I saw some British Q&A saying that American football was, basically, the whimp version or rugby because you have to wear padding in football. What do you think?
2006-10-31 13:41:57 · 21 answers · asked by Bob 3 in Sports ➔ Other - Sports
I played rugby, and it was common for American football players to come out to practice in the spring (which is their off season). In the ten years I played, only 4 or 5 of them stuck it out. The rest said we were crazy, and many didn't even make it to their first game. Also in rugby there are no time-outs or even substitutions for injuries. The reason there are no 300 pound rugby players is that those fat boys couldn't run for 45 minuets, and that's a fact.
I also played ice hockey, and it's much easier on the body because of the padding.
2006-10-31 13:47:28 · answer #1 · answered by Rockvillerich 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you played full tackle football without padding it would be more dangerous because football players do things that are not allowed in rugby such as blocking. Rugby doesn't have anything like the line of scrimmage where two rows of players charge at each other full on. Of course the way football is played now developed as padding and helmets evolved. If football players were using the sort of equipment that was around a century ago the game would be quite different.
2006-10-31 13:53:54 · answer #2 · answered by rethinker 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well actually Rugby is more dangerous. Unlike in American Football, play in Rugby does not stop whensomebody gets tackeled. Rugby can get very very rough out there.
2006-11-01 00:34:06 · answer #3 · answered by J-Boy 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Football without padding, as the forward pass makes the sport more dangerous than rugby.
2006-10-31 13:44:52 · answer #4 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I doubt you can say categorically one group is tougher. It takes tough guys to play such violent sports, and the tougher, the more likely they'll succeed, so both groups are about as tough as it gets. Rugby players don't have the protection football players do, and it takes toughness to run into other guys unprotected like that, but, on the other hand, the collisions don't happen with anywhere near the energy that they do in football.
2006-10-31 13:44:46 · answer #5 · answered by BlondeBarbie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With all do respect to the nuts who play rugby, there are no 350 pound people running at 10 MPH slamming you into the turf in the british sport. We were just talking about this in Human Physiology as to why so many NFL players get muscles actually TORN OFF their bones: Imagine your refrigerator slamming you into the ground in your backyard....going fast. Today, we've got steroid users alot more in the NFL than in Britain's rugby because people want more $$$ so they'll damage their body in the long run for the cash and entertainment. So, until you see people getting their muscles torn off regularly in Rugby as we watch every game in football, consider Football WITH padding more dangerous than rugby.
2006-10-31 13:48:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Football without padding.
2006-10-31 13:46:06 · answer #7 · answered by bansri47 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
football without padding because in rugby u have an option to pass the ball but in football....u have to get tackled....unless you make a touchdown
2006-10-31 13:44:59 · answer #8 · answered by ax2kool 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Football without padding.
2006-10-31 13:42:52 · answer #9 · answered by D.J 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they would both be equal; if i had to choose one, it would be football without padding because football players tend to be more bulky and heavy than rugby players
2006-10-31 13:44:04 · answer #10 · answered by cubscaps33 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