Rugby or Football? (British football)

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go

Rugby or Brittish Football

Rugby
20
65%
Football
11
35%
 
Total votes: 31
User avatar
Lord Chrusher
Can't Drink Possible Beers
Posts: 8913
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 22:53
First Video: Door to Door
Location: In England.

Postby Lord Chrusher » 29 Mar 2009, 21:44

Play only stops in Rugby if someone scores, a penalty occurs (which happens less often since since you play advantage) or the ball goes into touch (leaves the field).
Image
We are all made of star dust. However we are also made of nuclear waste.
Remember to think before you post.
Image
User avatar
Bob The Magic Camel
Posts: 386
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 07:32
Location: Reading V0.7a
Contact:

Postby Bob The Magic Camel » 29 Mar 2009, 23:55

Kdz wrote:2)Yeah, you guys go ahead with your quasi-macho posturing on this, I really don't give a damn if they wear pads or not. Or if they're in god damn fat suits. It's the game. This isn't a Nascar race; I'm not watching just to see the carnage.

Not to mention I'm not really calling American football the be-all end-all. It's not my favorite sport by any margin. I just don't have a lot of experience with the ones mentioned here, and I like the one I've talked about. Shit, I like to watch chess when I get the chance.

But above all, I like playing sports more than watching. Just that American football has a tactical aspect that is easy to pick up do to the format, and much easier to appreciate for me cerebrally.


Well what are the chances? I managed to find a coherent American football fan who didn't fly into a rage at that poke. These boards never fail to surprise me. Good sir, if I were wearing a hat, I would take it off to you.
This signature has been intentionally left blank.

No marks will be awarded for solutions written on this signature.
User avatar
Shakadamus
Posts: 33
Joined: 06 Mar 2009, 16:24
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Contact:

Postby Shakadamus » 30 Mar 2009, 00:01

Lord Chrusher wrote:Play only stops in Rugby if someone scores, a penalty occurs (which happens less often since since you play advantage) or the ball goes into touch (leaves the field).


And even then it's like a minute stop at the most unless someone is injured, where as I've been told in American football after a "touch down" don't they have a 15 minute brake or something?
Image
User avatar
JohnyMcmuffin
THERE'S Waldo!
Posts: 420
Joined: 17 Dec 2007, 18:24
First Video: The Stages
Location: Mountain View, CA
Contact:

Postby JohnyMcmuffin » 30 Mar 2009, 00:24

I choose rugby, but I'm biased, since I began playing rugby this year. I enjoy the full contact nature of the sport, which is lacking in football. It has been a really fun game to learn and has only resulted in stitches once so far.

Elomin Sha wrote:I'm a steward and have to steward both rugby and football matches. I prefer rugby then because you can trust those fans with alcohol while football supporters are for a lack of a better word mental rejects who need to be sterilised by napalm.

This reminds me of a quote told to me by a British friend :
Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans and rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen


Also, thanks for those quotes Elomin Sha, they made me laugh
Image
Image
User avatar
Kdz
Posts: 615
Joined: 22 Jan 2009, 19:47
First Video: Son of a Bitch
Location: TN, USA

Postby Kdz » 30 Mar 2009, 00:38

Shakadamus wrote:
Lord Chrusher wrote:Play only stops in Rugby if someone scores, a penalty occurs (which happens less often since since you play advantage) or the ball goes into touch (leaves the field).


And even then it's like a minute stop at the most unless someone is injured, where as I've been told in American football after a "touch down" don't they have a 15 minute brake or something?


No. They do the extra point after a little celebration(which might take a total of one minute to celebrate and get the special teams on the field), and then after that, they have to setup for the kickoff, which might take a couple of minutes. The only really long break, unless there's some kind of issue, is half time, which I believe is always half an hour. And, you know, injuries, or some other kind of problem like that.

Occasionally the referees will review a play if someone questions a judgement by the refs, but even then, a few minutes at most. And there are limitations one what can be challenged, and how many times challenges can be issued by each time.

