Blocks happen orders of magnitude more frequently than tackles, so you can’t defensibly lump them together when discussing frequency.
In football, that is true, but in rugby, the ball gets passed every few seconds.
I’m prepared to have my ignorance fought. A football game has around 130 plays, figure 7 blocks per play (5 in the trenches alone every single play.) That’s around 900 blocks per game.
How many tackles in a game of rugby?
If you get clattered even once in a rugby game without the protection of pads, then rugby is the harder sport. It’s also not true that rugby tackles are as infrequent as football tackles. Tackling in rugby is far more common than tackling in football.
Depends in part on the playing style of the teams on the field… but I would estimate there are about 8-10 tackles per minute during open play, or 640-800.
Assuming scrums, rucks and mauls account for 25% of a match, and passages of play without any tackling (full backs punting the ball back and forth, penalties, drop goals, etc.) are another 10% call it 500.
That, of course, doesn’t include collisions during scrums, rucks or mails.
I don’t think that’s true. The padding and helmets reduce the incidence of certain types of injury - concussions, broken ribs, internal injury, bruises - but increase the incidence of other injuries which are more common in contact sports anyway - ligament tears, limb fractures and spine injuries.
The BBC disagrees with you. This page os statistics for a game between England and Scotland in 2007 puts it at around 150.
The thing is, as you mentioned, it depends very much on the style of play. England, for example, are known to use rolling mauls a lot, something that just doesn’t happen in American Football. I’d say that comparing the number of tackles is utterly pointless as tackles play a very different roll in both games. It is like comparing the number of passes or distance travelled. Meaningless.
They’re different, if related, games. They focus on different aspects of strategy and tactics. Neither is “better” than the other. Such comparisons are stupid. They’re both excellent, enjoyable sports with many physical and mental challenges. Why the blue fuck do people feel the need for one (the one they enjoy/grew up with/participated in, of course) to be better than the other.
Hey Ogre, who made you the thread police? If the debate offends you so much, stay out of the thread.
Because this is the Pit, and he can actually make fun of you guys for bragging about whose sport causes the most injuries. It’s the one place where staying out because you don’t like it is not only not required, but the opposite is encouraged.
You want people to stay out, keep your recreational outrage about sports in The Game Room
Right, understood. And being the pit, I’m free to call him out as a douchenozzle for repeatedly shitting in the thread just because he can. Which I did, albeit in a more tactful way.
Just for the record, “recreational outrage” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Here’s a hint: there is none present in this thread.
The point of this thread is to complain about a game that has absolutely no effect on the poster. That’s recreational. As for outrage–it was posted in the Pit rather than The Game Room. The pit is where you talk about things that make you angry–i.e. you express your outrage.
The term isn’t hard to understand–it means merely the sum of its parts. If you have some other definition, I suggest you offer it, along with a reason I should use your definition rather than the one that makes logical sense.
Jesus, nobody’s outraged. It’s just a bit of banter.
Speak for yourself. I’m outraged that nobody is outraged in a Pit thread.
The OP complained about a game he actually watched, which means it does affect him and therefore is not recreational outrage. Recreational outrage – as originally coined by Excalibre – is a term for expressing outrage over random news events that have no bearing on your life and isn’t relevant to you in any way. It’s a self-aggrandizing gesture to show how evolved you are as you tut-tut over some horrible news story.
Being a spectator of an event makes that event relevant to you, and therefore criticism of the event is not recreational outrage. Football fans and soccer/rugby fans mocking each others’ preferred sports is also not recreational outrage; that’s simply sports fans having fun with a topic they’re invested in. Which is totally fine, unless you’re an uptight, humorless douchebag with sand in your vagina like Ogre.
Even more to the point, there has been no actual outrage expressed anywhere in this thread.
Is this thread about which sport sucks more than the others ?
Well. Rugby or US football, did they ever had a “Heysel” ?
If anyone here understands the above gibberish, please raise your hand.
I didn’t watch it. Have you ever tried to watch soccer? It’s boring as shit!
Yeah, that USA 2-2 Slovenia draw was sooo dull. One team completely out of contention, making an amazing comeback, being denied a win due to bad refereeing, I mean, come on, was anyone still awake after that? :rolleyes:
This it the pit, ain’t it? Bodily functions! Dysphemisms for the act of coitus! Familial insults! And all that.
A refernce to the Heysel stadium disaster, perhaps? (Sorry, no time to google it here, got some sawwwker to go and watch)