I know you can legally do it but it is a called play and seldom at that while it is an integral part of rugby's offensive flow. You don't need to tell me mikester I played from the age of 10 all the way through college Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why did you quote my statement about pads then say that? You suggest a stupid idea. Running into rigid objects anchored to the ground is nothing comparable to running into a man. Celebratory macho crap? Or simple fact? Homoerotic accusations are a waste of time. Did you play your college rugby in the states? Can American rugby be used as good representation of the game? I don't know the state of American rugby but I would guess that if you played in a country like NZ, Australia or South Africa you would probably fumble your way into a concussion.
So what's the point there? That rugby is kind of a dumb, macho sport ? I actually agree with your general observations - except about linemen being clumsy, and only doing one or two things - but especially about the dozens of specialized rules. I doubt that's the reason football will not catch on elsewhere, though - baseball did. I would bet more on the cost of the gear. ( I think it may die back in the US on that factor as well. High schools increasingly can't afford the sport.) I want to defend myself on this one though: I didn't play the homoerotic card, man, this guy did: I'm supposed to just let that go by? C'mon - - - is that your classic rugby player, or what ? Nothing comparable to running into a rugby player maybe, but it's not much different from running into the middle linebacker on a decent college football team. Try it, see what it's like to have that pad "nullify" the hit.
it makes me luagh when people say american football players are huge, but have you seen a the fronts in rugby they are bloody huge.
lol almost you have got to take into acount man for man there are gona be rugby players who are bigger then american football players and vice versa.
The average player on an American football team is substantially larger than the average player on a rugby team. Average rugby: 5'11.5", 198lbs Average NFL: 6'1.5", 245lbs Sources: http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/rugby/fitness.htm http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6628372
These boys should play rugby. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/10/28/count-the-laterals-if-you-can/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Had a rare opportunity to compare rugby and football side by side last week - a mediocre pro US football game was playing simultaneously with the Championship rugby match on the TV. Observations about rugby: in switching channels, I would hit advertisements and other breaks in the play only slightly more often on the football side. The notion that high-level rugby is continuous action needs serious qualifying. The points in that rugby match came mostly (entirely, on the winning team's side) from uncontested field goal-type (except from a tee) kicks awarded as penalties and so forth. In football every score is contested. (These kicks of course are breaks in the action). Most of the action on the rugby side consisted of relatively immobile piles and scrums of bodies, with the ball going nowhere at the moment, and there were usually a fair number of guys just standing around at any given time. The moments when everyone was simultaneously in full tilt effort (as in most footabll plays) were few. The extra physical skill involved was punting. Whether one views rubgy as a more skillful sport seems to depend on how one rates the skill of punting compared with the skill of blocking. I would rate blocking higher in skill, both mentally and physically, as well as more violent and strenuous. The rugby players were about physically equivalent to linebackers and tight ends in football. That makes sense, if the similarity in job requirements is noted. The single most athletic play observed in the afternoon was the block of a field goal during the football game. The player blocking the field goal was at least the size of the larger rugby players, and demonstrated more quickness and agility than anyone had the opportunity to demonstrate in the rugby match. Football could be played that way, all the time - it's not against the rules.
Given that you've consistantly been anti-rugby during your time in this thread, one should take your observations with a (proverbial) grain of salt. Then I have no idea what you were watching. Aside from the usual festivities before kickoff and some brief adverts during the 10-minute halftime, rugby has absolutely no commercial breaks. None. The game is played in two continuous halves of 40 minutes, without stoppage. If you were watching a re-broadcast of some kind on American television, then the TV execs inserted stopages and breaks for commericials that did not originally exist. And football, as we all know, takes hours to play or watch because the near constant breaks in play and TV timeouts. Kicking has certainly become more important in International rugby, but it's hardly the norm in most matches. Watch the France/Argentina semifinal to see a nice, open match with lots of scoring (I'm also confused as to why Americans always seem to insist scoring is the measure of a game, too). As for the contesting, the contesting is done prior to the kick (during the continuous action). Penalties are usually given because a team has been under constant pressure and makes a mistake. That is the most base description of rugby I have ever read, one written by someone who obviously doesn't understand the game or is interested in admitting its strengths. The game constantly moves. Whenever a ball comes out of a ruck, the defense must move up and tackle the man and the offense must get to the breakdown and secure the ruck. The people standing around are standing there to make up a defense or provide a option for the offload. They won't stand there long, either. As I mentioned above, they will either join a ruck or realign to get a pass or play defense in the next phase. Pack players in rugby run miles per game and are involved with dozens of tackles and 80 or 100 phases of play. The same cannot be said for football players. So the fact that all the players had to be able to pass and catch, tackle and ruck doesn't impress you? Football players do not have to exhibit such a range... Blocking in no way, shape or fashion is as violent or as physical or as difficult as rucking, which you've wrongly described as "relatively immobile piles." Kicks are block in similar fashion in rugby all the time...
I just learned the other day that Russell Crowe owns the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby team. He was the guest on a Monday Night Football game a week or two ago (Colts vs. Jaguars) and was telling everyone that the Rabbitohs were having an exibition game there in Jacksonville. I thought that was pretty cool. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/10/22/russell-crowe-in-monday-night-football-booth/
Sports joke: A man was lucky enough to get playoff tickets to see his favorite team play. As the start of the game approached he noticed the seat next to him was empty. He asked the man on the other side of the empty seat if he knew if anyone was sitting there. The man with a sad face said, no, the seat was empty because it was for his wife, who had just died. He told him that this was the first game that he had not attended with her since 1993. "But these are the playoffs," the man remarked, "couldn't you have found a relative or family member to fill the seat?" "No," the man replied, "they're all at the funeral." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Look none of this ''rugby is a better game no football is stuff'' i have played both american football players are larger because of specific duties. 305 pounds is a lot of dude and thats what a QB wants to stand infront of him not a 215 pound RB. hes for RUNNING thats why hes CALLED A RUNNING BACK. also the 305 lineman has a 1.5 meter zone to work in so he would kick ass for 5 mins in a rugby game but then just die of a heart attack. in rugby theres no one like that because there fitness could not reach the level required for 80 minuts of 100meter play. weights compremise fitness its body law. rugby players are tougher cause there skull takes the impact not a 10 pound helmet. thats not saying its better but come on could u run a a guy head first if u had no helmet? football players have some amazing skill one handed behind the back catchs and shit, ray lewis cutting guys in half shit like that but can they do anything else. No......... not because they are useless because they are given millions to do there job so thats what they do. a rugby player has to be able to pass ruck maul tackle read defensive lines preform basic and advanced passing communication and other things. the sports are diffrent rugby is tougher just because its logical to assume hit with pads easyier than witout. u cant compare skill because its another sport. there very good sports i prefer rugby just genrally more to do. football can get very long with nothing happening. but at times can be very good exciting and stuff.
You touch on a theme of mine, which is that people think the complexity of American football translate into more skill (complexity) for the individual player in American football. I don't think that's the case. As I've argued, football is a highly complex game with highly specialized positions. Thus, the players know how to do a limited range of skills very well. In rugby, as you say, this is not possible. Each player literally must know how to do all or most of the skills in the game. Overall, rugby is not nearly as complex a game as football, because the latter of the two has more rules and is essentially played from numerous set pieces. But I think the skills required to play rugby successfully are more demanding. In other words, rugby (the more simple of the two games) is harder to play and play well...
Sorry sport, I have played football, rugby, chinese checkers and super mario bros. (for N64) and can tell you your post is bunk and you have never played football beyond a rudimentary/recreational level.
