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 » 31 Mar 2009, 11:32

In hockey you have sticks being slapped around and a frozen chunk of rubber flying at a hundred miles an hour. Wearing pads is not a question of manliness it is a real question of safety.

I do not believe the injury rates in rugby and and North American foot ball are that different. Due to the different styles of play between North American football and rugby hits in rugby tend to be slower and last longer than in football. Because of the padding much more risky tackles are allowed in football than in rugby which result in more sever injuries. American football is almost more dangerous because of the padding.
Image
We are all made of star dust. However we are also made of nuclear waste.
Remember to think before you post.
Image
monaroCountry
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 13:42

Postby monaroCountry » 31 Mar 2009, 13:18

King Kool wrote: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.


On the contrary people in Australia and many rugby nations are of the opinion that highly paid players should earn their paycheck, getting injured, getting hurt, being tackled are part and parcel of the game.

Lord Chrusher wrote:In hockey you have sticks being slapped around and a frozen chunk of rubber flying at a hundred miles an hour. Wearing pads is not a question of manliness it is a real question of safety.

I do not believe the injury rates in rugby and and North American foot ball are that different. Due to the different styles of play between North American football and rugby hits in rugby tend to be slower and last longer than in football. Because of the padding much more risky tackles are allowed in football than in rugby which result in more sever injuries. American football is almost more dangerous because of the padding.


I agree with you on the first part, although the closest ive gotten to a hockey game is playing street with inline, im useless with proper skates.

I dont agree with you on this, it seems that tackling rules for rugby (especially rugby league) is far more relaxed than it is for football. In American football there are rules on who you can tackle, when you can tackle them, how you can tackle them and how many people can do the tackling. If you can give me examples of tackles legal in football and illegal in rugby (league and union) then I might change my mind.

All in all the number of hard hits is comparable for rugby league and football. In football there are numerous times when the ball carrier avoids being tackled by diving and running out of bounds, this does happen in rugby.
User avatar
Bob The Magic Camel
Posts: 386
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 07:32
Location: Reading V0.7a
Contact:

Postby Bob The Magic Camel » 31 Mar 2009, 13:32

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


My only problem with this is the problem of what I make the paper hats out of should that happen. There aren't that many suppliments in my favoured paper, and I don't want to have to wait till after I've finished reading to acquire a spiffing hat.
This signature has been intentionally left blank.

No marks will be awarded for solutions written on this signature.
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 » 31 Mar 2009, 13:54

monaroCountry wrote:I agree with you on the first part, although the closest ive gotten to a hockey game is playing street with inline, im useless with proper skates.

I dont agree with you on this, it seems that tackling rules for rugby (especially rugby league) is far more relaxed than it is for football. In American football there are rules on who you can tackle, when you can tackle them, how you can tackle them and how many people can do the tackling. If you can give me examples of tackles legal in football and illegal in rugby (league and union) then I might change my mind.

All in all the number of hard hits is comparable for rugby league and football. In football there are numerous times when the ball carrier avoids being tackled by diving and running out of bounds, this does happen in rugby.

The biggest difference in tackling is that in Rugby you must wrap your arms to make a tackle. You cannot simply launch your should/head into a guy to bring him down, which is what the biggest football hits are, but they have armour to deal with that.

King Kool wrote: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)?

I think arming the players and giving them means to go blazingly fast make up for the armour. Neither of these two things exist in football, but they still get armour.
Image
Image
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Postby Matt » 31 Mar 2009, 14:12

King Kool wrote: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)?


If you'd ever been hit with a slapshot, or, you know, seen this (EXTREMELY DISTURBING) video, you'd understand why no one questions the need for protective equipment in hockey.

There's a reason no one questions it. I've seen a thirteen year old with a slapshot hard enough to shatter another kid's ankle.

a flying disk of frozen carbon rubber moving at 80+ miles an hour is a thing you do not want to be in the way of, padding or not. Throw in bladed feet, and weapons, and you have a recipe for disaster without it. hell, you have a recipe for disaster even with the pads.

-m

PS: the goalie in the video above lived, but only because his trainer got out on the ice and pinched off his jugular with his fingers long enough for the paramedics to arrive.
Image

I am not angry at you.
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 » 31 Mar 2009, 14:25

monaroCountry wrote:I dont agree with you on this, it seems that tackling rules for rugby (especially rugby league) is far more relaxed than it is for football. In American football there are rules on who you can tackle, when you can tackle them, how you can tackle them and how many people can do the tackling. If you can give me examples of tackles legal in football and illegal in rugby (league and union) then I might change my mind.

All in all the number of hard hits is comparable for rugby league and football. In football there are numerous times when the ball carrier avoids being tackled by diving and running out of bounds, this does happen in rugby.


