Things that amazes me are that a lot of people like that there's no pads in Rugby, and think that Amer. Football is a wimpy game because they take timeouts and rest in between plays, and because of that Rugby is a "mans" game. I'd rather like to know that my body is going to be protected from hard hits rather than breaking a shoulder or sternum, hip or leg. The reason why there's breaks in between is because of play calling. Pads and breaks for play calling doesn't make for a "wimpy" game it makes for a good strategic game were players can hit as hard as they can and know that they're protected and don't have to worry about getting seriously injured.
I prefer Football, but Rugby is a good game too. I love playing, but not watching. I don't understand what enjoyment people get from watching 300 pound 6 feet tall men hurl themselves at each other. I don't know them, I don't care about them. Do it if you want, but I'm not gonna support your 10 million dollar paychecks.
Anyone have any idea what they mean by roller sports?
biking? i would say skateboarding but i don't think thats even in there.
as for the topic i think i would like rugby better but the problem is no one in the U.S. actually plays it. so by defalt i choose American Football (go redskins!!)
lol ok once again im going to have to give on of my speeches on why football is better then rugby.
football has padding which means that the players are safer. and last time a checked more dangorous doesnt mean better.
while rugby may be more fast paced yes football players are in much better shape then most of the people in the world. football players run faster, bench more, squat more, deadlift more, and pretty much are overall more powerfull in everyway to rugby players.
foot ball plays are the most complex of any sport in the world. rugby is mildly simple and i learned it in a matter of 5 minutes of watching it on tv lol.
when people say that foot ball is a bunch of fat heads running around for no reason, its quite the other way around. rugby players dont exactly have plays. they mindlessly run around trying to score.
rugby is less safe, the players are less athletic, and football is much more strategic in every way. if one player messes up, quarter back gets sacked.
football is actually one of the more deffinitional sports then any.
football mixes strategy with athleticism and you actually have to think to play it. quarter backs are extremely stressed for if they throw one bad ball they may have lost the entire game. and i have high high high respects for them
I've noticed that this subject has a tendency towards bias.
Anyway, I've found something rather good. Before anyone's opinion is to be respectable, I want them to have played and experienced both sports. They aren't exactly the same.
I think it is already obvious that you have bias towards gridiron football. I want to hear someone who has actually played both sports, and has been to countries where both sports are popular.
Rugby is way more fun to play, but i don't watch it. I would rather watch Football over Rugby if for no other reason then i understand it. Maybe if Rugby was more popular in the U.S. i would watch it more.
