Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Originally posted by s_qwert63 i wouldnt feel shit if i get tackled, cause i would have shitloads of pads everywhere and a helmet!
in rugby on the other hand...
You've never even seen football. The hits are harder because it is played at a totally different speed then rugby.
Than again, nothing compares to the NHL for sheer, no holds barred violence. From what my Canadian friend tells me, hockey sticks are only supposed to be used like that on one condition:
If Canada is being invaded and the people wielding the hockey sticks are riding caribous and yellineg "EH!!!" at the tops of their lungs.
There is no point in arguing about which sport is tougher. Yes, gridiron players wear pads. That enables them to tackle a lot harder.
Also, in Gridiron you only play half the game (defence/offence) allowing you to rest up. In Rugby, you have to play the full 80 minutes, with only permanent subs allowed.
I would say that generally you have to be physically tougher to play Rugby, but the opportunity for serious injury is higher in gridiron. See, most rugby players are massively muscled, and used to taking hits all day long. So are some gridiron players. But many gridiron players are simply not built to take big hits, which is okay, because they rarely get tackled. However, when they are...
The scoring in rugby is simple. A try (like a touchdown, but the ball has to be grounded) is worth 5 points. When a try is scored, the team gets a chance to convert (kick a goal) for an extra two points. The kick is taken from wherever the try was grounded. ie, if the try was scored right near the sideline, it is a much tighter angle for the conversion than when the try is scored directly in front.
A field goal is worth 3 points, and so is a penalty. It's simple. The goals are exactly the same as gridiron, its just we have the 'H' shape wheras you have a 'Y' shape.
Recently they have cleaned up parts of rugby (most noticeably the scrum), that causd the most injuries. A scrum is when all the forwards (8 each team) bunch together and kinda group-headbutt the other guys. This often resulted in spinal injuries, but it is very rare now.
I like both sports, but I find watching gridiron frustrating with all the stops and starts. Rugby just keeps on flowing. Go here for fox sports' take on it all.
I wish all countries would play the same sports. Then we can truly see who's the best :)
See, whilst Rugby and Gridiron are both great games, surely you would have to pick rugby because it is an international game? I mean, whoever wins this world cup can say 'we are the best in the world'. Whoever wins the superbowl gets to say 'yay, I won the superbowl'. Wouldn't it be better for your NFL superstars to be playing a game that other countries play?
Imagine if gridiron was never invented, and Americans still played rugby. It could well be the US dominating the rugby world along with England, France, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia etc.
Or Soccer. It amazes me that Americans are content to let the world's greatests sporting trophy go to others.
And why you guys insist on playing baseball is just beyond me, when there is cricket. Can't you just join in with what the rest of the world is doing?
Mind you, it's not like Australia can really talk. Yes, we've won just about every sporting trophy in the world, yet our biggest domestic league plays Australian Rules Football, whilst our soccer league struggles.
I love Aussie Rules footy, but I would gladly swap it for a stronger domestic soccer competition. Because with a stronger competition, we'd have a stronger national side. And with a stronger national side, we could finally start hunting the FIFA world Cup seriously.
As much as I love Aussie Rules footy, I love Australia's sporting prowess more. Why can't the whole world play the same sports? It'd sort out once and for all who is the best.
The big heavy bruisers can play Rugby Union. The fast agile types can play Soccer. The fat guys who can peg balls at 100 miles an hour and whack them a mile can play cricket.
And don't tell me it'd be a loss of national character, because that's bollocks. New Zealand Rugby is very different from Welsh Rugby, just as English Cricket is different from Australian Cricket. Same game, different styles, culture, tactics, the lot.
And one final thing... I'm surprised American football teams haven't taken up the traditional challenges of the pacific islands nations. You guys ever seen the Haka? Or the Manu? Some teams (the Vikings spring to mind) could easily scrape up a traditional war challenge to fire up the blood.
You know, the QB or someone could get all daubed in warpaint and take the role of baresark, screaming random stuff at the opposition, whilst the rest of team chants some ritual phrases. IT'd be great, and add something new for the fans.
The rankings (collate as current position, last week's position, country, ranking points):
1. (2) England 92.13
2. (4) Australia 88.44
3. (1) New Zealand 88.17
4. (3) France 84.66
5. (5) South Africa 81.23
6. (6) Ireland 80.53
7. (7) Argentina 78.02
8. (8) Wales 76.92
9. (9) Scotland 76.36
10. (10) Samoa 73.46
Tweet
Comment