Rugby vs. American football

[sailor jack]

Rugby beats the shit out of American football.




Discuss.

[djwolford]

Absolutely not. Your average rugby player would go home crying after one hit from your average football kicker.

[sailor jack]

aint no football player that could last 5 minutes without a helmet and pads, nevermind 80

[Mr. E]

Originally Posted by sailor jack

aint no football player that could last 5 minutes without a helmet and pads, nevermind 80

I highly doubt that. Have you seen any American football players? I think they'd be just fine.

I have to agree with wolf. At the lower end of the hardcore scale, weak and tiny rugby players are more hardcore than weak and tiny NFL players, but the NFL monsters could hang with the rugby monsters just fine.

[djwolford]

You do realize that the only thing the pads do is protect the person who is hitting, and not the person being hit right? Taking a hit with pads on is just as painful as taking a hit without pads.

[sailor jack]

exactly, the guy doing the hitting wouldnt have the confidence to tackle without pads. ive played football and rugby and i personally find rugby the most painful and frightening of the two

and thats why i fucking love it

[djwolford]

I would tackle people without pads, and if I would, I'm pretty sure that a player at a higher level wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

[Atmoscheer]

This is a pretty dumb discussion because the "toughest" sport isn't necessarily the best sport.

But more importantly, on top of that, rugby really isn't a game focused on contact, in the same way that hockey is not a contact-focused sport. Football, on the other hand, requires it. Football players are specialized for their roles; an NFL linebacker doesn't have the build to play rugby, nor is there a single professional rugby player who could be effective as a linebacker (nevermind offensive and defensive line, ha.)

Rugby also has considerably less down-hill running, and therefore considerably less down-hill tackling. That's the reason for a helmet and pads; any idiot can check, make shoestring tackles, or make arm tackles. But line up 245 pounds on either side and let them run straight at eachother and if you aren't wearing pads, you're both going to die.

[Mr. E]

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

But line up 245 pounds on either side and let them run straight at eachother and if you aren't wearing pads, you're both going to die.

I cracked my sternum by a similar scenario playing pickup football. The lineman I was assigned to didn't rush, so I was just sitting back watching the play. He was about 15 yards away and started running at me at full force, but I didn't notice. I turned at looked at him right as he was slamming into me at full force. I was on the ground for a while, but eventually got up and downed his dumb ass. He was a 6'8" 400+ pound Puerto Rican, and man it hurt like a bitch.

[sailor jack]

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

rugby really isn't a game focused on contact, in the same way that hockey is not a contact-focused sport.

what??
i agree with you entirely except on this

there is pretty much nothing else to rugby. without the contact there is no defense, so then every play would be exactly the same and the attacking team would score everytim

[Atmoscheer]

Theoretically, you can score in rugby without ever making any contact. Likewise, you can defend in rugby without ever making any contact.

[sailor jack]

but the same can be said for football. the quaterback could just throw the ball and the other team could theoretically stand and watch it.

also, the only defense in rugby is tackling, which is contact.

[Atmoscheer]

The quarterback doesn't have to the throw the ball at all, but there is no way to stop him unless he is forced to the ground.

[sailor jack]

yeah, same in rugby

no one has to throw the ball, but then the other team has to tackle to defend

[SneeBeezums]

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

But more importantly, on top of that, rugby really isn't a game focused on contact,e.

Except for rucking, scrumming, and tackling...

Physical contact is huge in rugby. Yeah theoretically you can play without tackling and the same could be said about football then.

And about the arguement with pads. I don't know how many times our rugby team has tried recruiting some meaty looking guys that played football and they said they wouldn't play because you tackle/get tackled without pads. Pussies. Our best tackler on our team is a guy that's like 5' 5" and a probably like 130lb max.

[benzss]

Rugby is a game focused on contact, the 'contact area' is the most important part of the game. If you're not good at it, you lose.

And the tackling between the two sports is different. In rugby a massive hit doesn't really help anything. The ultimate goal in the tackle is to turn the ball over, so making sure the tackled player is facing you is important, as is tackling in such a way that the ball might pop out of his hands.

I've not played proper american football so i don't know which is the 'toughest' or whatever, but from what I've watched of both, american football is pretty intense but far less relentless than rugby.

[monaroCountry]

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I highly doubt that. Have you seen any American football players? I think they'd be just fine.

