aussie Rules.

It's pointless comparing which is the toughest.....................Pointless?

Not touchy, just don't like people spouting off when they have no idea what
they are talking about. Two different (rough/violent) sports, no reason to call one or the other p......!No reason?


The fun in poking fun never diminishes. :D

Have played Rugby and Australian Rules Football, and watched a number of games of Gridiron when in the States.

It would take courage to play any of the three at the pro level. IMHO the way in which you're going to get hit in Rugby is more predictable than the other two. Best game to play = Aussie Rules. Best game to watch = Aussie Rules.

He/she/whoever speaks nothing but the truth.

Have played Rugby and Australian Rules Football, and watched a number of games of Gridiron when in the States.

It would take courage to play any of the three at the pro level. IMHO the way in which you're going to get hit in Rugby is more predictable than the other two. Best game to play = Aussie Rules. Best game to watch = Aussie Rules.

I very much agree

Best game to play = Aussie Rules. Best game to watch = Aussie Rules.
Strongly disagree :p

IMHO the way in which you're going to get hit in Rugby is more predictable than the other two. Best game to play = Aussie Rules. Best game to watch = Aussie Rules.

Really? I've found it's less predictible. I mean, yeah, you know you should get hit around your waist, but you never know from where, and back...er...some people, like to collar tackle

Hmm, I love how people here are saying that one game is less tough than the other. I pretty much think that I would get pretty injured if I tried to play either of them. Both sports require you to be a pretty highly tuned athlete to play at a decent level.

Being from New Zealand, my heart belongs to Rugby Union Football, but that is just because that is what I have been brought up on. The continual stopping for oxygen that happens in American Football seems odd, but it's just something that is a part of that game. It's not better or worse, just different.

It's also not fun getting a finger caught in a facemask. :cringe:

maybe ou shouldn't be facemasking.

Have people been killed playing rugby?

Have people been killed playing rugby?

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

No, but it is an answer for all those who insist that American football players wear pads because they are wimps.

I do like these arguments, because all we really have to do is post links to stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZH8AadKjko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKZWyIzo394

I do like these arguments, because all we really have to do is post links to stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZH8AadKjko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKZWyIzo394

pawned everthing else... :eek: :lol:

pawned everthing else... :eek: :lol:


Uhhhhhh NO, but very good clips anyway. Same stuff in the NFL almost every
play.

Uhhhhhh NO, but very good clips anyway. Same stuff in the NFL almost every
play.

So, NFL has people jumping on other players backs without the use of their hands to catch the ball almost every play? Why have I never seen this then.

Uhhhhhh NO, but very good clips anyway. Same stuff in the NFL almost every
play.

no. it's just not the same, sorry...
especially without any kind of protection, those guys are crazy.
how many of them die every year? :eek:

no. it's just not the same, sorry...
especially without any kind of protection, those guys are crazy.
how many of them die every year? :eek:

None. Although last year someone almost died from a punctured lung when a cyst burst, and the year before that someone needed a kidney removed due to a heavy knock from behind. The most common injury in Aussie Rules, by far, is a hamstring injury.

None. Although last year someone almost died from a punctured lung when a cyst burst, and the year before that someone needed a kidney removed due to a heavy knock from behind. The most common injury in Aussie Rules, by far, is a hamstring injury.

Let's not forget that Hawthorn player a while back who got one of his lungs punctured from his ribs being broken...

So you are saying ruptured spleens, completely shattered legs, guys getting
killed, paralyzed and/or broken necks is not as violent as Rugby because they
wear pads- that is just plain silly. This debate is a waste of time, one is just
as rough as the other and they are completely different sports. Jeez.

So you are saying ruptured spleens, completely shattered legs, guys getting
killed, paralyzed and/or broken necks is not as violent as Rugby because they
wear pads- that is just plain silly. This debate is a waste of time, one is just
as rough as the other and they are completely different sports. Jeez.

When did we say this? The last page seems to have almost entirely consisted of people talking of the merits of AFL, as opposed to going on the original thread's topic...

So you are saying ruptured spleens, completely shattered legs, guys getting
killed, paralyzed and/or broken necks is not as violent as Rugby because they
wear pads- that is just plain silly. This debate is a waste of time, one is just
as rough as the other and they are completely different sports. Jeez.

IMO, NFL is the most violent, but that doesn't nessecarily mean its tough.

