Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rugby players very rarely absorb impacts of the same energy that occur in gridiron. The concussive trauma we see in ex-NFL players is simply not present in rugby players even at the highest level. Rugby players retire with less back pain and joint injury, and generally go on to be heathier in middle and old age. NFL players are vastly more likely to suffer throughout middle and old age. Many of the hits in gridiron would be illegal in rugby, which specifically bans head high tackles. This absolute nonsense that rugby is tougher, because they don't wear padding, is laughable. There are 500 NFL players that are over 300 pounds, so your typical rugby player would have to bulk up to play NFL football. I would say you have a far better chance of getting seriously injured in NFL football, but in rugby you need more stamina.
Are you saying our rugby doesnt have the same or worse impact or injuries...I find that hard to believe to be honest .Rugby is one tough game..
Are you saying our rugby doesnt have the same or worse impact or injuries...I find that hard to believe to be honest .Rugby is one tough game..
I am not saying that rugby isn't a tough game, that also takes a lot of stamina to play. What I'm saying is that NFL players are bigger, stronger, faster, then rugby players. NFL tackles have much more of a violent impact than rugby tackles, so hence more serious injuries, and concussions.
If the World Cup makes more money than NFL, does that mean that is better?
Or you are just going to jump around using the facts that you find convenient?
I was answering a poster that says no one cares about NFL football. Well than how did it get to be by far the richest sports league in the world?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
Top American football players are also much bigger, much quicker, and hit much harder -- the latter enabled by all that padding that doesn't offer as much protection as you might imagine. They protect the player doing the playing a lot more than the player being hit. Even your top rugby players would get creamed on an NFL pitch because the physique that suits rugby isn't well-suited for American football, except maybe as tight ends if they have really good speed.
Also, fast bowlers in cricket almost never hit 100mph. Mid-90s is more standard with the best ones in the upper 90s..
I think anyone who has watched Rugby knows the truth, as for NFL players, it's more likely they wouldn't last five minutes on a rugby pitch. for the simple reason that on average, American football players only run around 1 mile per game and they only actually play for an average of 11 minutes whilst rugby players play for a full 80 minutes. NFL players would be physically exhausted after playing 10 minutes of Rugby.
As for cricket fast bowling is involves sending the ball in different trajectories in to confuse the batsman and there is also Spin bowling. Whilst cricketers have wickets as well as a wicket keeper (catcher).
I think cricketers could adapt to baseball better than baseball players could adapt to cricket, for the simple reason that we have all played rounders and it's fairly easy to pick up, however cricket is a lot less straightforward, with leg before wicket and all kinds of other such rules that relate to the wickets, which you can not impede or hit with your bat.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-25-2021 at 03:25 PM..
Are you saying our rugby doesnt have the same or worse impact or injuries...I find that hard to believe to be honest .Rugby is one tough game..
The average size is much smaller and a rugby player doesn't have the shoulder and head protection which allows American football players to drive home their attack. Generally speaking only one player on the field has armor covering their ribs meanwhile receivers, often 3 or 4 out of 11 have increasingly cut back the padding they wear to improve quickness and flat out speed.
I would imagine that the larger rugby players are more suited to the crossover positions of linebacker and running back than the ball catching eligible interior lineman the tighteneds
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko
The average size is much smaller and a rugby player doesn't have the shoulder and head protection which allows American football players to drive home their attack. Generally speaking only one player on the field has armor covering their ribs meanwhile receivers, often 3 or 4 out of 11 have increasingly cut back the padding they wear to improve quickness and flat out speed.
I would imagine that the larger rugby players are more suited to the crossover positions of linebacker and running back than the ball catching eligible interior lineman the tighteneds
It depends what position you are playing in both sports.
In rugby your forwards and props need to be really big, however the backs and fly-half's are usually smaller and rely on their agility and speed.
There are some massive players in Rugby, indeed just look at teams such as the New Zealand All Blacks.
In terms of speed and stamina Rugby doesn't constantly stop like US Footballer and is much more end to end stuff.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-25-2021 at 04:14 PM..
