why do americans call there abomination of a game FOOTBALL?

Question

they spend most of the time throwing and running about with the ball, oh yeah and now and again on comes someone and kicks it so its not played predomantly with the feet. plus of course its a game played by hyped up cowards so scared of getting hurt they clad thereselves head to toe in poncy padding, rugby is a much tougher ,physical game but its played by real men who dont want or dont need to wear reams of body armour, i would love to see one of these faggoty yank er football teams play against one of our top rugby teams (league or union) unpadded then they would really know what a real tough game is all about, and the reason they dont is they know they would get battered to bits , and they couldnt handle that. so it must remain a queers game i suppose and wrongly named of course... agree or disagree

Answer 1

i totally agree with you my friend, yankee football is a queers game and i have read the americans views and its just typical responses from them making it out to be a tough game, it is not a patch on rugby, also it should be american handball, although it is refered to as grid iron so looks like we are getting back to queers again,

Answer 2

The only abomination is your question. I used to play a lot of tackle football without and with pads and you could not tackle me. I would have thumped your skull in rugby too! You put a 245 lb American linebacker on a rugby field and some of your so called tough blokes would be leaving on a stretcher. Hey if you don't like America or American sports, fine and you can surely bet I could care less about yours either. I would love for your so called tough rugby players to suit up in pads and see how many get taken to the hospital. You have no idea just what in the hell you are saying.

Answer 3

Thuckgod, you're absolutely wrong.
Being a Loyal Leicester Tigers fan, I should say Rugby is harder.
But I have played, watched, and coached Both Rugby AND Football playing Lock in Rugby and QB/TE/Linebacker in football.

I'm a Packs Coach a High School Rugby team in the United States, Noblesville Rampage, and I can tell you from experience neither game is harder.
Both are harder in different ways, Football drains you extremely quickly, while Rugby is over an extended period of time.

I can honestly say you're an arrogant little **** who obviously doesn't know much.

I don't know why they called it football, but the name sticks, and I don't have a problem with that.

But please don't make my Sport look bad by going around saying stupid effing shite about how Rugby is so much harder, because it's Not.

Both are equally difficult.

Answer 4

Wow!!! Big effin woop if Rugby is tougher!!! That doesn't make it more enjoyable! UFC is the toughest sport but it's not fun. Rowing is tougher physically, try rowing 2,000 meters full force with the sprint at the END!! Give football a break. You're just pissed cuz more people enjoy football than watching some crackpots break their heads open on each other!!!

Answer 5

obviously you havent taken the time to sit and watch a complete football game. if any person, rugby, football player,or average joe, were to take a hit on an nfl field without wearing pads they would be broken in half. im not saying that rugby is for the meek by any means, however, due to the way plays are set up in football there is a greater chance for more intense collisions, blindsided and headon.

Answer 6

Having played Rugby and also having played American Football I can tell you that football american style is tougher, the hits are massive by comparison and the padding is essential.

I understand that rugby players and soccer players hate the give credit where its due and believe me it took me a decade to appreciate American football but once you open your eyes it rivals soccer for the greatest game on the planet.

Answer 7

You clearly don't understand the English language very well, as evidenced by your improper use of "there" in the question. I thought this was going to be more of a linguistic question along the lines of football vs. soccer, the answer to which is they both evolved out of the same code (along with rugby, Canadian football, and Aussie rules).

After reading the description, I see that's it more along the lines of a football vs. rugby thing, which is equally stupid. Nonetheless, let's examine the differences between the two and the need for padding in football.

Rugby is a contact sport, football is a collision sport. In rugby, you’re supposed to play the ball, not the man. Anyone who has watched football knows that there is plenty of hitting for the sake of hitting. In rugby, players are not allowed to leave their feet to make a hit, and must wrap up when tackling. This necessarily reduces the severity of the hit. In contrast, football players often leave their feet so as to add additional impact to their feet, and wrapping up is by no means required. It’s also very rare for a rugby player to be hit full-on in the back. Almost all contact is frontal. In contrast, a receiver who turns to catch the ball leaves his back completely exposed to the defense (especially if he jumps in the air). Rugby and football play at a completely different game. Rugby is far more aerobic, that is to say, it is played more or less continuously, with few stoppages of play. Football is anaerobic, consisting of short, intense bursts, and then a pause between plays. Furthermore, tackling is fundamentally different between the two sports. In rugby, the tackler has to be concerned with rucking over and trying to win the ball. The only thing that matters to a tackler in football is getting the ballcarrier to the ground, thus suggesting that tackles are more vicious in football as the tackler does not have to worry about getting up quickly. Finally, ruggers do wear some measure of padding, though not to the extent that football players do. Scrum caps and even light shoulder padding are very common among the top teams.

Regardless, I highly doubt that you have ever played football, so you have no basis for making a judgment about the physical nature of football. Having played both competitively, I can say that they are both very demanding, but in different ways, due again to the fact that they are different sports. That said, pads are an absolutely necessity in football. The pace of play, the intensity of prevalence of the hits is just that much higher than in rugby as to make a suggestion to the contrary absolute idiocy. My advice, man up, strap on some pads, and go get the snot knocked out of you for 60 minutes, and then come back and try to tell us all that the game is played by “hyped up cowards”. Rubbish.

The reason football teams don’t play rugby teams is because it’s a DIFFERENT SPORT. That’s like saying that ice hockey teams should play lacrosse teams because they both use sticks and hit each other. People who make these sort of arguments are small-minded, ignorant cretins. Besides, rugby only uses its feet a little more than football; are you suggesting it shouldn’t be referred to as “rugby football”?

Answer 8

I think you are way wrong on your thery..
and I would Love to see Our best vs your best too,but you know what your best would all be unconcious before one quarter was over,infact every time one your rugby guys got hit by a 300 to 350 pound lineman,you would have to send in a replacement..

as far is why do we call it Football because we want to and it will never change..

we don't go around and ask why do you call it rugby

Answer 9

I dont know why we call it football I mean it doesn't make sense to me either I know they kick it but it's mostly thrown and fumbled. The U.S. plays rugby too you know we have leagues and lots of high schools play it and have clubs but its just not as well known, like other countries play football it's just not as well known. I'm not that big of a fan of football or rugby but, I know they are both hard and tough.

Answer 10

For the most part Americans are not familiar with rugby and don't care to learn. The game of football has evolved from little or no protective equpment to what it is today. As of right now it is the most popular sport in the US. You like what you are familiar with and we like what we are familiar with. Each to their own.

Answer 11

football players are bigger, stronger, and faster than rugby players. rugby is a contact sport(unlike sissy *ss soccer), football is a collision sport. i would love to see a rugby player with no padding on get hit by an NFL safety running at full speed. he would be unconscous for 3 days, if he survived the hit