Any game where the rules make you give the ball back after you get tackled is a bit silly.

Yeah you can say american football players get hit harder, but then they get to sit down for a minute while everyone else fannies about and the next play gets sorted. In rugby (union, rugby league is faggy as anything), you take a hit, then you can expect to get landed on and recieve boots to the face and all sorts in the ruck.

Helmet to helmet contact in American football doesnt hurt as much or as dangerous as a head to head contact you get from union/league.

Also the running area in league/union is also larger than that of A football and the hits are mostly at speeds in both union and league.

Endurance wise would also favor league and union with far fitter players on average especially when compared with obese linesman.

For me league has the bigger hits, union has the little dirty plays that can injure you in so many ways (that you can easily get away with) and american football has the more spectacular looking hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1d4qd7SjEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egmXud5nvso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdQr...eature=related

So you are saying ruptured spleens, completely shattered legs, guys getting
killed, paralyzed and/or broken necks is not as violent as Rugby because they
wear pads- that is just plain silly. This debate is a waste of time, one is just
as rough as the other and they are completely different sports. Jeez.
You do realise that the clip is of AFL and not rugby league or union.

I watched a very interesting program last night on the force of hits by American Football players and Rugby players. National Geographic channel.

After a multitude of test their findings were that Football players hit with more
force (like a 35mph car wreck) than Rugby players. (((But))) Rugby players hit
far more times. Football averaged about 6 or 7 super hard hits per game by a
player (linebacker) and the Rugby (middle defender?) averaged about 18 super
hard hits per match. Also the padding, while allowing the Football player to hit
harder- also spread the hit out on both the hitter and the player receiving the
hit, preventing for one thing broken ribs- as the hit displaced the chest a bit.
Still, since the sports/equipment/rules/etc. are different it is almost impossible to say that one is 'tougher' than the other. Endless cycle.

Found this at CNN/SportsIllustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/03/28/hair/1.html) from DR. Z, who writes full time about American football:

Tom of Fairless Hills, Pa., brings up a topic I've heard discussed for almost 60 years and I'm not kidding. Ruggers vs. football players, skill in one sport as it translates to skill in the other. This piqued my curiosity as a 17-year-old freshman at Stanford. Footballers played rugby in the offseason. Great fun, you could carry the ball, thrash around, take a cheap shot here and there. Many of our good football players, such as All-American end Bill McColl, also were serious ruggers.

Years later I was one of the founders of the Old Blue RFC at Columbia in New York. We played a lot of international matches, which included a month-long tour of the UK, Ireland and Wales. I never felt that ruggers would be able to play pro football, but I did feel that a good American college football team, with about a month's training, would do very well in the British sport. But I had never really seen rugby at the very top level.

Until Red and I went to New Zealand two times and watched some Super Twelve matches, which featured many internationals. I saw a lot of guys in the 235-250 range who were serious hitters -- and faaast! With a little training I think they could convert to effective linebackers or pass rushers. And many thanks, Tom, for the nice things you wrote.

I, for one, am a big fan of both rugby (Six Nations rocks and Jonah Lomu is a beast) and American football (and that OTHER kind, as well). I think debates over who's tougher are idiotic. They generally seem to be started by Brits or, more often it seems, Aussies who insist American football players are pansies for wearing helmets and pads. Most American football fans couldn't even tell you what 'rugby' means, let alone have an opinion about it. Smacks a bit of an inferiority complex on the part of ruggers fans. So, quit your moaning and sit back and watch two groups of large, talented athletes pound each other into the turf for your entertainment.

I watched a very interesting program last night on the force of hits by American Football players and Rugby players. National Geographic channel.

After a multitude of test their findings were that Football players hit with more
force (like a 35mph car wreck) than Rugby players. (((But))) Rugby players hit
far more times. Football averaged about 6 or 7 super hard hits per game by a
player (linebacker) and the Rugby (middle defender?) averaged about 18 super
hard hits per match. Also the padding, while allowing the Football player to hit
harder- also spread the hit out on both the hitter and the player receiving the
hit, preventing for one thing broken ribs- as the hit displaced the chest a bit.
Still, since the sports/equipment/rules/etc. are different it is almost impossible to say that one is 'tougher' than the other. Endless cycle.

So it kind of comes down to do you want to get hit by a truck once while wearing a helmet or get hit by a car three times without one.