I must admit that I am unfamiliar with rugby league. Pretty much only rugby union is played in North America.

In Rugby Union you may only tackle the ball carrier. Any blocking is considered interference and is a penalty. Tackles must be below the shoulders and the player must not be in the air. You can not charge or knock down a player with out attempting to grasp the player. Furthermore there is a catch all rule against dangerous tackles such as picking up a player and dropping them on their head.

In rugby you would rarely intentionally run in to touch (out of bounds) as the other team would be awarded a line out (basically a turn over) while if you are tackled your team has a good chance of retaining possession. However if you kick a ball into touch off a penalty kick your team is awarded the line out.
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
King Kool
Quality and Quantity
Posts: 5987
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 19:22
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Postby King Kool » 31 Mar 2009, 15:29

Matt wrote:
King Kool wrote: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)?


If you'd ever been hit with a slapshot, or, you know, seen this (EXTREMELY DISTURBING) video, you'd understand why no one questions the need for protective equipment in hockey.


(is kinda glad he only listened to part of it, is very bad with blood)

Good point.
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
User avatar
TheRocket
Posts: 8429
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 01:17
First Video: Those Games That We Played
Location: Lake Titicaca
Contact:

Postby TheRocket » 31 Mar 2009, 23:22

Matt wrote:Hockey.

-m


Damnit, you beat me too it.

Even if you don't enjoy the game, it's so much fun to go watch. Though they charge a ridiculous amount for beer, it's so potent and delicious at the stadium. I love hockey fights. So much tension and testosterone. Also, when you're sitting behind the glass and the puck scares the living bejebus out of you.
Walk in like DeNiro, and leave like Brando.

You're living proof that Darwin was a moron.
User avatar
FlintPaper577
Posts: 114
Joined: 06 Feb 2009, 16:04
Location: Frankston, Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Postby FlintPaper577 » 01 Apr 2009, 00:22

Yeah I love Hockey too. Not as much as Football or Cricket, but at least equal to Rugby.

By the way, anyone who accuses Soccer of being 'prissy' would do well to have a look at this: http://onyahead.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/images1399442_david-busst.jpg

The thing with Football is that, unlike more self-consciously violent sports, footballers aren't acting under the assumption that they're going to be brutally injured. You fly up the wing at sprint speed, only concentrating on the ball and the player you want to cross to, so when some burly psycho slides in studs flashing, not only do you go down quickly, but you go down hard. In poor old Don Busst's case (see above) you go down VERY hard. Apparently it took nearly half an hour to clear the pitch of all the blood.

Oooh also: http://www.ave-it.net/terrybutcher.jpg
And they wonder why they brought in the blood rule...
monaroCountry
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 13:42

Postby monaroCountry » 01 Apr 2009, 02:13

JohnyMcmuffin wrote:
The biggest difference in tackling is that in Rugby you must wrap your arms to make a tackle. You cannot simply launch your should/head into a guy to bring him down, which is what the biggest football hits are, but they have armour to deal with that.


You want to bet on that? I think you should familiarise yourself with the two versions of rugby. In rugby league it is 100% legal to shoulder charge, many players have made an art of doing an effective shoulder charge without hurting themselves.

I think arming the players and giving them means to go blazingly fast make up for the armour. Neither of these two things exist in football, but they still get armour.


I totally agree using armour and helmet on hockey, the puck, ice, blades and stick can be very dangerous, far more dangerous than that of a football field.
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 » 01 Apr 2009, 12:20

As I said I am unfamiliar with League and I was only talking about Union.

Ok here is a really inane question: What code of Rugby do you prefer? I am going to go with Union although I have never seen much less played League.
Last edited by Lord Chrusher on 01 Apr 2009, 12:24, edited 1 time in total.
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
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Postby Matt » 01 Apr 2009, 12:23

how the hell did we get to calling hockey equipment "armour"?

"Protective equipment" or "gear" are the appropriate terms here, folks.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
Buzz001
Posts: 33
Joined: 20 Feb 2009, 17:30
Location: Norwich, UK

Postby Buzz001 » 01 Apr 2009, 13:25

Cricket FTW! Now that's a gentleman's sport.

I love football in the sense of the skill of some of the players using their feet in such a beautiful way. And the atmosphere of a football match with all the singing and general abuse (especially to the ref) is awesome. However rugby is brilliant for the fearless tackles without pads or anything.

Now onto the American sports, i really love the look and feel of american football. Me and my dad always watch the superbowls late night or whatever. And it was cool to see it when it came over here (except the yanks ruined the pitch lol). I also like the tactics and the brotherhood between the players. In my opinion, baseball owns. I went to see the toronto blue jay's when i was over there a few years back and I loved it. Didn't get to see the hockey as it was out of season but i would like to see that sometime, fistycuffs in the middle of play!? YAY!
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 » 01 Apr 2009, 23:00

monaroCountry wrote:
JohnyMcmuffin wrote:
The biggest difference in tackling is that in Rugby you must wrap your arms to make a tackle. You cannot simply launch your should/head into a guy to bring him down, which is what the biggest football hits are, but they have armour to deal with that.


