Lets have a grown up debate.

[geordie sam]

Hi lads,
Geordie Sam here,
I would love to know our American cousins views on the debate about which is the tougher sport? Gridiron or Rugby, in my British opinion I would say Rugby, you only have to have a look at some of the bashed in players faces, you'd think someone had been chopping sticks on them.
Plus in Gridiron you have all that padding, helmet, eye guard, etc, etc.
In Rugby you have a gum shield, and a jock strap.
Anyway, just thought I would put this up for discussion.
Now lets keep it sensible.
Geordie Sam.
"Howay the lads"

 

[puros_bran]

An adult debate? I come down on the anti-adult side.

I would venture American Football is a rougher sport than Rugby. It doesn't take anything away from Rugby to say as much.
Comparing the two sports is a futile endeavour where it matters: I don't want to take a hit from Ray Lewis or
Henry Tuilagi...

 

[Kentos]

You can argue that the NFL players NEED the pads and helmets BECAUSE it's a tougher sport.

 

[luvmysuper]

I love NFL football.
But my personal opinion is that not only is Rugby a rougher sport, it's likely to get even more so in comparison to the NFL as new rules and guidelines for the NFL go into effect to minimize injuries to players.
Examples are the 2010 rule change that prohibits a player from launching himself off the ground and using his helmet to strike a player in a defenseless posture in the head or neck. The old rule only applied to receivers getting hit, but now it will applies to everyone, and the rule change that moved the kick off to the 35 yard line.
The recent talk of eliminating the kick off entirely is just one more example.

 

[seattleshaver]

I don't know enough about rugby but my impression is that American football is rougher. I'm guessing (don't know) that the injuries from American football are greater in number and more serious than with Rugby.

 

[Graybeard57]

Rugby is rougher, hands down. Those players are nuts.

 

[thatsilverguy]

Rugby - hands down. My biggest beef about American rules FB is that the actions stops every 30 seconds. You can have an injured Rugby player down on the field and they just play around him. The action almost never stops until there's a score.


Add to that the pure athleticism of the game and the variety of types of plays and I don't see a debate here.


Rugby beats soccer easily too.

 

[luvmysuper]

Rugby - hands down. My biggest beef about American rules FB is that the actions stops every 30 seconds. You can have an injured Rugby player down on the field and they just play around him.


Add to that the pure athleticism of the game and the variety of types of plays and I don't see a debate here.


Rugby beats soccer easily too.

Hopscotch beats Soccer.

 

[SalvadorMontenegro]

I don't know, but bashed up faces doesn't mean anything other than that they don't wear helmets. A bashed up face is nothing compared to not being able to recognize your wife when she walks in the room and you're only 50 years old. Or shooting yourself in the chest because you have CTE. Has this been a problem for rugby players? I'm not being flippant, I don't know. What are the injuries like in rugby?

That rugby is "tougher" because they don't wear pads is a facile, trite argument, which doesn't take into account the way the game is played and the size and athleticism of the players playing it.

I would say they're both pretty rough sports. That's my conclusion.

 

[syngent]

Put skates add boards and give them weapons... and I'm in

 

[bamafan64]

I've never played rugby, although it does look fun. I have played tackle football without pads all through elementary school and even in high school. Busted lips, bloody noses, etc. I also played high school football with pads. In my opinion, hitting with the pads and helmets is rougher. Much more of a jarring impact when the pads and helmets are used.

 

[SalvadorMontenegro]

I don't know, but bashed up faces doesn't mean anything other than that they don't wear helmets. A bashed up face is nothing compared to not being able to recognize your wife when she walks in the room and you're only 50 years old. Or shooting yourself in the chest because you have CTE. Has this been a problem for rugby players? I'm not being flippant, I don't know. What are the injuries like in rugby?

That rugby is "tougher" because they don't wear pads is a facile, trite argument, which doesn't take into account the way the game is played and the size and athleticism of the players playing it.

I would say they're both pretty rough sports. That's my conclusion.

Oy. What I mean is that a bashed up face is a superficial injury. I think that you would need to look at more dire injuries such as broken bones and neurological damage. There has been a lot of talk about that with the NFL. I don't know what the situation is with rugby.

 

[luvmysuper]

This discussion can certainly be fun and entertaining, as long as everyone recognizes that it's a question along the lines of what's a better fruit, the apple or the orange, or what shaving soap is best.
There's not a scientifically definable answer, and it comes down to opinion.

As a result, the discussion has to be respectful opinions by members here. If it doesn't, it'll turn ugly and that'll be the end of the thread.