I have to agree with wolf. At the lower end of the hardcore scale, weak and tiny rugby players are more hardcore than weak and tiny NFL players, but the NFL monsters could hang with the rugby monsters just fine.

We are not comparing soccer to football here but the more brutal game of rugby (league and union) to the game of football. Your big monsters wouldnt last more than 5 minutes in a rugby game. The amount of tackling and hit ups in rugby is far more than football, the amount of yards run and ball in play is many many many times more than American Football. I can tell you now, you wouldnt even bother looking at retaining any linesman in a game of rugby.





http://blog.wired.com/geekdad/2008/1...ch-action.html

* The first quarter, at the conclusion of the first fifteen minutes of the match, the ball had been in play for a total of three minutes and 10 seconds.
* The second quarter contained two minutes, 58 seconds when the ball was in play
* The third quarter was the most scintillating with three minutes, 25 seconds of action
* The fourth quarter, which included a lot of kneeling to run out the time in the final two minutes, had showcased two minutes and 35 seconds of play

So, during the two hours and 56 minutes the game took to complete, throughout the 60 minutes of regulation time, the ball was in only in play for 12 minutes and 8 seconds.The rest of the time, players were standing around, plays were being reviewed and I was being bombarded by a multitude of beer commercials and truck advertisements.















[/QUOTE]

[djwolford]

Originally Posted by monaroCountry

Strong first post, but a fail. You realize that the fridge would kill a rugby player the first time he made contact right? Not hurt, kill.

What you're failing to realize is just how athletic some of those "fat" guys are. For a lot of the people who do run a lot, their average practice is very endurance oriented. I doubt that many of them would have troubles playing a full game of rugby.

[SneeBeezums]

^ How many of those guys are going to run full force and tackle a person without pads though?

I was thinking about this more last night. The reason you don't see (very often) bone crushing hits in rugby is because it is impracticable. You can easily hurt yourself and the other player. Not to mention that the point of the game is to turn the ball over. This isn't football where you tackle the guy and the play is over. You put everything you got into a tackle but fail to wrap him up and just knock him over he can easily pitch it off to one of his teammates or get up and run.

As for the argument about lineman. Yeah their athletic. But how often do you see them make a huge run and not be winded. They wouldn't be able to play a full match of rugby. They need to have insane about of endurance to be able to do all of that running and hitting. And for their size, I just can't see that happening. And bigger doesn't necessarily mean better on a rugby pitch either.

[sailor jack]

rugby is constant impact pretty much, the only rest they get is running at another player about to hit you or waiting in a lineout for 10 seconds getting ready to be hit again

and i dont think youre giving rugby players enough credit djwolford. theyre pretty freakin tough, even amateurs and novices.
heck, school kids would probably stand up to that guy. they probably wouldnt hit him back as hard, but they could take a hit and get back up to make ground.

[Atmoscheer]

James Harrison did it without a problem.

I like that the example goes for NFL players unable to compete in rugby, but there are few-if-any rugby players that could make or break NFL tackles, either. There are few if any rugby players who could make or shake NFL blocks. Football is a game of specialization.

Now turn around and ask me if a top-tier Wide Receiver, Corner, Safety or Running Back (the positions most similar in physical demands to rugby) could play rugby effectively. Athletically, they'd likely be fine. Position-wise, mentally, they wouldn't.

I mean I think it's funny that there's this talk of injury resilience in rugby, and "toughness," when the worst injuries in football are significantly worse. Google: tyrone prothro injury. Besides, there are plenty of "tough" football players who do play through injuries (Herschel Walker did it famously by putting a separated shoulder back into its socket and playing the next series, as well as Mike Vick, a quarterback playing a full season for the Falcons with both of his shoulders separated.)

Also, it's worth mentioning that rugby players do have a certain toughness in that they don't care about what they look like, which is why they choose not to wear helmets. Helmets to protect the face and eyes (and, later, cranium) are the reason football players wear pads; tacklers lead with their helmets (how to stick a tackle? put your helmet on the ball.) Football players aren't willing to sacrifice their futures to prove they are some form of "masculine." If that's your definition of toughness (not ability or willingness to endure physical pain but willingness to accept unnecessary scarring as a result) then I guess you're right. But that definition is awfully convenient for a rugby argument and awfully worthless for any other application.

