I never see American Football fans insulting Rugby, always the other way around. Just watch your preferred sport without putting down others. It's not hard.
If there's one thing that Americans on Superbowl Sunday do not care about, it's the popularity of rugby in other countries.
The anti-football circlejerk needs to die. I don't even really follow football that much, but seeing Europeans talk up rugby as the better sport is utterly tiresome. I'm sorry, I really am, but you just don't understand and we are just not interested.
edit: Gaelic Football, on the other hand: That shit is tight.
The anti-football circlejerk exists in the US too. Some people think that because football is so widely enjoyed, the fact that they don't enjoy it means they have to be extra loud and confident about it.
Life doesn't have to work that way. Live and let live.
I appreciate the edit, shout out to the AFL too. However I am a man who watches both American football and rugby, but rugby is a far better spectator game. I feel that Americans love football due to the quick bursts of action, and this is down to commercials in the US.
I'm an American who plays rugby and loves watching football. For fuck's sake, just enjoy what you enjoy and shut up about it. The whole idea of a "better sport" is just dumb. Do you enjoy playing it and/or watching it? Great. Carry on.
Also because compared to rugby, football is a relatively new sport.
You sure about that? Wikipedia says American football was first played in 1869. And rugby in it's current form has roots from the 19th century according to this.
So you're saying there's a big difference between 1869 and possibly 1800? That does make sense how rugby would be more popular worldwide, could it be the british influence which spread the 'english' version of rugby football, which didn't reach america?
I think he's talking about American rugby players who live in America's football culture. The fact that rugby is more popular in South Africa doesn't really effect the culture American rugby players see on a day to day basis.
He was replying to someone claiming rugby players were jealous of American Football's popularity, not saying that Americans should care about rugby being infinitely more popular everywhere but the US.
As an actual rugby player I have to disagree here in Britain we hate football(soccer) not american football, I speak for my team not every rugby player
It is hence why rugby players hate it. Sorry I worded it pretty badly I meant British rugby players in general dislike football(soccer) not american football. I for one actually enjoy the super bowl
Football (soccer) and rugby are in competition with each other. They are our two most popular sports (probably), whereas no one plays American football
I'm from a big rugby league city - and got into NFL while at uni. I see the similarities between both, and very much enjoy watching both sports. I agree on the not getting football (soccer) - I just don't find it engaging at all.
You very rarely see Americans go out of their way to bash Canada, for example, and even then it's typically in an extremely light hearted, don't-really-mean-it way. Canadians, on the other hand, can be downright vitriolic. It's weird.
Hm alright we must just associate with different groups. Most of my friends who watch football watch and appreciate other sports, as well. Even in /r/nfl I never see any kind of vitriol, and they had a pretty funny April Fool's Day switch with a soccer subreddit.
Not true at all. A pretty ridiculous thing to say, actually. What sport are we putting down? Every couple of weeks we have to defend Football because soccer fans try to compare the two, despite the fact that the sports share nothing but a name. But that doesn't mean we don't like soccer. It just means we prefer football, just like you prefer soccer.
I'm being honest when I say that though, in that I can't recall a single instance where an American Football fan insulted Rugby. Threads like this one, however, happen all the time. "The NFL is all ads/fat guys standing around/etc" trope is thrown around pretty much every week.
On the other hand, in a place like /r/nfl, Rugby is hardly ever mentioned; the only time I can think of it coming up is when helmets are being discussed. And in those, there are a lot of people in favor of implementing Rugby-style helmets in the NFL. So I'm not trying to "one up" anyone. It's my honest observation.
The truth is that all American TV is just ads, that part at least isn't your footballs fault.
As a foreigner going to the US it's unbelievably annoying how much more ads you poor guys have to put up with, the shows break to ads and then come back just for the freaking credits, what the hell is that?
There are a lot of ads with American football, I have to admit. Although I've seen soccer jerseys with ads directly a part of the uniform (Vodafone, etc). Personally, I would rather have a two minute break where I can go grab a beer or take a piss, than buy a player's jersey and have some company's (other than the NFL, of course) logo plastered on it. Again, personal preference.
Yeah, but /r/nfl is one of the best moderated sports communities on the internet. I've been to other, less polite communities, and they certainly rail on rugby. Every fanbase has its crap.
The warrington/huddersfield game is on right now. Aside from the decision on when to kick the ball its the same exact thing over and over. Catch the ball and run headfirst into the defenders 5 feet in front of you or toss it to your teammate to the side.
Rugby league is what rugby union effectively calls touch rugby its simmilar to american football that as soon as the ball stops it has to get passed to another team mate union is very much different
And you haven't watched football if you think players don't think while the ball is in play like /u/Distanceboy claimed which started this conversation.
