Plus in football (at least in Canada, I don’t know about the NFL) they often play on concrete thinly covered with green plastic. Many football injuries are likely due to that.
In terms of size, build and athleticism there’s not a great deal of difference between American football players and Rugby (Union) players. The tackles in American football are such that it would be impossible not to wear armour, the (legal, as a high tackle is not nice at all) tackles in Rugby really are not liekly to cause injury, but in a game you will get stamped on and trodden on with studded Rugby boots.
Artificial turf is an abomination unto God, yet it is far too common in the NFL. The home stadiums for the 32 teams consist of 21 fields with grass and 11 with artificial turf - which, as you said, is a thin grass-like plastic over concrete. As this is a slight hijack, I won’t continue my rant about the evils of AstroTurf or FieldTurf, but I’m sorely tempted.
This argument is always trotted out, despite it not making sense. (It usually comes up in the Soccer vs Football debate.)
[/quote]
Of course it makes sense, as long as you actually understand the argument i was making.
Bzzzzt. Try again. That’s not the argument i was making at all. Go back to your analogy dictionary.
Interesting experiment, but one that completely ignores the argument i was making.
I never said that each individual play in football was slower. Nor did i say that the amount of actual play time was longer. The point i was making, and which i thought was pretty clear in my post, is that the more sustained action in rugby makes the game go more quickly, for both players and spectators, and that this has implications for player size, speed, and stamina.
The official amount of time for the game, and the actual amount of time the game takes to play, are much closer in rugby than in football. Football is officially a 60 minute game that can take the better part of three hours, or even longer, to complete. Rugby is a 90 minute game that takes a bit over 100 minutes to complete.
The point of all this is that, while the plays in football are just as fast as, and probably faster than those in a rugby game, the more sustained action in rugby requires different levels of mobility and fitness for most of the players. Also, no matter how fast or slow the action itself, rugby games seem much faster to the spectator because they take less time overall, and because there are far fewer stoppages between play. I hate to break this to you, but someone watching a football game live, and a player playing a football game, don’t have the opportunity of fast-forwarding between plays.
Rugby could use much more massive forwards, and even faster and bigger backs, if the players were allowed to take a break every few minutes, and if there were different teams on the field for defence and offence. Conversely, if football players were required to play on both sides of the ball, and to use a hurry-up offence for the whole game, the size and stamina of the players would adjust accordingly.
I’m not questioning the strength, skill, or athleticism of football players, or of the game itself. As plenty of other people have pointed out, the two sports have vastly different requirements. And in terms of player stamina and size, it is completely nonsensical to suggest, as you did, that football is faster as long as we’re willing to ignore the two hours of down time that occurs during every game. The fact is that all those stoppages have an impact on the way the game can be played and who can play it, and the lack of stoppages in rugby have an impact on the way the game can be played and who can play it.
Basically, Apollyon got it right by suggesting that a rugby team is running a middle distance race, while a football team is running a series of sprints. And this is why the biggest men in rugby are smaller and fitter than the biggest men in football, and the fastest men in football are faster and stronger than the fastest men in rugby.
This is not just because i’m a Ravens fan, but after spending a lifetime watching rugby, and a few years watching football, my opinion is that Ray Lewis (or indeed any good middle linebacker)would probably have more to offer a rugby team than any other football player. His speed, agility and actual tackling (as opposed to simply hitting) ability would make him a monster in rugby. And he has the talent the pick up the ball-playing skills pretty well. A good running back, especially one with a good side-step, like Ricky Williams would also be a great asset.
Offensive and defensive linemen are probably generally just too big, although Warren Sapp would probably be awesome. Some tight ends would make excellent rugby players, because they are big, tall, and athletic. And obviously corners, safeties and wide receivers have the speed and agility, and would just need to be taught the strategy.
I certainly agree with those who say that it would be easier for a football player to make the transition to rugby, than vice versa.
By the way, Ellis, your little experiment with taping the football games is quite instructive in one way: it demonstrates how good the TV networks have it the United States, when they can make you watch over three hours of coverage, including innumerable commercials, for a paltry 30 minutes of action.
Maybe, instead of comparing players, we should be comparing the relative gullibility of American and foreign TV audiences.
(Don’t get all offended, Americans. I don’t exclude myself from this gullibility–i watch at least three NFL games a week during the season, plus some college games. Doesn’t mean i have to like the commercials.)
And you can play football with a frisbee, but that’s not really football. The game you and I played in the neighbors’ yard is nothing like the game played at even a highschool level, let alone in college or the pros.