So it kind of comes down to do you want to get hit by a truck once while wearing a helmet or get hit by a car three times without one.


Haha... good point :D .

first of all, Football (played with your feet and a spherical ball) is the majesty of all sports. bow to your sensei!

Rugby is far better than AFL. more fluid, more interesting, more edge of your seat stuff. spreading an 80 minute game over 5-6 hours makes for boring TV.

Rugby league is crap. what you want is rugby union.

first of all, Football (played with your feet and a spherical ball) is the majesty of all sports. bow to your sensei!

Soccer :mischief: is a fine game - unless you're a Kopite, that is.

Rugby is far better than AFL. more fluid, more interesting, more edge of your seat stuff. spreading an 80 minute game over 5-6 hours makes for boring TV.

Actually closer to 3 hours; NFL games are scheduled to start at 1PM and 4PM East Coast time with an occasional 5-10 minute overlap. Also, there is no AFL, it was merged with the NFL decades ago. Unless your talking the Arena Football League, which is similar in its relations to regular (American) footbal in some ways as Rugby Union is to Rugby League - i.e., not the same thing.

I won't get into a p!$$ing contest about which is better. I enjoy them both. There different games, both having their own appeal. Yeah, rugby is more fluid, but American football, because of its resetting between plays, more tactically intricate.

Like I said, though, it's nearly always Brits and Aussies who feel the urge to make comparisons between the two; apparently some folk need to reassure themselves that their game isn't inferior. We Yanks (and Canucks, for that matter, who have their own version) are content play/watch our sport without giving a hoot what others think of it.

Rugby league is crap. what you want is rugby union.

Can't say as I've ever seen a rugby league match, so I couldn't tell the difference.

Like I said, though, it's nearly always Brits and Aussies who feel the urge to make comparisons between the two...It seems more like Brits and Kiwis here. Rugby Union's dying a slow death in Australia. It can't compete with either Australian Rules Football (southern and western states) or Rugby League (north-eastern states). Rugby's Super 14 competition doesn't feature on free-to-air television any more because it rates so poorly. Now we also have the increasing popularity of soccer.

It's funny listening to Rugby Union fans complaining of too many stoppages in American Football. That's one of the complaints League fans have about Union. Rugby Union is a much more anaerobic game than either Australian Rules Football or Rugby League.

Actually closer to 3 hours; NFL games are scheduled to start at 1PM and 4PM East Coast time with an occasional 5-10 minute overlap. Also, there is no AFL, it was merged with the NFL decades ago. Unless your talking the Arena Football League, which is similar in its relations to regular (American) footbal in some ways as Rugby Union is to Rugby League - i.e., not the same thing.

There is an AFL and it stands for Australian Football League - hope that broadens your knowledge.

Like I said, though, it's nearly always Brits and Aussies who feel the urge to make comparisons between the two; apparently some folk need to reassure themselves that their game isn't inferior. We Yanks (and Canucks, for that matter, who have their own version) are content play/watch our sport without giving a hoot what others think of it.

"It seems more like Brits and Kiwis here" Wobbegong beat me to it - repeating something doesn't make it true - responses on this thread would indicate you're speaking through your lower orifice. :)

Rugby LEAGUE and NFL are two of the hardest , most exiting extreme ball sports on the face of the planet

As an avid League fan I totally respect the NFL players ,they have similar levels of toughness and skill...pads are 100% needed in NFL due to the explosive nature of the hits and the fact they can come from anywhere.

I think alot of Americans correctly are underwhelmed by Rugby as they have only been exposed to the "poor mans" version , Rugby union. A far slower , softer version of the game (and yes I expect to get smashed by any union fans who may still exist).

So NFL fans , take a look , find out about Rugby LEAGUE and you will be pleasantly surprised..........this coming from an Aussie who constantly sticks up for the merits of NFL when some of my countrymen sell it short.

As for union , why would I eat fish and chips when I can dine on lobster for 30 weeks of the year

Rugby is far better than AFL. more fluid, more interesting, more edge of your seat stuff. spreading an 80 minute game over 5-6 hours makes for boring TV.


There is an AFL and it stands for Australian Football League - hope that broadens your knowledge.

