04 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperTake a look at how Rugby League is played in Australia. Now THAT is rough game.
Rugby players got to be tough to play without pads.
The "best" version of football I reckon is Australian Rules Football. For natural uninhibited running, tackling, catching, kicking - it is a great game. No 'off-side'. No problem using the hands. No limits on kicking. etc. etc. And it's limited to Australia by historical accident. If we could rewind football history 150 years and introduce the Australian code to the world rather than the Association code, I reckon it would be played the world over by millions upon millions of people.
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMF.. I noted when I lived there...
It's an off the shelf cliched "joke" that a lot of humorless Brits use. Australians who also play rugby, have no time for it, I noted when I lived there. Then again, the Aussies can hold their heads pretty high in almost all football codes. The Brits - of course - have an inferiority complex in most sporst most of the time. Hence the revealing array of lame and ...[text shortened]... ng third-hand pub-bore-esque "digs" at other people's sports and other nations in general.
Impressive, it really seems like you have traveled the whole world.
just out of curiosity, was this after or before you got your degree in US constitutional law and started selling cosmetics in indonesia?
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMF😴😴😴😴😴
What an embarrassment the blinkered snig gering of some parochial home-based fellow Brits is to those of us who have carved for ourselves a Renaissance Man life out here, autonomous upon the leading edge, looked up to for the irresistible applicability of our Britishness, imitated and analyzed, doted on and quoted on, as we walk the walk in this whopping wide wonderful walk-the-walker's world.
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhen I coached youth soccer and rugby the contrasts were very interesting. The rugby season was September to December followed by the soccer season from January to April. The youngsters playing these two codes were basically the same bunch and yet the ethos of the two seasons could hardly have been more contrasting - including the behaviour of the parents on the touchlines.
Football: Injury rate per 1000 hours: 35.3. Your legs cop 77% of injuries, with 21% to the knee and 18% to the ankle.
Rugby: Injury rate per 1000 hours: 69. Officially the world's most dangerous team sport, with an average of 1.4 "serious" injuries per match (a quarter of them being to the head).
The rugby union season was 'diginified', sportsmanlike, disciplined, group-effort oriented, no backchat to the refs whatsoever.
Then after the Christmas break - the same kids, like I said - there was trash talk, egos rampant, 'simulations' left right and centre, the ref copping constant lip, parents urging murder from the touchline as their teenagers ran around playing Asssociation football.
As for injuries, when they did occur, cuts and bruises to knees and shins in soccer, whereas in rugby it was bloody noses and the occasional concussion.
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMFIt's still much the same: the last rugby match I attended, I was able to drink a beer I bought at the bar in the stands; the last football match I attended, my bag was searched for any alcohol, and I saw people being turned away for being too drunk.
When I coached youth soccer and rugby the contrasts were very interesting. The rugby season was September to December followed by the soccer season from January to April. The youngsters playing these two codes were basically the same bunch and yet the ethos of the two seasons could hardly have been more contrasting - including the behaviour of the parents on the ...[text shortened]... ees and shins in soccer, whereas in rugby it was bloody noses and the occasional concussion.
To be totally honest, it's the class distinctions between the crowds that stand out most...
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by DrKFThe changing room air was thick with vanity in the soccer season. The same can be said for the basketball team. Cricket had a similar ethos to rugby although the tantrums and post finger stump fellings of Broad and Gatting in the late 80s were immediately mimicked by youngsters I noticed. Cricket had the virtue of being a true stand and deliver sport and therefore fertile only for the talented egos that were able to produce. You get wickets or you don't. You tonk a few runs or you don't. You can hold your catches or you can't. For the most part the blame for failure on the cricket field is easily dished out. A cocky soccer player can run around the park doing little or nothing all morning, give it a bit of leary double teapot when the going gets rough, and blame other kids all week until the next Saturday comes around.
It's still much the same: the last rugby match I attended, I was able to drink a beer I bought at the bar in the stands; the last football match I attended, my bag was searched for any alcohol, and I saw people being turned away for being too drunk.
To be totally honest, it's the class distinctions between the crowds that stand out most...
07 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWithout pads and helmets, football wouldn't be football. In the NFL, you have 300 pound monsters in great shape coming at you at 17 MPH trying to kill you. There's a reason why NFL QBs, a position that has little to do with physical strength, are still usually well over 6' tall and well over 200 lbs. The shorter and lighter ones get maimed by the monsters on the defensive line. The big ones have a tough enough time staying healthy.
Take the pads off football players then compare injuries.
Rugby players got to be tough to play without pads.
Football players would have to be bats*** insane to play without pads.
Ask a rugby player to go over the middle to catch a pass on front of Ronnie Lott or Steve Atwater once and see if they don't think pads and a helmet are a good idea.