Football has been around, and been a violent game, for longer than the pads have existed. The pads came about, and eventually became mandatory, because of the injuries players were sustaining. The hard hits in football come about from the fact that there are 11 guys spread out across the field, players line up off the line to get a running start at the opposition, and everyone resets after every play. So while the stop-start nature of the game allows the players to rest for a few seconds before running another play, it also leads to more, and more violent, contact. The pads came about in response to that.
American footballers have helmets that cover their ears. I assure you that we’d see lots more cauliflower ears on offensive and defensive linemen if they didn’t have helmets.
In my experience, it’s also tempered by the fact that it will be more awkward when drinking with your opponents after the game.
Sorry to continue the hijack, but that’s not really true. Astroturf used to be plastic on concrete, and in some antiquated stadiums it still is, but the stuff they’re using now bears little resemblance to the old astroturf. I’ve played on the old stuff, and I hated it. I’ve still got a scar on my calf from a burn that was similar to what happens when a kid falls off his bike onto the street. But I’ve played on the new stuff, too. The new stuff is padded and made of a more rubbery substance. In my opinion, it still doesn’t hold a candle to natural grass, and artificial turf is probably still responsible for lots of knee injuries, but it’s also not as bad as the stuff they laid in the old Astrodome.
Thanks for the clarification, Age Quod Agis.
Of course, you are assuming that all of that extra time is commercials. Remember that huddles and such were also taken out. Remember that teams have 40 seconds to begin a new play, which will last maybe 4-5 seconds. And except in a no-huddle offense towards the end of the game, they usually take the full 40 seconds. Or most of it.
Actually, i wasn’t assuming that at all. Note that i said “including innumerable commercials,” not “consisting solely of innumerable commercials.” I am well aware of the time allowed between plays, etc.
The fact remains, however, that the actual time the ball is in play is not a very long time at all, whether the intervening period is taken up by commercials, or by huddles, etc.
Actually, it’s taken up by a constant stream of blather from the tv announcers, but that’s another hijack/rant. 
That’s far too true. My method of preserving the Giants 2003 season is to take out all commercials, in-game commercials, sidline reporting, “game breaks”, and pointless non-game blather. (This past Monday night, for instance, Al and John even started discussing Johnny Cash.)
When done this way, the game is easily watchable from start to finish without touching the FF button, and moves along quite quickly. The total running time for week 1 (Warner’s concussion fest) was 2 hours and 3 minutes. Monday night was 2 hours and 15 minutes, but in fairness I went to the the full-on “shorty” method for overtime. (I’m hoping to squeeze 4 games on an 8 hour tape.)
All that said, I completely agree with the observation that the NFL is rife with advertising overload. You take the good with the bad.
I’ve been to two NFL games, and neither seemed slow. Only once or twice did I feel the action was needlessly paused.
As for my misunderstanding of mhendo’s point:
ellis: This argument is always trotted out, despite it not making sense. (It usually comes up in the Soccer vs Football debate.)
mhendo: Of course it makes sense, as long as you actually understand the argument i was making.
ellis: Basically you are saying that as long as they don’t stop, it’s faster and involves more action. By the same argument, marathon running is faster and has more action than boxing.
mhendo: Bzzzzt. Try again. That’s not the argument i was making at all. Go back to your analogy dictionary.
I think I get the distinction. What you are really saying is that as long as there isn’t a stoppage of play, the game moves faster.
While I grant you that my understanding of your point was flawed, the boxing vs. marathon analogy was still pretty good. A marathon takes exactly the same amount of time to watch as it does to run, so by your definition it moves faster than just about every sport, including rugby. Boxing, OTOH, is padded with 25%-33% (depending on how you calculate) extra time between rounds, and therefore moves at a “slower” pace.
So I guess I still don’t understand why my analogy is flawed.
But I will agree that the signal to noise ratio in rugby is higher than in football. I just think the “signal” in football is far more exciting, and worth waiting for.
Btw, mhendo, I think you are exactly right as regards to linebackers being the most suitable for rugby. I’d say the only players that could even contribute to a rugby game are linebackers (preferably outside linebackers), running backs, and maybe safeties.
Consequently, I think those positions are the only ones where a rugby player could contribute to a football team as well. (The same “maybe” qualifier applies to the safety positions, of course.)
Well in Rugby the team all has a bath together afterwards, whilst in American Football they have a shared shower. Then the Rugby Footballers drink European (or Aussie) Beer, whilst the American Footballers drink American (or Canadian) Beer.
Obviously Rugby Football wins 