Jump to content

Things that piss you off that shouldn't


theunderstudy

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

That research article basically says that American football has more injuries as the players don't take the same precautions due to their protective padding, Rugby players have to be more risk averse as there is a higher risk involved. American football is only more dangerous because of the mental set up of the competitors, doesn't mean that the tackles are harder

 

Really wrong.

 

http://youtu.be/W7tGY-VDx3o?t=7m10s

 

In that video the rugby player slowed up before the impact point quite noticeably, if he hadn't hed probably have broken his collar bone, the padding meant that the NFL player could run through the impact point without worrying about that outcome as much

 

 

So he slowed up enough to make a difference of 3000 lb of pressure? Right.

 

Bolded: So the hits are harder, right?

 

They can hit harder more frequently yes as there is less danger, but if a Rugby player showed no regard for his safety the outcome could be far more crippling as there is no protection which as the video says spreads the impact point.

 

 

But you said 'doesn't mean the tackles are harder'. Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

That research article basically says that American football has more injuries as the players don't take the same precautions due to their protective padding, Rugby players have to be more risk averse as there is a higher risk involved. American football is only more dangerous because of the mental set up of the competitors, doesn't mean that the tackles are harder

 

Really wrong.

 

http://youtu.be/W7tGY-VDx3o?t=7m10s

 

In that video the rugby player slowed up before the impact point quite noticeably, if he hadn't hed probably have broken his collar bone, the padding meant that the NFL player could run through the impact point without worrying about that outcome as much

 

 

So he slowed up enough to make a difference of 3000 lb of pressure? Right.

 

Bolded: So the hits are harder, right?

 

They can hit harder more frequently yes as there is less danger, but if a Rugby player showed no regard for his safety the outcome could be far more crippling as there is no protection which as the video says spreads the impact point.

 

 

There's no use arguing VG, Stefan just will not accept that all of that padding takes away a lot of the force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digressing:

Reaching my quota of positive votes for the day, and it's not even noon. What with the Meath_Villan incident, I have a feeling that there will be a lot of like-worthy posts that go unliked by me. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tackles exert more pressure 'on average' in the NFL because the player doesn't have to worry about injury so much. I'd say it would be possible if the rugby player was suicidal that he would be able to match the same tackle pressure, however he wouldn't play the game again most likely. The force wouldn't get spread out and it would be a 'harder' tackle to physically cope with. This is why I feel Aussie rules is more physical than either, there are many elbows and other dirty tricks they get up to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

That research article basically says that American football has more injuries as the players don't take the same precautions due to their protective padding, Rugby players have to be more risk averse as there is a higher risk involved. American football is only more dangerous because of the mental set up of the competitors, doesn't mean that the tackles are harder

 

Really wrong.

 

http://youtu.be/W7tGY-VDx3o?t=7m10s

 

In that video the rugby player slowed up before the impact point quite noticeably, if he hadn't hed probably have broken his collar bone, the padding meant that the NFL player could run through the impact point without worrying about that outcome as much

 

 

So he slowed up enough to make a difference of 3000 lb of pressure? Right.

 

Bolded: So the hits are harder, right?

 

They can hit harder more frequently yes as there is less danger, but if a Rugby player showed no regard for his safety the outcome could be far more crippling as there is no protection which as the video says spreads the impact point.

 

 

There's no use arguing VG, Stefan just will not accept that all of that padding takes away a lot of the force.

 

 

Wow, such irony.

 

I never disputed that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that the padding doesn't take away from the size of the hits and that players get more injuries in American Football. There is absolutely no disputing that players hit harder because of the padding, but in some cases (the helmets), players think that they can hit with their head, but they just end up getting concussed.

 

And anyway, the people who are arguing against it don't even watch the bloody NFL. I watch both. You have a massive prejudice against it considering all the ignorant tripe you've spouted about the sport, just today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch both and enjoy both (enjoy NFL more) the tackling can't be compared imo. The tackling is more direct and most tackles would be illegal in rugby. Anyone saying NFL players wouldn't handle what the rugby players do is full of shit. If both trained for the opposite sport they would do fine....reminds me when I was young and my dad use to slag off the NFL saying the players were stick thin because of the armor. NFL players are some of the biggest sports men I've ever seen .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch both and enjoy both (enjoy NFL more) the tackling can't be compared imo. The tackling is more direct and most tackles would be illegal in rugby. Anyone saying NFL players wouldn't handle what the rugby players do is full of shit. If both trained for the opposite sport they would do fine....reminds me when I was young and my dad use to slag off the NFL saying the players were stick thin because of the armor. NFL players are some of the biggest sports men I've ever seen .

 

Steroids. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it cute that someone who by their own admission has given quite a complicated sport '3 chances' is trying to argue with any authority on the subject :-) I suppose this should be in the 'cheers me up' thread. It's a fun read.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I find that understanding what is going on usually enhances my viewing experience. Unless you watched it with someone who knew the sport, you had no chance of knowing enough to enjoy it. Which makes it no surprise to me that you don't like it. Which is fine. It's the subsequent attempt to discredit the sport that I find amusing given that, with all due respect, you don't actually know what you're talking about and it would be hubris to claim that you do :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I found boring was the tackle - time out - adverts - tackle - time out - adverts - tackle - time out - adverts...

 

I didn't particularly understand Baseball when I first watched it but because it wasn't just constant stop start, I didn't get bored straight away.

Same thing with Rugby, I had no idea what was going on but as the game flows you can get into it and enjoy it and begin to understand how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â