Why is American football like rugby but with all the padding when rugby is a much tougher and dangerous sport.

Question

Why is American football like rugby but with all the padding when rugby is a much tougher and dangerous sport.

Answer 1

says you.

Answer 2

MISCONCEPTION/MISINFORMATION - American football players are slower than rugby players

There have been many American football players that alco competed quite well in track and other sports.

Rugby players are stronger

There are pleanty of American football players are well over 300 pounds and can bench press enough to outdo the jack to lift your car when it get's a flat.

I have seen players try to swich both ways (football to rugby and rugby to football and neither could really make the transistion easily.  

There are positive advantages to both

RUGBY - everybody has to do everything, when you have the ball, nobody blocks for you, you run for like 80 minutes, play never really stops

FOOTBALL - If you have the ball, a 300-400 pound man, with a suit of armor, trained to do nothing but tackle is going to use his giant body as a projectile to hit you like a car hitting you in an unpadded area with his plastic and metal covered body parts. - each player has one specialty and that is all they do, if that happens to be pummel people that play the position you play, that is what they will do, when you have the ball and are about to get pummeled by 3 or for af the armored giants, nobody else wants the ball, you are stuck with it (and if they hold you up, it is simply so that the next giant can get a better hit)

My point is that they are just different mentalities.  Granted NFL level is dominated by what TV wants, but the players don't like that much either.  I have played both and prefer rugby but that is just personal preference.  The fact is that most rugby players are just not big or strong enough to play many of the positions in Professional football yet and most americans flat out do not understand rugby at all.  

The fact that rugby does not have stops where there can be commercials is why we in America can see close to no rugby on TV.  That is also why with so many great atheletes in the US, so few top atheletes end up playing rugby.  I would not say they are leser atheletes.  Please do some research - there are many who competed well in other sports such ast track.  There are some also that are not in great shape I suppose......but look at their sheer size, and how they compensate with strength.

Many American Football players would have a hard time adjusting to the sheer amount of running involved in some positions in Rugby, but the honest truth is that a rugby player is not sprinting up and down the pitch for 80 to 85 minutes straight either.  There is some standing and waiting while different things are going on such as breakdowns etc.  

The injuriies that happen in football are as frequent and as brutal as rugby and in some cases worse due to the sheer weight, size, and strength of the players.  2 men at 400 pounds rolling over your leg as opposed to 2 men at 250 pounds rolling on your leg (although if it's really your leg, you probably won't know the differnce - it just hurts)

They are simply different and I personally prefer rugby period.  But I don't put down football players as lesser atheletes!!!!!

Answer 3

of course rugby is tougher. stop debating it, please, any rugby team would knock the daylights out of an American Football team in equal grounds. look american football evolved from rugby, they had to find ways of making it safer so they implemented the padding and helmets. what if you took the padding and helmets and all the stuff that cause big collisions in american football off a player and put him on a field. he could do nothing! but put all that stuff on a rugby player and he becomes a tank. wasn't it the NFL a few years a go that were crryyyying for All Blacks wing Jonah Lomu? the fact is, on average, a rugby player is faster, stronger and more versatile than an american football player. trust me I play both sports, im always less fit after the american football season than the rugby season. if you play american football, try rugby, you won't survive with your rules that allow fatties and unfit people to take breaks and rests in between plays. the first time i played american football, i was like is this all? im a great linebacker, and i can play running back as well, how versatile is that? in rugby i play both props, can do hooker and specialise as a number 8. american football is a break compared to rugby, and you really shouldn't be comparign these two anymore, that's only for noobs eh?

Answer 4

This is kind of related to the topic, one of the answers to this question talked about the Pittsburgh's steelers destroying a rugby team, my retort to this,its all about overall fitness and endurance.  is rugby league and union have drifted apart from NFL in the fact that NFL is designed for the TV hence all the breaks in play and f**t assing around. I agree with another answer to the question talking about how league and union are far Superior in general fitness there are not many 110 kilo gram guys who can play 100 percent for 80 minutes, back to the answering the question I believe that fatigue is a major contributing fact to injury and sorry to say how can some one become fatigue if they stop every 2 minutes

Answer 5

If rugby is tougher and more dangerous, what is your point? "American" football evolved from rugby. It's not like it started off with helmets and pads from the start.

Both games are great and I think basically for protection as anyone can hit virtually anyone in football. but in rugby there is no blocking so the only danger technically is to the ball carrier.

Answer 6

although rugby players are much tougher than sissy a** soccer players, they would not be able to stay on the field with the bigger, stronger, faster, more talented players in the NFL. i'd like to see a rugby team step out on the field with the pittsburgh steelers. the steelers would send them running home to their mommas

Answer 7

It is true that rugby appears to be a rougher game.  However, there are certain factors that actually reduce the likely hood of serious or career ending injuries like you see in American football.

First the non-stop nature of rugby means the players are actually in superior physical condition.  the NFL/AFL football takes a break after every play, has lots of time outs -- including television timeouts, and longer breaks between quarters, and don't forget the half-time festivities.

Rugby is go, go, go.  The better the athlete is conditions, the better he survives the rough play of rugby and if he is injured, he is likely to recover more quickly.

Another factor reducing serious injuries in rugby is the absence of all the protective gear (shoulder pads, helmets, thigh pads, etc.)  Because the players are not wearing padding their collisions with an opponent are actually less sever.  I know this appears to be counter intuitive.  I sure looks like they are knocking the living daylights out of each other, but the fact is that rugby collisions are less violent than those in American football.

The playing surface and the shoes worn by the athletes also factors into the comparison of injuries.  Some of the artificial turf on which American football is played is very unforgiving.  The same surface the allows the the running backs and receivers to cut and change direction, denies the flexibility or "give" that a line man needs when his knees are cut out from under him or when a runner is tackled low from the side.

I'm sure there are other factors that also come into play.

All in all, I suspect the rugby players are simply pound for pound better, more well conditioned athletes.  Some 20-30 years ago one of the television networks had a sports show that invited players from a variety of profession sports to compete against each other in a series of competitive events.  Each event called upon the strength, endurance, flexability, etc of each contestant.  Since there were no professional rugby teams in the US there were no rugby players competing in this made-for-television competion.  However, for several years in a row, a soccer player was the winner of the super-athlete competion.  And each year, his success was attributed to his superior physical contioning.  Guess there is something to the muscle tone, skeletal flexability and cardiovacular development of the go, go, go (non-stop) athlete.

Answer 8

I must admit that i don't like it when people compare rugby to American football. They are completely different games. Rugby players are very tough, and not as arrogant and up themselves.  I once heard that some of that equipment that the football players wear actually courses more harm than good!