So really, the pauses are about the same, save that the ball is ruled dead any time it, or the player with it, touches the ground, as opposed to rugby's rules. There is more downtime as a result, but usually not more than a minute at a time. After the ball is set, teams have, depending on college or professional, somewhere around half a minute to huddle together to decide on plays and whatnot. If they don't snap before that time, penalty.
User avatar
JohnyMcmuffin
THERE'S Waldo!
Posts: 420
Joined: 17 Dec 2007, 18:24
First Video: The Stages
Location: Mountain View, CA
Contact:

Postby JohnyMcmuffin » 30 Mar 2009, 00:45

The fact that pauses may be the same length is greatly overridden by the fact that the pauses in american football happen all the time. One play is run, pause and reset, next play, pause and so forth. Even if these aren't long pauses, that is a whole lot more down time than rugby. You aren't running constantly in rugby and you learn to catch your breath when the action slows down, but it rarely stops since the ball is alive for much longer stretches of time and you have to learn to reset while the ball is in play.

Edit: 300th post for me
Image
Image
User avatar
Shakadamus
Posts: 33
Joined: 06 Mar 2009, 16:24
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Contact:

Postby Shakadamus » 30 Mar 2009, 00:49

Kdz wrote:
Shakadamus wrote:
Lord Chrusher wrote:Play only stops in Rugby if someone scores, a penalty occurs (which happens less often since since you play advantage) or the ball goes into touch (leaves the field).


And even then it's like a minute stop at the most unless someone is injured, where as I've been told in American football after a "touch down" don't they have a 15 minute brake or something?


No. They do the extra point after a little celebration(which might take a total of one minute to celebrate and get the special teams on the field), and then after that, they have to setup for the kickoff, which might take a couple of minutes. The only really long break, unless there's some kind of issue, is half time, which I believe is always half an hour. And, you know, injuries, or some other kind of problem like that.

Occasionally the referees will review a play if someone questions a judgement by the refs, but even then, a few minutes at most. And there are limitations one what can be challenged, and how many times challenges can be issued by each time.

So really, the pauses are about the same, save that the ball is ruled dead any time it, or the player with it, touches the ground, as opposed to rugby's rules. There is more downtime as a result, but usually not more than a minute at a time. After the ball is set, teams have, depending on college or professional, somewhere around half a minute to huddle together to decide on plays and whatnot. If they don't snap before that time, penalty.


Your half time is half an hour? and isn't there 4 half times in American football or something as well?

With rugby we have a 15min half time, if the ball goes out of play they have a line out, if there's a penalty the team chooses either to have a scrum 5 or go for a drop goal (kick). If there is a penalty right next to the try line and they go for the scrum they have to go back 5 yards. And a majority of the on pitch refs decisions are made by the "video ref" who watches a series of replays from different angles to verify the out comes so that no one can bitch about the decisions made.
So at most the longest stops we get not including half time is the amount of time it takes to put someone on a stretcher which is about 5/10mins.
Image
User avatar
JohnyMcmuffin
THERE'S Waldo!
Posts: 420
Joined: 17 Dec 2007, 18:24
First Video: The Stages
Location: Mountain View, CA
Contact:

Postby JohnyMcmuffin » 30 Mar 2009, 00:55

Shakadamus wrote:With rugby we have a 15min half time, if the ball goes out of play they have a line out, if there's a penalty the team chooses either to have a scrum 5 or go for a drop goal (kick). If there is a penalty right next to the try line and they go for the scrum they have to go back 5 yards. And a majority of the on pitch refs decisions are made by the "video ref" who watches a series of replays from different angles to verify the out comes so that no one can bitch about the decisions made.
So at most the longest stops we get not including half time is the amount of time it takes to put someone on a stretcher which is about 5/10mins.


And isn't it great when the ball goes out or there's a penalty and you're ready for a chance to catch your breath but they do a quick line out, or tap and go with the penalty kick, so there isn't any down time?
Image
Image
User avatar
Shakadamus
Posts: 33
Joined: 06 Mar 2009, 16:24
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Contact:

Postby Shakadamus » 30 Mar 2009, 01:11

JohnyMcmuffin wrote:And isn't it great when the ball goes out or there's a penalty and you're ready for a chance to catch your breath but they do a quick line out, or tap and go with the penalty kick, so there isn't any down time?