 

[Rushman2112]

As an English rugby fan I am bound to say rugger is the tougher sport, but it is comparing apples with oranges. American Football players are more explosive, and tend to be generally bigger even without the padding, and it seems that the injuries you hear about are pretty bad. That said, rugby players are getting bigger every season - Tom Croft is a good example, he had a serious neck injury last year and spent his rehab getting bigger and stronger (this is a guy who is 6' 5" and was 105kg already) - and they usually play the full 80 minutes in attack and defence. I've always thought it would be interesting to get a AF to play against a RU team at each sport.

 

[diamondtim]

I would say they're both pretty rough sports. That's my conclusion.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[bobfarvour]

There is not a scientifically definable answer, but there is scientific data.
I personally don't care who is tougher. It would be rather difficult. The kicker in an NFL game certainly doesn't see much abuse. The quaterback doesn't see much, but when he does it's brutal. Running backs on the other hand take a beating. Receivers don't take as much of a beating as a running back, but the hits they take are often brutal.
The variables are too many to determine and answer. It would seem the Rugby guys take more of a beating on a whole team level, while the harder, more devastating hits would go to the NFL.

For what it's worth, NFL hits regularly measure over 150 G's and the AVERAGE defensive back produces hits in excess of 1600 pounds of tackling force according to Timothy Gay who wrote "The Physics of Football".

 

[Kevan]

On the face of it, considering that gridiron football players are allowed to hit in different ways than rugby players, while wearing what amounts to a suit of armor so the hits are brutal when delivered, I would say that NFL football is the rougher sport. But I would like to see NFL players try out rugby and vice versa. I would say that rugby players have more endurance since the NFL is played in fits and starts and oxygen is available whenever a player needs it and Gatorade is squirted in their mouths every 2 minutes.

 

[bbauer09]

Maybe I can add to this conversation and give a special point of view!
Why you might ask? Well because I HAVE PLAYED BOTH!!!

In my opinion, you cant really decide which is a tougher sport. They are very different and I will explain why.

First,
AMERICAN FOOTBALL

This sport is very different than many other sports. You need to be strong, big, fast, smart and once a play starts its 100% intensity....for about 20 seconds. And, because of the pads, there is without a doubt harder hits. In football you can duck down, lower your head, and throw your body against someone and you feel it, but compared to the hard hits in rugby you dont feel it very much at all. In my opinion football is a sport of power and speed.

RUGBY

This is an all around athletically demanding sport. That is not to see that football is not, but from the people I know that play both, the demands of rugby are greater than that in football. The main reason for this is that the game never stops. And I mean that....it never stops. Even if someone gets hurt it keeps going. On top of that, every player is required to play offense and defense. Sometimes you have to ruck (act like a lineman kinda....) sometimes you have to run sometimes you have kick or throw....in rugby you really have to be good at everything (there are positions in rugby....but you never know what is going to happen.). And, although I do think that hits in rugby are on average less than those in football. I think this is because in rugby, when you tackle someone, you feel it a lot more than when you tackle someone in football.... With this being said I have seen some hits in rugby that are as big as some of the biggest hits in football.....
One last thing about rugby......Scrums.....


So this is what I am going to do.....I will talk about a few different parts of the game and say which one I think is "Better".

Hits= football
Endurance= rugby
Teamwork= rugby
Toughness of players= tie. both are insane, especially at hte professional level
Speed of play= tie (football is faster at times....but rugby never ever stops.)
Simplicity of rules= rugby (although most americans would never take the time to learn them)
Injuries/soreness the next day= Tie....but....rugby usually....i am usually more sore after a rugby match and 90% of the time i am bleeding from somewhere on my face or body at some point in the game. plus i have seen more dislocated joints in rugby than anywhere else in my life ever.... but i will say this footballs worst injuries are worse than anything that happens in rugby.
Enjoyment to play= tie....depends on what you like
Enjoyment to watch= this is hard but i might have to lean toward rugby....you just have to understand the game first
Fans= football....hands down.

If anyone has any questions you can feel free to ask. I didnt even tally up the results of hte above but I am going to guess they are pretty even. Both sports are great.

I will end on this last note though....Football players make rubbish rugby players. They are not good at tackling without pads, they cant run properly, and they are not very good at working as a team....I have never played football with past rugby players but my guess is that it goes both ways.....

 

[geordie sam]

If I can reply to my own thread, I would like to say to bbauer09 I think I agree with most of what you say, when I put this up for debate I wasn't just looking for who hits the hardest, or who sustains the worst injuries (Christ were both taking big hits in Afganistan, together) you seem to have made a study of both sports, and for that I am grateful for your insight, your points are well made.Thank you.
Geordie Sam.
"Howay the lads"

 

[Haggises]

bbauer90 may have just written the definitive guide to the differences.

I like both, but if I could only watch one sport for the rest of my days it would be rugby (though not the way the Scotland team plays it)

(I think some Aussie Rules footballers would call em both wimps.....)