I'm fully aware of Aussie Rules. Given SenhorDaGuerra's description of this particular AFL - inferior to rugby, "spreading an 80 minute game over 5-6 hours makes for boring TV" - I didn't assume any AussieFL fans would care to claim it in this case. Unless of course you think your AFL to be as abysmal as SenhorDaGuerra says.

"It seems more like Brits and Kiwis here" Wobbegong beat me to it - repeating something doesn't make it true - responses on this thread would indicate you're speaking through your lower orifice. :)

OK, I'll amend: it's nearly always rugby fans with funny accents from godforsaken little countries :mischief: who feel the urge to make comparisons between the two...

Rugby LEAGUE and NFL are two of the hardest , most exiting extreme ball sports on the face of the planet

As an avid League fan I totally respect the NFL players ,they have similar levels of toughness and skill...pads are 100% needed in NFL due to the explosive nature of the hits and the fact they can come from anywhere.

:goodjob: Words of wisdom.

I think alot of Americans correctly are underwhelmed by Rugby as they have only been exposed to the "poor mans" version , Rugby union. A far slower , softer version of the game (and yes I expect to get smashed by any union fans who may still exist).

So NFL fans , take a look , find out about Rugby LEAGUE and you will be pleasantly surprised..........this coming from an Aussie who constantly sticks up for the merits of NFL when some of my countrymen sell it short.

As for union , why would I eat fish and chips when I can dine on lobster for 30 weeks of the year

My main exposure to rugby has been internationals - Six Nations and World Cup (sad to say I've never gotten a chance to see any Tri-Nations) - so I'm not familiar with Rugby League. Ain't knocking it, just ain't seen it yet. Next time I have access to Aussie TV I'll give it a shot.

Every year a mate and I take the monday off and watch the superbowl cause it kicks off around 10.30am.......we just bet on the outsider and ride it home.

$500 on the Giants this year.....possibly the most exiting 4 hours of sport I have seen.....forget the winning touchdown it was the catch with a minute to go that did it , he could try that another 100 times and not get close

The Pats with the field goal when massive outsiders against the Rams was another big one at our house.

NFL kicks ass and when the only counter argument is pads and stoppages ,then it must have something going for it.

Now jump on "you tube ", type in Benji Marshall and see what I mean re. Rugby League

By the way , America has a League comp...... www.AMNRL.com

Every year a mate and I take the monday off and watch the superbowl cause it kicks off around 10.30am.......we just bet on the outsider and ride it home.

$500 on the Giants this year.....possibly the most exiting 4 hours of sport I have seen.....forget the winning touchdown it was the catch with a minute to go that did it , he could try that another 100 times and not get close

Sadly, I missed this year's SB. What odds were you getting for the Giants?

The Pats with the field goal when massive outsiders against the Rams was another big one at our house.

Though, apparently the Pats may have cheated (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/news/story?id=3227245)...

NFL kicks ass and when the only counter argument is pads and stoppages ,then it must have something going for it.

The forward pass, like you mentioned above, adds a level of excitement, athleticism, and indeed violence that few other sports have. The stoppages, while slowing the game, make for a more tactically demanding game. Coaches and managers in most sports make truly decisive decisions only periodically - substitutions, formation changes, go forward or defend; NFL coaches are involved in every single play.

Now jump on "you tube ", type in Benji Marshall and see what I mean re. Rugby League

By the way , America has a League comp...... www.AMNRL.com

Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a look.

I`m not as adept as you with the quotes

$3.80 the Giants with half point start(to remove the tie option).

An important point........NFL would be a WORSE game without pads or helmets and heres why

Its vital that the quarterback has the courage to dedicate himself to the pass without"hearing footsteps" and checking for whats coming.....its that fraction of a second before the potential sack where the QB KNOWS he will get smashed , but never takes his eyes of the reciever and lets fly which is just brilliant....without the padding he cant do that.

Likewise tacklers cant commit to the crazy hits they put on without pads.remember everyone is fresh(ish) due to the breaks in play so it is intense from the first play of the game to the last.

You also need to have the stoppages cause it would be ridiculous to have guys that size playing fatigued.....its not an endurance sport its a high intensity , high action , organised sort of mayhem.

If I want to watch overweight , unskilled guys play football I`d watch union.

Mate if I lived in the States I would be an NFL and NHL nut.......As a cricket lover I also think Baseball is great............not much more nail biting things in sport than a side 3 down with bases loaded in the final innings.