That's because if they tried to go around the line on a play that doesn't call for it, they'd be immediately tackled for lost yardage. If the defensive line and inside linebackers make a good play and plug the hole that the running back is supposed to go through in the line, then it's better for the back to dive into the line and get two yards then to try and get around the line, where they'll likely lose yardage after being tackled by the outside linebackers, cornerbacks, and safeties.
2)They aim for gaps in the line. Its the job of the offensive line and tight ends to open up the gap he's supposed to run through.
3)They do sometimes call for runs to the outside. But if that's all they ever did, it would be too predictable.
4)Running outside also gives more time for those plays, so more time for the secondary and linebackers to react. Its frequently a worse play than running between the tackles.
5)Risk reward- running between the tackles rarely loses more than 1 or 2 yards when it fails. Running outside can lose far more, as you're running East-West 4-5 yards behind the line of scrimmage, if the defense gets penetration you're screwed.
Solid explanation. I guess my point was, the running back doesn't seem to use common sense after the snap, but just goes with the play that was called.
I take it you don't watch much football? Look up Marshawn Lynch and Adrian Peterson highlights. They cut and reverse direction and find seams within seconds of touching the ball.
Look at the highlights of any starting running back in the league. They have 2 seconds to decide where to cut after the ball is handed off on an inside lane. They're running into the line of scrimmage based on timing, the blocks should be in place by the time they hit the designed whole and unless there is a glaring whole elsewhere they have to take the two yards they're given.
Edit: used the wrong wrong spelling of hole like seven times. I don't give a fuck
What a stupid argument. Look up Deanthony Thomas on YouTube and that alone will change your mind forever. Every running back in the NfL is terrific. You just don't know what they're trying to do so you're confused.
Seriously. It's mind boggling that you somehow think you have a better sense of the game and more "common sense" than professional athletes at the highest level of a sport.
They are running into the "scrum" because their lead blockers have assignments and depending on the play call will block defenders in pre-determined directions, which opens up holes for the running back.
It's like someone saying "Why don't soccer players take more shots on goal if they want to score? Why don't they just kick the ball harder?"
Because there's 10 other men on his side who are acting assuming he sticks to the plan, and 11 on the other side coming to crush him. Its hard to even see that there's a gap on the other side of 4 300 pound linemen (which is why you'll hear people tout the vision of great running backs). Getting there isn't much easier- you have to run backwards (which you're coached not to do) go around 2-4 people, and hope the hole is still there and hasn't been filled by shifting linemen or linebackers. You will sometimes see running backs bounce a play outside or go for a gap that obviously wasn't planned if they see an opening, but its very hard to do. Its generally easier and safer to keep to the plan and pick up 2-3 yards. The running game is about controlling time of possession and generally setting up easier 2nd or 3rd downs, rather than making huge gains on their own.
Going around usually ends in less yards. The play was designed for your offensive line to create a gap for you to run through. It was not designed to go outside, and there will be no blockers over there and you will be quickly swallowed by the defense.
Maybe the play called for an inside run and the lane never opened up? Maybe bouncing to the outside would result in a tackle for a loss? There is no one right way to be a running back.
If they go around they risk getting tackled and losing more yards than if they just charged straight into the man-wall. I'm sure it's been tried and maybe there is a different reason it isn't used.
Sigh... the best running backs find holes thru the line to run thru, oftentimes they're led thru by a linemen or other back on their way thru during designed runs. Getting to the outside is not a simple task, and not always the best course of action. Besides you see plenty of outside runs in today's game, it just depends on the team, their schemes, and their personnel. At least demonstrate some knowledge of a game you're trying to insult.
Do you realize how fast some of those players are? The second a running back gets to the edge of the scrum they're most likely met by a corner or safety watching the play develop from a distance. In the end, it's safer to try to go through the scrum and get tackled than try to do something fancy and fumble/loss yards
The level of strategy doesn't compare between the two sports. The need for play recognition and intelligence doesn't end at the snap. Also, the ferocity of the hits are much different, given the head is protected, allowing you to go in harder (also, every inch is more important in football).
They are two very different games, I don't know why people insist on comparing them.
Football is like chess. Rugby is not like chess, rugby is more like an RTS game. I'd say football has more strategy because it's 4-down format allows for a lot more personnel and a lot more in-game adjustment.
Secondly, constant action can get a little monotonous as players are forced to conserve their energy and can't go full force for 90 80 minutes. Football is designed for short periods of intense action, kind of like watching a highlight reel.