[sailor jack]

rugby players dont want to sacrifice their futures, they just have the common sense to tackle properly, so therefore dont need a helmet.

any big lump of a doofus can run at a guy and hit him hard, provided theyre protected with pads and stuff
no rugby player would go in with his head. and no rugby player longs for scarring. if it comes then fine, i dont mind cuts and bruises

and the fact that the football players have worse injuries (despite having protection) just prooves they are idiots who cant tackle

[monaroCountry]

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I cracked my sternum by a similar scenario playing pickup football. The lineman I was assigned to didn't rush, so I was just sitting back watching the play. He was about 15 yards away and started running at me at full force, but I didn't notice. I turned at looked at him right as he was slamming into me at full force. I was on the ground for a while, but eventually got up and downed his dumb ass. He was a 6'8" 400+ pound Puerto Rican, and man it hurt like a bitch.

Imagine a massive Tongan, Samoan or Maori running towards you and trying to take you out its not a fun sight. Now imagine a whole team made out of massive Tongans, Samoans and Maoris. In rugby league the defence and offence MUST be 11 yards apart, many hits happen with a 15-30yard run up so really these guys are hitting each other at full speed. In rugby league its not just arm tackling or tackling the legs, a shoulder charge is absolutely legal.

YouTube - Mark O'Mealy VS Bryce Gibbs Fight

YouTube - Mark O'Mealy VS Bryce Gibbs Fight

YouTube - League - Richard Villasanti's hit on Shane Webcke

YouTube - League - Richard Villasanti's hit on Shane Webcke

You could even grab your opponents collar and yank them around like a rag doll.

YouTube - Gordon Tallis' famous tackle on Brett Hodgson

YouTube - Gordon Tallis' famous tackle on Brett Hodgson

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

This is a pretty dumb discussion because the "toughest" sport isn't necessarily the best sport.

But more importantly, on top of that, rugby really isn't a game focused on contact, in the same way that hockey is not a contact-focused sport. Football, on the other hand, requires it. Football players are specialized for their roles; an NFL linebacker doesn't have the build to play rugby, nor is there a single professional rugby player who could be effective as a linebacker (nevermind offensive and defensive line, ha.)

Rugby also has considerably less down-hill running, and therefore considerably less down-hill tackling. That's the reason for a helmet and pads; any idiot can check, make shoestring tackles, or make arm tackles. But line up 245 pounds on either side and let them run straight at eachother and if you aren't wearing pads, you're both going to die.

Rugby not a contact/collision sport? Lol I fell off my chair laughing, have you ever seen a game? I suggest that you check out some State of Origin game highlights on youtube. Rugby league and union has allot more tackling and hit ups than football. One player could notch up 75 tackles in one single game in league, far more than football.

In the early years of american football most of the deaths and severe injuries stemmed from scrums and backward passing, this is why your president nearly banned the game. At that time the game was more like American rugby with plenty of gang tackles, and brutality. The rugby scrum was replaced by the line of scrimmage, forward passing encouraged and the V shape banned. All these banned features are still present in both forms of rugby. Even today scrums are still very deadly with plenty of deaths from broken necks and some punches and headbutts happening unnoticed within the scrum.

[Mr. E]

Well yeah, but american football teams are full of giant people too. If I had been paying attention I would have been fine. It seems too subjective a disagreement to solve though.

[monaroCountry]

Originally Posted by djwolford

Strong first post, but a fail. You realize that the fridge would kill a rugby player the first time he made contact right? Not hurt, kill.

What you're failing to realize is just how athletic some of those "fat" guys are. For a lot of the people who do run a lot, their average practice is very endurance oriented. I doubt that many of them would have troubles playing a full game of rugby.

You do realise that a typical rugby league player has far better stamina than your typical soccer player right? I dont think you understand how much running is involved in a typical game of rugby, how there is only one team for attack and defense, how there is basically no rest in between plays, how you can only have 10 interchanges and 4 reserve players on the bench. Perry Williams or the fridge wouldnt last 5 minutes in a rugby game and would get owned in a one on one tackle and a gang tackle.

William Perry is only 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) and weighed 382 lbs (173.4 kg), there are rugby players with slightly less weight but taller, more muscular and far more powerful who are better conditioned for severe impacts. If you are after tall and fat people then just look at those rejected by rugby teams especially the Polynesian variety. There was an article once that said how NFL scouts wants to mine the richer and more athletic rugby loving players in Western Samoa and about how American Samoans are 40 times more likely to be picked in NFL than those of non Samoans blood.