And anyone who thinks cricket is soft......I would love to get you into the nets , no shirt just pads and gloves and have Brett Lee pepper you with short balls.......trust me , facing quality fast bowling on a variable wicket is close to the toughest thing in any sport , anywhere

I`m not as adept as you with the quotes

$3.80 the Giants with half point start(to remove the tie option).

An important point........NFL would be a WORSE game without pads or helmets and heres why

Its vital that the quarterback has the courage to dedicate himself to the pass without"hearing footsteps" and checking for whats coming.....its that fraction of a second before the potential sack where the QB KNOWS he will get smashed , but never takes his eyes of the reciever and lets fly which is just brilliant....without the padding he cant do that.

Likewise tacklers cant commit to the crazy hits they put on without pads.remember everyone is fresh(ish) due to the breaks in play so it is intense from the first play of the game to the last.

You also need to have the stoppages cause it would be ridiculous to have guys that size playing fatigued.....its not an endurance sport its a high intensity , high action , organised sort of mayhem.

If I want to watch overweight , unskilled guys play football I`d watch union.

Mate if I lived in the States I would be an NFL and NHL nut.......As a cricket lover I also think Baseball is great............not much more nail biting things in sport than a side 3 down with bases loaded in the final innings.

And anyone who thinks cricket is soft......I would love to get you into the nets , no shirt just pads and gloves and have Brett Lee pepper you with short balls.......trust me , facing quality fast bowling on a variable wicket is close to the toughest thing in any sport , anywhere

Bollocks, I would ask Lee this question, would he
spend two hours against me in a full on scrummaging in the front row
with two full packs, then I will face him in the
nets.
I know what his answer would be.
Of course with Lee at 18o lb, and me at 290
I doubt if he would last more than ten seconds
before something broke.

I don't want to face Brett Lee or go up against you in a scrum for 2 hours. They both sound like sure fire tickets to the hospital for me.

Coaches and managers in most sports make truly decisive decisions only periodically - substitutions, formation changes, go forward or defend; NFL coaches are involved in every single play.
I see that as a negative. However, it seems to be the way of a number of American sports. I prefer those decisions to be left to the players; that's one factor which differentiates between average players and great players. I don't care if it's a multi-million dollar business, I don't believe coaches should be calling the shots on every single play. You wonder if some of these players need a coach to wipe their own arse. I also like to see pressure and fatigue play heavy roles in decision-making on the field - something that's diminished with constant stoppages and meddling coaches. Each to their own, I suppose.

Bollocks, I would ask Lee this question, would he spend two hours against me in a full on scrummaging in the front row with two full packs, then I will face him in the nets. I know what his answer would be. Of course with Lee at 18o lb, and me at 290 I doubt if he would last more than ten seconds before something broke. Can this debate over which sport is the toughest get any more retarded? IMO, some of the world's toughest athletes are from the endurance sports. Since you're now into comparisons of vastly different sports, how would you fare lugging that 130 kg frame of yours around a triathlon course? A triathlete would hand you your arse, no?

I`m not as adept as you with the quotes

$3.80 the Giants with half point start(to remove the tie option).

An important point........NFL would be a WORSE game without pads or helmets and heres why

Its vital that the quarterback has the courage to dedicate himself to the pass without"hearing footsteps" and checking for whats coming.....its that fraction of a second before the potential sack where the QB KNOWS he will get smashed , but never takes his eyes of the reciever and lets fly which is just brilliant....without the padding he cant do that.

Likewise tacklers cant commit to the crazy hits they put on without pads.remember everyone is fresh(ish) due to the breaks in play so it is intense from the first play of the game to the last.

You also need to have the stoppages cause it would be ridiculous to have guys that size playing fatigued.....its not an endurance sport its a high intensity , high action , organised sort of mayhem.

If I want to watch overweight , unskilled guys play football I`d watch union.

Mate if I lived in the States I would be an NFL and NHL nut.......As a cricket lover I also think Baseball is great............not much more nail biting things in sport than a side 3 down with bases loaded in the final innings.

And anyone who thinks cricket is soft......I would love to get you into the nets , no shirt just pads and gloves and have Brett Lee pepper you with short balls.......trust me , facing quality fast bowling on a variable wicket is close to the toughest thing in any sport , anywhere

Agreed on all points. :) Particularly the love for the NHL. The Stanley Cup Finals, which are just around the corner, are my single favorite sporting event, period, er, full stop. Full contact, with sticks no less, against the same opponent for 4 to 7 games in a row breeds rivalries and intensity like nothing else. And should you make it through round 1, you've got three more to go.