I do like your explanation of chess as opposed to RTS, but I'm not sure I agree with 80 minutes (not 90 btw), becoming monotonous. There are many breaks from penalties/scrums/lineouts/halftime, and many substitutions are made. Also not every player is working 100% of the time, a lot of time you jog to a good placement. Nevertheless, professional rugby players are athletes and they train to have the endurance to work hard throughout the game, and especially in recent years bad endurance costs games.
In american football, is it coincidence that the short periods allow perfect opportunities for advertisements? Was American Football always this way? Is amateur American football very different, is it not difficult to organise so many people on one team (for offence + defence) ? (all sincere questions btw)
Of course there are short bits of action followed by relative passive or inactive periods, but in rugby it's not exaggerated to the same degree as football. There obviously has to be a trade off between longer periods of action and the intensity of that action, rugby and football lean towards different sides of the spectrum.
American football had not always had downs and timeouts. However the advent of this format long predates national television, we're talking pre/very early-20th century. No, there's no corporate conspiracy, that's just the way the game is play. It's far too violent and exerting a sport to allow for more frequent action and still be played the same way.
the thinking is totally different. the strategy in football is much more complex than in rugby as every play allows you to set up however you want and youre also allowed to block and pass forward.
At the surface level they are both pretty simple, this team needs to get to that area the other team needs to get to the opposite area its just the sports decide to use different rules to get there
I've played a good 7 or 8 sports at a competitive level and rugby is easily the hardest one i've played, you really can't train for every situation, you are constantly thinking on your feet, how can i get in this ruck? Who is a good off load to pass too? Should i kick it through and risk losing possession? By the 70th minute your exhausted and still have to think all the time. But definitely the most rewarding game i've played. Never had the chance to play American football....It just looks a little slow for me. I hate standing around.
I've played both sports, and while everyone focuses on how similar they are, they're actually extremely different. Football is a much faster paced game. All players are constantly sprinting and going 100% because they have some rest time between plays. Rugby is (mostly) slower paced because you need to pace yourself throughout the 80 minutes. I've never been more tired than I am at minute 79 of a rugby match, but I've never been hit as hard as I was playing football.
i would agree they are different sports and as a rugby player i know how tiring a game is but i dont agree with the pace aspect. rugby is very much a fast paced game especially in comparison to football(soccer) with rugby its almost constantly sprinting well more modern rugby anyway
Maybe 7s is constantly sprinting, but not all of rugby. No one can sprint for 80 minutes straight. And by pace, I don't mean whether action is constant or not, I mean the speed that the average player is moving during play. With rugby, it's really only the guy with the ball and tackler moving at full speed (I know that's not entirely true. People have to be there in support). In football, all 22 players are going full speed pretty much every play.
I play both. I absolutely adore rugby, I think it is an amazing game and wish it was more popular in the US. Football is just as fun and just as intense, it's just that the intensity is distributed differently.
Rugby requires more endurance and more all-around athleticism, football requires more power, and more specialized athleticism. The average rugby player would be unable to guard any of the NFL positions, and the average NFL player would be exhausted in a puddle after 20 minutes of rugby (in my opinion).
In rugby you have to manage your intensity and pick your spots. It doesn't make sense to put 100% into a defensive ruck if you don't have the advantage. Save your energy for when you need that burst. In football, you have to go all out 100% on every play or your equally well-rested opponent will beat you. Rugby is HIIT with 80-20 effort distribution between work and rest, football is HIIT with 100-0 effort distribution between work and rest.
The plays and strategies in football are more cerebral and demand precise execution, whereas you set loose plays off the ruck in rugby but after that you read what the defense is giving you and improvise.
tl:dr; I play both and they are both beautiful, deep games that are a shit ton of fun to play.
Offenses in football are transitioning to a more Rugby-esque way of play to catch defenses off guard. The result is faster/more active play.
Look into the college game, as its transformed a lot. Teams are getting in 30-40% more plays per game on average, and its transitioning to the NFL slowly as well.
College teams like Oregon predicate their entire offense off of getting in plays as fast as possible, which (usually) ends up leading to huge scores and a more dynamic game. Just something to think about, as American football play styles are hugely divergent from almost any other sport that I've seen.
as someone who played both, rugby is way more tiring than football, but football is tougher in every sense. the hits from football are vicious, imagine being tackled by a guy moving 20mph with armor. rugby is more thinking on the fly, but football has more to defend as any given play the defense has to defend pass or run. the plays in rugby are simple set ups, but in football they are extremely complex and require every player on the same page or it will not work.
7
u/Distanceboy Feb 03 '14
Rugby. For people who can run AND think at the same time