As for what William Perry eats:
Breakfast: six eggs, grits, bacon, cheese, toast, jelly and a quart of orange juice
Lunch: eight cheeseburgers, six portions of chips and six shakes
Dinner: five chickens, steak and ribs

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

James Harrison did it without a problem.

I like that the example goes for NFL players unable to compete in rugby, but there are few-if-any rugby players that could make or break NFL tackles, either. There are few if any rugby players who could make or shake NFL blocks. Football is a game of specialization.

I wouldnt exactly say without a problem and thats just 100 yards. A rugby pitch is 109 yards long and allot wider. I cant imagine Harrison lasting 5 minutes on a fast paced and continuous rugby game.

Big Play by Steelers’ Harrison Took His (and Others’) Breath Away




James Harrison collapses after scoring a touchdown


Harrison, the Pittsburgh Steelers’ All-Pro linebacker, had just intercepted a Kurt Warner pass and rumbled 100 yards for a touchdown that was heart-stopping not just for a worldwide audience, but, it appeared for a few minutes, perhaps Harrison himself. Exhausted from the longest play in Super Bowl history, Harrison lay supine on the side of the end zone all but motionless, trying to catch his breath.

“To be honest, I really didn’t think I’d make it all the way back,” Harrison said. “My teammates threw some vicious blocks.”

Just before the goal line, Arizona’s Steve Breaston smacked into Harrison from behind while Larry Fitzgerald tried to wrestle him down, but Harrison’s momentum was too great. He slumped to the ground helmet-first just beyond the goal line.

Harrison rolled over and lay face up, his arms and legs extended, as if making a motionless snow angel. He did not get up for a full two minutes while being visited by the Steelers' medical staff. During that time, not only was a penalty flag 100 yards away ruled an Arizona infraction, but the video referee also looked into whether the ball had crossed the goal line before the tackle. It was a crucial call — Harrison had taken all 18 seconds left on the clock to run the length of the field, so if he was ruled short of the goal line, Pittsburgh would have to choose between going for a field goal or a touchdown on its last play with no time remaining.

“I’ve never been more emotionally drained in my life,” he said.

Just as Harrison began to inhale oxygen through a mask, the referee Terry McAulay announced that the play would stand.

Actually there has already been an ex rugby player playing for a third tier team making it into the NFL without any problems, check out Richard Tardis. Even an ex AFL player has taken some punishing tackles and has made a tackle himself without any problems. Imagine what a first tier team like New Zealand, Australia and South Africa can do to the game of football, they would surely dominate.

Richard Tardits grew up playing rugby, then, one day, as a student at the University of Georgia; he walked on to preseason football practice. "He didn't even know how to put his pads on," said then head coach and now Georgia Athletic Director Vince Dooley. "We put him in tight end and asked him to fire out and block and he fired out and tackled the guy. So we figured that we better put him on defense pretty quick."

As a linebacker who had never played gridiron before, Tardits learned quickly, and in one scrimmage
sacked the quarterback five times. "I gave him a battlefield promotion right there," said Dooley. "I gave him a scholarship. He had such explosiveness." Upon graduation, Tardits made all-conference as a linebacker, and had set a record for sacks at Georgia that still stands. He went on to play for the NFL for New England and Arizona.

After his NFL career was over, Tardits returned to rugby, playing for the United States 24 times.
"All those things he learned in rugby, mobility, running, reaction, and tackling, can help develop a young

Now turn around and ask me if a top-tier Wide Receiver, Corner, Safety or Running Back (the positions most similar in physical demands to rugby) could play rugby effectively. Athletically, they'd likely be fine. Position-wise, mentally, they wouldn't.

I mean I think it's funny that there's this talk of injury resilience in rugby, and "toughness," when the worst injuries in football are significantly worse. Google: tyrone prothro injury. Besides, there are plenty of "tough" football players who do play through injuries (Herschel Walker did it famously by putting a separated shoulder back into its socket and playing the next series, as well as Mike Vick, a quarterback playing a full season for the Falcons with both of his shoulders separated.)

Is the photo below the Protho injury your talking about? That's just an accident, it could happen in any contact sports and has happened in other sports. Football injuries are not worse.

Soccer

Rugby

Also, it's worth mentioning that rugby players do have a certain toughness in that they don't care about what they look like, which is why they choose not to wear helmets. Helmets to protect the face and eyes (and, later, cranium) are the reason football players wear pads; tacklers lead with their helmets (how to stick a tackle? put your helmet on the ball.) Football players aren't willing to sacrifice their futures to prove they are some form of "masculine.