There isn't much now especially with the new quick line out rule that allows players to throw backwards instead of just straight. So the ball can end up staying in play for a good 10 to 15mins if there isn't any penalties (ball carrier not releasing and such)
Image
monaroCountry
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 13:42

Postby monaroCountry » 30 Mar 2009, 04:45

BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL GAME

* The first quarter, at the conclusion of the first fifteen minutes of the match, the ball had been in play for a total of three minutes and 10 seconds.
* The second quarter contained two minutes, 58 seconds when the ball was in play
* The third quarter was the most scintillating with three minutes, 25 seconds of action
* The fourth quarter, which included a lot of kneeling to run out the time in the final two minutes, had showcased two minutes and 35 seconds of play

So, during the two hours and 56 minutes the game took to complete, throughout the 60 minutes of regulation time, the ball was in only in play for 12 minutes and 8 seconds.The rest of the time, players were standing around, plays were being reviewed and I was being bombarded by a multitude of beer commercials and truck advertisements.
User avatar
CygnusX1
Posts: 274
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 08:58
Location: Toronto

Postby CygnusX1 » 30 Mar 2009, 05:50

Matt wrote:Hockey.

-m


+1
we sometimes catch a window, a glimpse of what's beyond
http://www.underaglassmoon.wordpress.com
User avatar
Emperor Gum
Posts: 2110
Joined: 24 May 2008, 20:02
First Video: Moving Out
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Contact:

Postby Emperor Gum » 30 Mar 2009, 07:57

Football.

I agree that football can be boring if one or both teams are playing defensively or if both teams don't really care, but a good game of football is a spectacle. Whilst players do dive too much, in the past if the goalkeeper was holding the ball, you could barrel them in into the net and it would count as a goal. Modern day football is a reaction to that.
Image
User avatar
Kdz
Posts: 615
Joined: 22 Jan 2009, 19:47
First Video: Son of a Bitch
Location: TN, USA

Postby Kdz » 30 Mar 2009, 09:30

Shakadamus wrote:Your half time is half an hour? and isn't there 4 half times in American football or something as well?


Given the tendency for misnomers in American football I can understand the confusion, but there is only one half time, and it's at the halfway point.

I also never denied that there's a lot more down time in football. Again, I think it allows for more overall strategy. This is why I like the game. Many sports are too fast for my tastes. This is a similar reason that I'm not a huge fan or RTSs, but I love turn-based ones.
User avatar
wedrinkritalin
Posts: 717
Joined: 07 Feb 2009, 02:09
Location: Northern Ireland

Postby wedrinkritalin » 30 Mar 2009, 09:34

Zivlok wrote:Dodgeball, then Fball, then Christball.

Christball: it combines three of America's least favorite sports - field hockey, lacrosse, and religion!


Explain christball
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Postby Metcarfre » 30 Mar 2009, 09:50

Kdz wrote:I also never denied that there's a lot more down time in football. Again, I think it allows for more overall strategy. This is why I like the game. Many sports are too fast for my tastes. This is a similar reason that I'm not a huge fan or RTSs, but I love turn-based ones.


I have to agree with Kdz. I like the tactical aspect of football (specifically, Canadian). Think about the last three minutes of a game - the most exciting part. In soccer (football), let's say you're down by a goal. Your strategy is, "Score a goal by any means necessary".

Now a similar situation in North American football. Let's say you're down by ten points. Obviously you need the touchdown, convert, and a field goal to tie. But - do you go for the second touchdown? Try for a two-point conversion for the win? And how close are you - is a Hail Mary pass necessary? Or just run down the clock.

NA football is superior, in my estimation, as a spectator sport, as it allows the viewer to be engaged. How many arguments have I had with friends over strategy, onside kicks, and fly patterns. Whereas with soccer (football), you merely either play well or play poorly. Rugby, similarly.

NA football is like (as Kdz pointed out) a turn-based RTS, whereas rugby would be a brawler, and soccer, a FPS (as it is dependent on the individual skill of the player).

As for the differences between the American and Canadian footballs, they are minor variations of the same thing. The primary thing you need to remember is that in the Canadian game, the balls are bigger. :wink:
*
monaroCountry
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 13:42

Postby monaroCountry » 30 Mar 2009, 14:10

NA football is superior, in my estimation, as a spectator sport, as it allows the viewer to be engaged. How many arguments have I had with friends over strategy, onside kicks, and fly patterns. Whereas with soccer (football), you merely either play well or play poorly. Rugby, similarly.


In reality american football is not very engaging to spectators but is designed more to be TV commercial friendly. American football is only popular in America and looked down on other parts of the world as a sissified version of rugby.