You want to bet on that? I think you should familiarise yourself with the two versions of rugby. In rugby league it is 100% legal to shoulder charge, many players have made an art of doing an effective shoulder charge without hurting themselves.

You are correct, I was speaking only to my own experience in Union.
Image
Image
User avatar
Brad
Posts: 1563
Joined: 06 Mar 2006, 17:32
First Video: Dunno. First one I was in was Zombiewalk
Location: Temporal Vortex
Contact:

Postby Brad » 01 Apr 2009, 23:11

Rugby is manlier than American football, despite it's insistent and continual scrotum fondling. Not wearing pads counts for a lot. And American football is miles manlier than soccer. I've never understood why anyone would willingly sit around actually attentively watching soccer. I mean, no one does for American Football, it's for drinking. And I don't think anyone actually watches rugby at all.

It's all moot, of course, because ordering those three into most and least manly is just about the same as saying that daffodils are the manliest flower. Rugby is for girls (which makes watching it palatable), American football is a sissy version of Canadian football (which, when we watch it is mostly an excuse to ridicule Calgary). Soccer mystifies me. Do you have to be Brazilian to give a damn?
All hail the great deku tree!
Twitter
Flickr
Image
User avatar
Telaril
Posts: 810
Joined: 30 Jul 2008, 06:07

Postby Telaril » 01 Apr 2009, 23:20

On an only-slightly-related note, I read something a while back that said bareknuckle boxing was actually, in the long run, less dangerous than glove boxing. Ah, here's a youtube video that explains. It's an extremely manly video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=e ... A54UN0Q-FY

We should go back to bareknuckle boxing. You get all the manly blood and broken hands, and none of the unmanly brain damage and stupid deaths.
User avatar
Kdz
Posts: 615
Joined: 22 Jan 2009, 19:47
First Video: Son of a Bitch
Location: TN, USA

Postby Kdz » 01 Apr 2009, 23:21

Yeah, I never got the whole thing about which sport is 'manlier.' Who cares? Which one you prefer was the question.

One of my best friends, in all honesty, prefers curling. I have several friends who are professional bowlers. I knew the entire golf team at college. It happens.

[Edit] Bareknuckle boxing: I'll just watch some MMA. Brutal stuff.
User avatar
Master Gunner
Defending us from The Dutch!
Posts: 19383
Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 12:19
First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
Location: In Limbo.

Postby Master Gunner » 02 Apr 2009, 11:33

Kdz wrote:One of my best friends, in all honesty, prefers curling.


Speaking of which, who has two thumbs and is attending the opening of the Ford Men's World Championship tomorrow? That's right, this guy.
TheRocket wrote:Apparently the crotch area could not contain the badonkadonk area.
Twitter | Click here to join the Desert Bus Community Chat.
User avatar
Emperor Gum
Posts: 2110
Joined: 24 May 2008, 20:02
First Video: Moving Out
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Contact:

Postby Emperor Gum » 02 Apr 2009, 13:34

I kinda disappointed how this thread has come obsessed with manliness. If I want to watch manliness, I'll watch Conan. If I want to watch a display of athletic ability and competition, I'll watch sport. If hockey was all about people beating the shit out of each other with sticks, it would be...shit.
Image
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Postby Matt » 02 Apr 2009, 13:57

Emperor Gum wrote:I kinda disappointed how this thread has come obsessed with manliness. If I want to watch manliness, I'll watch Conan. If I want to watch a display of athletic ability and competition, I'll watch sport. If hockey was all about people beating the shit out of each other with sticks, it would be...shit.


agreed. Hockey is a game of finesse and skill. It's quite safe, and injuries are rare - and fights are hardly the emphasis (though that's all anyone seems to enjoy watching these days).

Soccer is still for pussies though :p

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Postby Metcarfre » 02 Apr 2009, 14:12

Nice job undermining your own point there, Matt.
*
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Postby Matt » 02 Apr 2009, 14:15

IRONY!

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Postby Metcarfre » 02 Apr 2009, 14:18

REALLY!?!!
*
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Postby Matt » 02 Apr 2009, 14:19

FACT!

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Bob The Magic Camel
Posts: 386
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 07:32
Location: Reading V0.7a
Contact:

Postby Bob The Magic Camel » 02 Apr 2009, 14:29

Saying it loud makes it truer.
This signature has been intentionally left blank.

No marks will be awarded for solutions written on this signature.

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests