What do you think is more rough rugby, soccer or football?

Question

What do you think is more rough rugby, soccer or football?

Answer 1

I would have to say American football is rougher than rugby. In my seven years playing rugby I have seen fewer serious injuries (knees, broken necks, serious fractures) than one season of football. I believe rugby players are tougher, but football is inherently rougher. Think about a blitzing safety: full armored, running in the 4.5s 40 range with a ten yard head start to annihilate someone. Just the ability to hit anyone on the field of play while wearing armor is clearly rougher, not necessarily tougher.

While on the topic, why even include soccer/futbol? Hockey would have been a much better sport to inlcude: armor, blades, sticks, and vulcanized rubber projectiles. All you had to see was Jagr get hit in the mouth with a shot last week, spit out his remaining front teeth and go to the bench only to skate his next shift. Now that is rough and tough, and probably marginally insane.

Answer 2

Either rugby not quite sure possibly league as you have more direct runners and stronger running forwards.You don't have to be that fit for NFL because they play stops every 10 seconds or so.And soccer doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as rugby and rough!

Answer 3

I think football

Answer 4

American football, hands down!  I appreciate the speed, agility and unprotected contact of Rugby with all of the inherent dangers that comes with it, and as stated in an earlier reply, soccer shouldn't even be mentioned in the same paragraph as football or rugby let alone the same question!

Why American football?  Simply a matter of physics.  A 350 pound lineman that is capable of a 5 second 40 yard dash, that also has a 500 pound bench press and a 700 pound squat is protected by helmets and padding.  Do you think he will hesitate even for the blink of an eye to not hit you with every ounce of power he possesses?  Yes, both players (hitter and hittee) are padded nicely, but that does little to protect against the acceleration/deceleration injury that occurs when your body suddenly and violently changes direction after being hit with almost a thousand pounds of rapidly exploding force.  Not to mention the point of contact injury for any portion of you that is unprotected!

Add to this the fact that ANY player on the field is fair game until the whistle blows (as opposed to Rugby where the only player that can be hit is the ball carrier), and you have one "blind-side" knee wrecking disaster after another.

As for rough treatment in the bottom of the pile... PLEASE!!!  Eye gouging, finger breaking, "fish-hooking", punches up under the facemask (while the facemask is held to prevent you from pulling away), even biting...

Tried 'em both, been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, and the broken bones/concussions/missing teeth, and torn appendages to prove it.

P.S.  As for Rugby being the "World's" acknowledged roughest sport, most countries don't even know what American football is.  How the h**l can they compare the two?

Answer 5

Rugby has gotta be the roughest. You dont use the helmets and that whole American Football getup.

Answer 6

rugby

Answer 7

rugby......... ooooh.

Answer 8

rugby league is the roughest sport in the world by a long way

Answer 9

it's obvious, rugby is much more tough. less padding, faster, bigger hits. Why include soccer? What is tough about that? Try Gaelic Football, or hurling.

Answer 10

Well I assume you are talking American football, as in  UK and Europe, football is what you call soccer. Rugby has two codes League and Union (two entirely different games). So:

Football = Soccer (more speed and agility needed)

American Football (more brute force needed)

Rugby Union (All round stamina and strength needed)

Rugby League (Strength and Fitness needed)

Roughness, or the likely hood of physical injury, it would have to be Union. (No protective gear like American football, and no continual stopping of the game, or interchanges).

Answer 11

I've never even SEEN rugby played, and I am a girl, so I don't play football, but I have watched it. I play soccer and it is fairly rough.

Answer 12

Rugby is definitely, and has always been recognised as the the world's roughest and by FAR most dangerous team game.

Answer 13

Rugby without a doubt. In rugby there is no pads, all contact, and lots of injuries. When players go in the scrum; players are using their feet, if you fall, watch out because you will get stepped on; plus when you are tackled, some players scratch, elbow, hit (especially when under the pile and the ref can't see), anything. Watch a game and I'm pretty sure you will agree. Just to get a tri you have to get in the in zone and touch the ball down, imagine playing, it's a rough rough  sport. My dad plays soccer, football, baseball, and rugby and he'd tell you that rugby is by far the most toughest sport; and I've watched all of them quite frequently and I'd agree.

Answer 14

I watch rugby all the time and I think rugby is safer than american football hands down and rugby players don't wear padding, but some wear protective head gears for their ears when they are forwards in the scrum.

I watched all 48 matches of the 2007 World Rugby Cup and go to oodles of games in the usa and have tapes of european rugby too especially the All Blacks.  check out rugby sites and some will allow you to watch snippets.  Go to youtube and put in rugby and you can see videos for free

Soccer i follow a little.

Rugby follows laws not rules.  Rules can be broken but laws cannot

Answer 15

Football is more rough in terms of the ability to injure people...a well played rugby game focuses on ball control where football players can block/hit other players without the ball and use the helmets and pads as weapons.  Rugby is known as a gentlemans game...it's sure that you have to be in better physical condition than a football player, but that also is a factor in having less injuries than football.  A good article is at http://wesclark.com/rrr/pads_and_helmets...

To attest to the difference, I played rugby at 53 years old  twice this year...in the scrum.  Old boys alumni vs the younger current team.  There's no 53 year old football players that play the younger guys out there... it's a different game.