Soccer on the other hand has very high TV viewing, very high on field crowd attendances and some of the most passionate spectators. Soccer is a true spectator sport and is by far the most popular global game.
User avatar
FlintPaper577
Posts: 114
Joined: 06 Feb 2009, 16:04
Location: Frankston, Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Postby FlintPaper577 » 30 Mar 2009, 16:31

I grew up watching Football (soccer) so that's where my passion is, but I can appreciate Union too - I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Rugby is wonderfully war-like, but football is more exciting to watch - free-flowing, skillful, more varied.

Gotta disagree with metcarfre, who demonstrates a classic North American ignorance about the round ball game (no offense, it's only to be expected). The tactics in soccer are incredibly varied, with an infinite number of formations, variations of attack and defence, to press or not to press, etc, all without the tedious stop-startiness of gridiron.

If a team is a goal down there are many options - do we pile men into the box and play the long ball, do we keep playing our natural game, do we bring on a different striker or change our formation? There's a reason why managers like Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough are as famous as most players.

To be fair there are different philosophies of football to the beautiful British one that I'm familiar with. The Brazilians are very reliant on personal skill. And if you've only seen MLS you're missing out, because it is frankly shithouse.
User avatar
Interruptor Jones
Posts: 455
Joined: 15 Jan 2009, 19:32
Location: Your mom

Postby Interruptor Jones » 30 Mar 2009, 23:31

I see there is no option for 'doesn't matter either way'. I would vote for the league with the nicest asses, since they're all so keen on bending over and then running into each other's embrace. However I have not seen said asses, and cannot make an informed vote.

I watch sumo whenever I get the chance. Ever seen a short fat man lift an even fatter short man and heave him out of the ring? It's awe-inspiring. Olympic hockey's pretty good too, since they get in a larger amount of sport between riots.
Image

There is no 'm' in 'sexy'.
monaroCountry
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 13:42

Postby monaroCountry » 31 Mar 2009, 02:55

FlintPaper577 wrote:I grew up watching Football (soccer) so that's where my passion is, but I can appreciate Union too - I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Rugby is wonderfully war-like, but football is more exciting to watch - free-flowing, skillful, more varied.

Gotta disagree with metcarfre, who demonstrates a classic North American ignorance about the round ball game (no offense, it's only to be expected). The tactics in soccer are incredibly varied, with an infinite number of formations, variations of attack and defence, to press or not to press, etc, all without the tedious stop-startiness of gridiron.

If a team is a goal down there are many options - do we pile men into the box and play the long ball, do we keep playing our natural game, do we bring on a different striker or change our formation? There's a reason why managers like Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough are as famous as most players.

To be fair there are different philosophies of football to the beautiful British one that I'm familiar with. The Brazilians are very reliant on personal skill. And if you've only seen MLS you're missing out, because it is frankly shithouse.


I agree!!!

Watch the difference between a German team, a Brazilian team and an English team and youll notice some very distinct differences in how they play the game.
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15774
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Postby Elomin Sha » 31 Mar 2009, 04:05

JohnyMcmuffin wrote:
Also, thanks for those quotes Elomin Sha, they made me laugh


They come from Mock The Week in a segment called Scenes We'd Like To See. Tak and I banter with the other using quotes from the show.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
whyarecarrots
Posts: 474
Joined: 09 Mar 2009, 15:35
Location: The jet propelled flying Naafi

Postby whyarecarrots » 31 Mar 2009, 04:29

Rugby for me, although it's been made a lot worse this season thanks to those damned Experimental Law Variations, which seem to have resulted in a great deal more kicking ping-pong, where the two sides kick it down field to each other for several minutes, waiting for one side to make a mistake. Fortunately, the ELVs seem like they'll be voted out before the end of this season, so it'll be back to business as usual in September, with proper rgby again :)
Lyinginbedmon wrote:Real men don't sleep!

INSOMNIA IS MANLY! HAAAH!
User avatar
Emperor Gum
Posts: 2110
Joined: 24 May 2008, 20:02
First Video: Moving Out
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Contact:

Postby Emperor Gum » 31 Mar 2009, 05:25

monaroCountry wrote:
FlintPaper577 wrote:I grew up watching Football (soccer) so that's where my passion is, but I can appreciate Union too - I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Rugby is wonderfully war-like, but football is more exciting to watch - free-flowing, skillful, more varied.