Rugby remained more traditional and didnt try to banish all forms of physicality like American football did in 1904. Not wearing a helmet is not a choice but requirement in the game, your team would be penalised for illegal equipment if rugby players started wearing non approved helmets. The only thing rugby players could wear are scrum caps which protects the ears from getting stomped on.

[SneeBeezums]

When football teams start doing this...

YouTube - The Haka - New Zealand Vs Tonga

YouTube - The Haka - New Zealand Vs Tonga

Let me know. Watching that makes me want to hit something.

[monaroCountry]

Originally Posted by SneeBeezums

When football teams start doing this...



Let me know. Watching that makes me want to hit something.

Football teams have done the haka before, however "the team were barred from eyeballing the opposing side by officials " because it was thought to be too intimidating. I think they even banned the ritual because of it.

What Americans might not know is that the purpose of the Haka is not supposed to intimidate opponents, its supposed to be a ritual celebrating life. At least the New Zealanders doesnt use a spear like the Aboriginal team. The best would be the when the New Zealand face up to their equally physical Tongan rivals.

[benzss]

Rugby league isn't real rugby

[Vengeful Scars]

My favorite 4 sports are, in no particular order; American Football(because I'm a lineman, a small one at that, and I love absolutely raping my larger counterparts and the quarterback), Hockey(Because A) I'm a Damn good center and goalie and B) The check happens to be my favorite move), Boxing(knock out, or be knocked out is how I've played, except one match where the smaller opponent wore me out(225lb Lineman in football vs 175lb Wide Receiver) and got more hits in towards the end of a 10minute round, and by judges decision he won) and Rugby(because the game looks fucking brutal)

I've been interested in rugby since I was 14, but in America, to my knowledge no High Schools, or Universities, give scholar ships for the sport, nor even have it as a sport to be in(Which sucks, because I played football, was getting looked at by numerous SEC scouts, then I talked to an Ohio State scout who I told I was Diabetic and he said "For most schools, they'd never sign you for a scholarship because of the dangers associated with making you gain 50+ pounds").

After seeing those clips I must say, Whenever the next season starts I'm going to hop my ass on the Nashville Rugby club(pretty sure we have 1 or 2 there) and play. Cause goddamn, causing pain/injury/any amount of hurt into an opponent happens to be my favorite thing amongst sports. Hell, in Hockey, when I played Goalie for my first season, my record for most blocked shots was 74, and I also did 20 combined minutes in the penalty box for hooking and/or roughing, mainly because the ref's would not call penalties for players being in my crease.

I love me some sports that allows me to legally hurt another player.

[no_brains_no_worries]

Originally Posted by sailor jack

aint no football player that could last 5 minutes without a helmet and pads, nevermind 80

Ha! The average line man has at least fifty pounds on the rugby player, maybe more. Besides, football gives you great power collisions nearly every play, while the scrummage is just a bunch of guys pushing each other back and forth for a few inches.

[monaroCountry]

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Ha! The average line man has at least fifty pounds on the rugby player, maybe more. Besides, football gives you great power collisions nearly every play, while the scrummage is just a bunch of guys pushing each other back and forth for a few inches.

Fifty pounds isnt gonna help you when matching up against some of these brutes in rugby, weight isnt the only factor that makes rugby players so good. One thing that football linesmen lacks by a very wide margin is the technique in tackling properly and how to be tackled. A rugby forward wouldnt do too bad in football but a linesman would absolutely die in a rugby pitch, probably from a heart attack.

What do you mean great power collisions on every play, im most plays ive seen the ball carrier either runs out of bounds or dives before getting tackles. Those around him are not tackling but blocking. Sorry but for me collisions are actual collisions and tackles.

A scrum is one of the most dangerous component in rugby, it is also one of the most dangerous thing to do in all of sport. A collapsed scrum could mean paralysis and death (im not kidding on this), your neck and spine is in a very dangerous position. When a scrum collapses you have 7 other players weighing 900kg pushing behind you and another 8 players with a combined weight of 1000kg pushing infront of you. When it collapses your head and neck goes straight down the ground, when this happens its very easy to snap and break it.

YouTube - Scrum Collapses S14 2007

YouTube - Scrum Collapses S14 2007

[SneeBeezums]

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Ha! The average line man has at least fifty pounds on the rugby player, maybe more. Besides, football gives you great power collisions nearly every play, while the scrummage is just a bunch of guys pushing each other back and forth for a few inches.