I think anyone who has watched Rugby knows the truth, as for NFL players, it's more likely they wouldn't last five minutes on a rugby pitch. for the simple reason that on average, American football players only run around 1 mile per game and they only actually play for an average of 11 minutes whilst rugby players play for a full 80 minutes. NFL players would be physically exhausted after playing 10 minutes of Rugby.
As for cricket fast bowling is involves sending the ball in different trajectories in to confuse the batsman and there is also Spin bowling. Whilst cricketers have wickets as well as a wicket keeper (catcher).
I think cricketers could adapt to baseball better than baseball players could adapt to cricket, for the simple reason that we have all played rounders and it's fairly easy to pick up, however cricket is a lot less straightforward, with leg before wicket and all kinds of other such rules that relate to the wickets, which you can not impede or hit with your bat.
This post is total nonsense that NFL players wouldn't last 5 minutes on a rugby pitch. NFL players on average are bigger, stronger, faster than rugby players. Believe me if they trained for a more stamina type of game like rugby, they would have no problem adapting to it. Most rugby players could never play in the NFL, because they aren't big enough, strong enough or fast enough. Jarryd Hayne at one time a great fullback in the NRL, and the highest paid player in the NRL, played in 8 games for the San Francisco 49ers. He averaged 3 yards a run, before he was tackled to the ground. On 8 punt returns he fumbled the ball 3 times. Jarryd Hayne said at the time, heavy hits are very scary in the NFL, and he struggled to sleep as a result of head injuries in the short time he was in the NFL. By the way, he never scored a touchdown. Also there is not one cricket player in the world who could ever play in MLB. You are just ridiculous.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindag
This post is total nonsense that NFL players wouldn't last 5 minutes on a rugby pitch. NFL players on average are bigger, stronger, faster than rugby players. Believe me if they trained for a more stamina type of game like rugby, they would have no problem adapting to it. Most rugby players could never play in the NFL, because they aren't big enough, strong enough or fast enough. Jarryd Hayne at one time a great fullback in the NRL, and the highest paid player in the NRL, played in 8 games for the San Francisco 49ers. He averaged 3 yards a run, before he was tackled to the ground. On 8 punt returns he fumbled the ball 3 times. Jarryd Hayne said at the time, heavy hits are very scary in the NFL, and he struggled to sleep as a result of head injuries in the short time he was in the NFL. By the way, he never scored a touchdown. Also there is not one cricket player in the world who could ever play in MLB. You are just ridiculous.
It depends what position you are playing in both sports.
In rugby your forwards and props need to be really big, however the backs and fly-half's are usually smaller and rely on their agility and speed.
There are some massive players in Rugby, indeed just look at teams such as the New Zealand All Blacks.
In terms of speed and stamina Rugby doesn't constantly stop like US Footballer and is much more uninterrupted end to end stuff for the whole 80 minutes.
The average size of an NFL player is about 6'2” 245 lbs, as for the average professional Rugby player they are 6'2” 231.5 lb, so not a vast difference, but that's just the average, and as pointed out size usually relates to position in Rugby (and I presume the NFL), with many forwards and props actually much bigger than average.
I won't complicate the situation by using differences between Rugby Union and Rugby League, as I don't think it has much bearing on this issue.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-25-2021 at 04:49 PM..
NFL players are bigger, faster and stronger than rugby players. You really need to get a helmet to the knee or your back, from a 300 pounder running at full speed towards you, than maybe your thinking would change. Maybe you would also look at that helmet as a weapon, as much as head protection.
300 pounders play on line of scremage not down the field like secondery players lb and ss who pray on defendles wr or te to hit them hemet to hemet. that is not poewrfull but cowardly. there is not that thing in rugby one player from one team can hit player from other team
300 pounders play on line of scremage not down the field like secondery players lb and ss who pray on defendles wr or te to hit them hemet to hemet. that is not poewrfull but cowardly. there is not that thing in rugby one player from one team can hit player from other team
I guess you are unfamiliar with the zone blitz defensive schemes. NFL defensive ends can keep up with NBA power forwards like Karl Malone in a short sprint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