As for cricket, I've enjoyed it when I've watched it, but I still can't figure out the damned scoring. Winning by runs, clear enough. Winning by an innings? To my American mind, an inning is a period of time, not a measure of score.

And please, no "Hitting in cricket is soooo much harder than hitting a baseball" BS.

I see that as a negative. However, it seems to be the way of a number of American sports. I prefer those decisions to be left to the players; that's one factor which differentiates between average players and great players. I don't care if it's a multi-million dollar business, I don't believe coaches should be calling the shots on every single play. You wonder if some of these players need a coach to wipe their own arse. I also like to see pressure and fatigue play heavy roles in decision-making on the field - something that's diminished with constant stoppages and meddling coaches. Each to their own, I suppose.

Not meant to be seen as a positive or a negative. There are plenty of sports where, once practice and squad selection are made, the game is largely out of the coaching staff's hands: rugby (both breeds), football/soccer, hurling (for truly lunatic disregard of one's safety), hockey (field and ice), et cetera. The tactical micromanaging of US/Canadian-style football just makes it unique, which I guess is something of a positive.

As for separating average from great, that depends on the sport. American football playbooks can be a thick and as complicated as a textbook on patent law. It adds a cerebral, as well as a physical and an instinctual element to the requirements for greatness.

Pressure and fatigue also play their parts in the NFL. The whole theory of smash-mouth ball-control offense, as opposed to heavily pass oriented varieties, is predicated upon wearing the opposing defense into the ground so that late in the game your team can have its way with them. And any time millions of dollars/pounds/ducats, plus national/regional/professional pride are on the line, pressure will separate the heroes from the goats.

And from an amateur, run-around-in-your-backyard pickup game perspective, the complicated play calling can't be beat: You (receiver #1), run to the oak tree, fake left and go right (receiver #2). You, go straight down the middle. And you (receiver #3), take three steps off the line and turn around. If your defender covers you, go deep.

Winning by an innings? To my American mind, an inning is a period of time, not a measure of score.

Yes. So if you are so far ahead that you don't even need to bat your last innings, then you have won by an innings as well.

Example:
1st innings - Harbourboy XI scores 220
1st innings - MileGregarius XI scores 420
2nd innings - Harbourboy XI scores 180

Milesgregarius does not need to come out and bat again so wins by an innings and 20 runs.

Winning by an innings happens in Test cricket in which games can run up to 5 days. The other types of cricket are one day games where both sides bat for 50 overs each, and 20 over cricket which is a relatively new concept.

Yes. So if you are so far ahead that you don't even need to bat your last innings, then you have won by an innings as well.

Example:
1st innings - Harbourboy XI scores 220
1st innings - MileGregarius XI scores 420
2nd innings - Harbourboy XI scores 180

Milesgregarius does not need to come out and bat again so wins by an innings and 20 runs.

Ah, the baseball equivalent of the home team not batting in the bottom of the ninth if they're winning.

Winning by an innings happens in Test cricket in which games can run up to 5 days. The other types of cricket are one day games where both sides bat for 50 overs each, and 20 over cricket which is a relatively new concept.

Overs I get. Mostly I've watched one-day internationals.

Just to confuse things

If I score 1000000000 in the first innings and you score 1 in the first innings and 1 in the second innings.......but 5 days expire and you still have 1 batsmen not dismissed , then its a draw regardless of the 999999998 run deficit

Just to confuse things

If I score 1000000000 in the first innings and you score 1 in the first innings and 1 in the second innings.......but 5 days expire and you still have 1 batsmen not dismissed , then its a draw regardless of the 999999998 run deficit

Now my head hurts...

Then consider this......after five days roughly 30% of test matches result in a draw....in a best of three series a nil all draw is not uncommon.

Then consider this......after five days roughly 30% of test matches result in a draw....in a best of three series a nil all draw is not uncommon.

Methinks I'll stick to the one days...

Test matches are an acquired taste but I love them. I can understand why other people might think they are boring though, as it does seem like nothing is happening a lot of the time, but I find that just makes it intense. Each to their own though.