you do seem to wear a lot of protection.Not like rugby where they walk off covered in cuts and bruises
2007-02-24 22:40:00 · 10 answers · asked by Steve H 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
No, I do not agree that it is a tougher game than football. At no point in the game of rugby do they take 50 yard, full speed runs at each other, rugby players are smaller, slower, and the game does not have the collisions of football. The advent of the padding in football was brought about because of the number of football players killed and maimed in the early days of the sport, injuries that have never been common to rugby. If you prefer a sport or want to extol its toughness that's fine but don't do it by saying t is a tougher sport than any other. Especially if that sport is American Football, because that is entirely untrue.
2007-02-24 22:46:22 · answer #1 · answered by Frank R 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Actually football is tougher. It is so tough they NEED padding. As to cuts and bruises, big deal. Another thing is Americans would NOT allow a sport where you have players walking off with cuts like that. Too much risk of spreading some disease. What if one of those guys has AIDS or is HIV Positive for example. Spread though open cuts. Oh that's a REAL GOOD idea.
2007-02-24 22:47:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course I don't agree. If you had ever played American football, you'd know that's false. The hitting is much fiercer than in rugby. You don't see 300 pounders hitting at full speed in rugby. It's not a contact sport, it's a high-speed collision sport. The pads help keep the injuries less severe. Just watch a good free safety taking a shot on a wide receiver and the receiver being unconscious before he hits the ground. Ronnie Lott was famous for what I call "snot bubblers". That's a hit so hard that the player lays there and snot bubbles from the nose. You don't see that in rugby.
2007-02-24 23:35:48 · answer #3 · answered by Gomez Addams 4 · 7⤊ 2⤋
No its not. Have you ever watched an American football game even with all the protection they wear their are still players that end up with cuts and bruises. Also if they didnt wear protection the QB would suffer broken ribs every time they are sacked and some guys may even get whip lash when they are hit because the lineman are that big and the players hit that hard. Hell the average person may not survive a serious hit from an NFL player with padding on.
2007-02-25 02:56:04 · answer #4 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Better cuts and bruises than torn ACL's , dislocations, broken ribs, collar bones, and concussions. If you've not played American football, you will find out how rough it really is. I don't think Rugby players go 350lbs, like a middle linebacker of the Chicago Bears!
2007-02-24 22:58:29 · answer #5 · answered by C J 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You don't see the same high speed collisions in rugby that you do in American football. Football players wear pads because of the severity of injuries and near-fatalities that have occured in the past when there was no padding or helmets.
2007-02-25 02:02:46 · answer #6 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The people who play rugby are not as big or as fast as the people who play football, the hits are just as vicious if not more with the security of wearing pads. It is not the football players fault they are smart enough to wear pads while smashing into each other.
2007-02-27 20:32:39 · answer #7 · answered by Brad S 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe, but its also more boring than baseball and golf put together.
2007-02-25 00:47:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Rugby is stupid.
2007-02-24 23:41:47 · answer #9 · answered by Drunk365 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes i agreed with u too.
2007-02-24 22:47:25 · answer #10 · answered by robert KS LEE. 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