Have you ever been in the scrum? Seriously? When a scrum collapses it is the scariest shit. Especially if you're play hook or second row and everything is on top of you.

[Atmoscheer]

What's funny about this thread is that the smart people accept that neither sports' players would be very well suited for the other and that this is a pretty meaningless discussion.

And then the idiots who play rugby (only idiots play rugby) try to convince us why their "more dangerous" sport makes its players perfectly capable to do anything that football players can do.

[benzss]

Well I mean it's pretty simple... the contact area is quite different in each sport

[monaroCountry]

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

What's funny about this thread is that the smart people accept that neither sports' players would be very well suited for the other and that this is a pretty meaningless discussion.

And then the idiots who play rugby (only idiots play rugby) try to convince us why their "more dangerous" sport makes its players perfectly capable to do anything that football players can do.

You know that a person is loosing an arguement when they start insulting and name calling.

Calling rugby players idiots, by your summation the rest of the world other than American are all idiots because they play rugby?

[simonj]

Guys, 99% of people who play competitive sports are idiots. The only bigger idiots are people who play non-competitive sports.

[sailor jack]

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

What's funny about this thread is that the smart people accept that neither sports' players would be very well suited for the other and that this is a pretty meaningless discussion.

And then the idiots who play rugby (only idiots play rugby) try to convince us why their "more dangerous" sport makes its players perfectly capable to do anything that football players can do.

also, many rugby players are identified by scouts whilst playing for a university team, much like American footballers, proving they at least have the capability to enter further education
the difference is, rugby players dont get sports scolarships to go to college, where they just play for the team and go to classes just to say they are in the university.

Rugby players are intellegent, respectable proffessionals, who play a full contact sport to blow off steam
Football players are overfed lumps of angry thugs that like to run into other overfed lumps of angry thugs

Thats idiocy.

[Atmoscheer]

Originally Posted by monaroCountry

You know that a person is loosing an arguement when they start insulting and name calling.

Calling rugby players idiots, by your summation the rest of the world other than American are all idiots because they play rugby?

Uh, are you dense? Are you meaning to tell me that outside of America you cannot find a man, woman, or child capable of walking that doesn't play rugby? And on top of that, are you meaning to say that there are no American rugby players?

The argument that's been proposed in this thread is a pretty fitting definition of idiocy. You've tailor-fitted your qualifications and then challenged the participants of another sport to satisfy them. Everyone in this thread who is remotely reasonable has conceded that this is either 1) a dumb, indefensible argument or 2) a relatively meaningless comparison. Only the fucking knuckle-draggers are trying to carry on the Rugby-uber-alles garbage which has been chopped and dice to bits for the past 40 posts.

[sailor jack]

i wasnt trying to compare to start with, rugby jusst kicks footballs ass

but as people compared, rugby kicks its ass in comparison.

[djwolford]

Originally Posted by monaroCountry

You know that a person is loosing an arguement when they start insulting and name calling.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

also, many rugby players are identified by scouts whilst playing for a university team, much like American footballers, proving they at least have the capability to enter further education
the difference is, rugby players dont get sports scolarships to go to college, where they just play for the team and go to classes just to say they are in the university.

Rugby players are intellegent, respectable proffessionals, who play a full contact sport to blow off steam
Football players are overfed lumps of angry thugs that like to run into other overfed lumps of angry thugs

Thats idiocy.

monaroCountry, as you can see, your argument just became invalid.

That being said, sailor jack, your average college football player doesn't get a scholarship, nor do they become pro football players. A vast majority of high quality football players finish college and move on to respectable professions. Very few of them just go to classes to say that they are part of the university. Also, have you considered how many college football players actually walk on after going to their school of choice on academic scholarships?

Atmosfear is right in saying that you average football players or rugby players probably wouldn't excel in the other sport, because despite being so similar, they are vastly different. I'm still sticking with the idea that a football player would have a better chance in a rugby league than a rugby player would have at any level of football. In terms of toughness, endurance, and skill required, a well rounded football player probably wouldn't have a problem. It's funny that linemen were mentioned to use as a comparison to rugby players, because they are the guys that play a position farthest from what a rugby player should be. Lets start comparing quarterbacks, fullbacks, halfbacks, dts, linebackers, etc. to rugby players and see where that goes.