Gotta disagree with metcarfre, who demonstrates a classic North American ignorance about the round ball game (no offense, it's only to be expected). The tactics in soccer are incredibly varied, with an infinite number of formations, variations of attack and defence, to press or not to press, etc, all without the tedious stop-startiness of gridiron.

If a team is a goal down there are many options - do we pile men into the box and play the long ball, do we keep playing our natural game, do we bring on a different striker or change our formation? There's a reason why managers like Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough are as famous as most players.

To be fair there are different philosophies of football to the beautiful British one that I'm familiar with. The Brazilians are very reliant on personal skill. And if you've only seen MLS you're missing out, because it is frankly shithouse.


I agree!!!

Watch the difference between a German team, a Brazilian team and an English team and youll notice some very distinct differences in how they play the game.

+1. Metacafre was way off.
Image
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Postby Metcarfre » 31 Mar 2009, 07:09

I'm not sure what it is with people misspelling my screen name here...

Regardless, I think we can agree that it all depends on your upbringing. Myself, my father is a diehard Canadian Football fan (my grandfather played for the Calgary Stampeders back in '49) so I know the game more intimately, and can analyze all the ins and outs of it. Similarly, Kdz, from Tennessee (Woo! Go Tennessee... Bobcats?) is more familiar with the American version of the game. All you Eurotrash know the prissy soccer-typ one (I kid, I kid...).

Now I must say I can appreciate all of the games at some level. I played competitive rugby in high school (poorly, mind you - but damn was it fun). Furthermore, having a number of European friends (and a hardcore Liverpudlian next-door neighbour) I have a certain appreciation for soccer. For example, the only time I've injured myself seriously enough to miss work or school was some years ago, when I sprained my ankle for two weeks - which just happened to coincide with the World Cup. I watched every single game. Every. Single. Game. And boy, did I enjoy.

I can certainly concede that soccer is the more popular international sport - hearing stories of African children, barefoot in the dirt, playing with a ball made of plastic shopping bags. It is a much more accessible sport.

Anyways, I guess I'm trying to say it's all a matter of opinion. As my philosophy professor once said, "Which, objectively, to any outside observer, is the superior flavour of ice cream? Coffee or chocolate?







The answer, of course, is coffee."
*
User avatar
the amativeness
Posts: 3737
Joined: 31 Jul 2008, 19:53
Location: America, where everyone sues everyone, always, for everything.

Postby the amativeness » 31 Mar 2009, 09:46

Shakadamus wrote:Your half time is half an hour? and isn't there 4 half times in American football or something as well?


Half-time occurs once, between the halves. There is a 1-minute break between the 1st & 2nd quarters (to switch sides), as well as between the 3rd & 4th quarters. Half time is 15 minutes, except during the Superbowl. If the score is tied at the end of regulation, there is another brief "half time"-like period of rest while the officials hold another coin toss.

Oh, and sport of choice: Grifball.
Image
zA: How do I relax?
Evil Jim: Jerk off.
Frozengale: You know you're on the internet when Masturbation is the first suggestion.
User avatar
King Kool
Quality and Quantity
Posts: 5987
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 19:22
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Postby King Kool » 31 Mar 2009, 10:36

Am I the only one who thinks the likelihood of player injury doesn't necessarily increase my enjoyment of watching a sport at all? Rugby is played with less armor; whoop-dee-fricking-doo. If Rugby was a gigantic monolithic billion-dollar enterprise like the NFL, I'm sure the owners and coaches would slap on some armor to protect their investments, too.

Is it a bit hypocritical when a populace that champions rugby as being far more masculine than their American armored counterparts, yet further champion players in similar amounts of armor sliding around the ice with clubs (where footballers have the virtue of trudging around unarmed)?

Is it fair to compare watching a sporting event at home with watching a movie, since the outcome is predetermined and nothing you experience will change it (at least if you're in the stands, you can throw a battery at someone in the penalty box), and there's no reason to get excited about it?

Is it clear that if it were up to me, the Sports Page would consist of a list of scores smaller than the crossword?

But that's just me.
Image
a winner is you. - Ash
King Kool, you are wrong. - Graham
King Kool, shut your face. - James
This thread was creepy until KingKool made it AWESOME. - Tombrend
Why this obsession with foam implements? - Metcarfre

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests