View Full Version : For all you Rugby people: AMERICAN FOOTBALL WITHOUT PADS
AlexanderSextus
08-28-2009, 15:39
This is the original american game. No pads. This will show yall rugby league and union guys just how crazy and vicious us yanks can get. No armor no pads just bone crunching hits, lightning runs, awesome dodging and spectacularly long passes.
Figured you guys would get a kick out of this (pun intended)
I recommend these be watched fullscreen in high quality/HD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3wjHa0z1dE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gPHj1KUrD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2_5fftMRH8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmOdlWZ5FnM
Waddya think?? should i post more? :beam:
Gah, chabal eats those guys for breakfast!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2009, 23:00
Yeah? Lets see them face the Welsh or Irish. On a lot of those tackles those guys don't go down properly, when they do they lose the ball. Not that impressive.
From the sidebar of the first link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQhpfPQDw9M&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQhpfPQDw9M&feature=related
Also, some of your guys still have shoulder pads.
Louis VI the Fat
08-28-2009, 23:39
*worships Moros*
Strike For The South
08-29-2009, 00:09
It's already been proven an American football player hits 4 times as hard as a rugger. I love rugby but American football is toughest game out there
And LOOLLLLL at New Jersey football.
*worships Moros*
:stunned:
I err...like you to Louis...
League is my code of choice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au-_DU2mp0E
Centurion1
08-29-2009, 00:54
I play football. the pads just increase the power of the hits. I have broken bones playing, so i think the hits are pretty hard. Hard to compare to rugby it is far more different a game than a casual observer would think.
AlexanderSextus
08-29-2009, 01:24
right which is why i posted this because these guys DO NOT wear pads, it is a strictly no pads regional football league. I dont see any pads. Fact of the matter is these guys have big ass shoulders anyway, so maybe you just thought you saw pads. the rugby guys have wayy smaller builds than a lot of these football players. Exception being the All Blacks from New Zealand. (BIIIIIG maoris down there)
Rugby is like a street brawl and Football is like an armed military engagement. Neither sport is for "sissies" or "nancyboys". Fact of the matter is the nature of the equipment worn in football lends itself to more dangerous collisions. The athletes are bigger stronger and faster which leads to major neck and head injuries not to mention destroyed knees.
Without pads, it becomes even more dangerous and therefore awesome because it puts it on the same level as rugby. :book:
Sasaki Kojiro
08-29-2009, 01:31
Rugby is like a street brawl and Football is like an armed military engagement. Neither sport is for "sissies" or "nancyboys". Fact of the matter is the nature of the equipment worn in football lends itself to more dangerous collisions. The athletes are bigger stronger and faster which leads to major neck and head injuries not to mention destroyed knees.
Non-americans make fun of nfl players for wearing pads just because we make fun of soccer players for taking dives...just a bit of rivalry, nothing serious.
I've seen nfl players take dives anyway :sweatdrop:
Think it was the colts punter in the last playoffs, kept the drive alive by pretending to be hit, shameful. Usually with instant replay you can't get away with that stuff though.
AlexanderSextus
08-29-2009, 01:41
Yeah? Lets see them face the Welsh or Irish. On a lot of those tackles those guys don't go down properly, when they do they lose the ball. Not that impressive.
From the sidebar of the first link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQhpfPQDw9M&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQhpfPQDw9M&feature=related
Also, some of your guys still have shoulder pads.
In yank footy when you get tackled with the ball in your hands that is a down. I dont know what you mean by "properly".
The rugby hits are like Ka-POW! BOOM!
The yank footy hits are like KABLAMMO! KABOOOM!
It looked to me like the most damage from the rugby hits looked like it was from the sheer speed and explosiveness in which the hit comes from, Basically they concentrate all their speed on hitting with a single point like the shoulder. The snap of it i guess?
The Yank footy hit is kind of the same principle but it has a more "mack-truck/bulldoser" like quality to it. Dont tackle where the guy is, tackle a point 5 feet BEHIND HIM. :book:
Strike For The South
08-29-2009, 01:43
The Yank footy hit is kind of the same principle but it has a more "mack-truck/bulldoser" like quality to it. Dont tackle where the guy is, tackle a point 5 feet BEHIND HIM. :book:
Thats not how you do it but nice imagery.
Incongruous
08-29-2009, 01:58
right which is why i posted this because these guys DO NOT wear pads, it is a strictly no pads regional football league. I dont see any pads. Fact of the matter is these guys have big ass shoulders anyway, so maybe you just thought you saw pads. the rugby guys have wayy smaller builds than a lot of these football players. Exception being the All Blacks from New Zealand. (BIIIIIG maoris down there)
I'm sorry what?
BIIIIG maoris? Bro, it's prime southern Pakeha Beef like Hayman that make the All Blacks HUUUUGE.
Also, I had a feeling that South African and English scrums were heavier on average than Kiwi ones.
In yank footy when you get tackled with the ball in your hands that is a down. I dont know what you mean by "properly".
In rugby you need to bring the opposing player to a complete stop, in your videos they were just throwing their opponents to the ground and walking away, if that happened in rugby it wouldn't count towards one of your 6 and play would continue as if nothing happened. That's why you see 2 or 3 players, if not more tackling the one guy in rugby. Notice in rugby videos, the tackle is held until the person being tackled can't move any more.
AlexanderSextus
08-29-2009, 02:05
I'm sorry what?
BIIIIG maoris? Bro, it's prime southern Pakeha Beef like Hayman that make the All Blacks HUUUUGE.
Also, I had a feeling that South African and English scrums were heavier on average than Kiwi ones.
Either way those New Zealand ruggers would look pretty damn close to the size of guys on the, say Dallas Cowboys or something. Like i said, Exception. I'll maybe give you S. Africa too.
AlexanderSextus
08-29-2009, 02:10
In rugby you need to bring the opposing player to a complete stop, in your videos they were just throwing their opponents to the ground and walking away, if that happened in rugby it wouldn't count towards one of your 6 and play would continue as if nothing happened. That's why you see 2 or 3 players, if not more tackling the one guy in rugby. Notice in rugby videos, the tackle is held until the person being tackled can't move any more.
I didnt say the rules are the same.
I just think that without pads it's close enough to rugby that maybe a brit might want to play it........
Strike For The South
08-29-2009, 02:15
Without pads it's not really football. the way you are tuaght to hit in football requires the pads. Padless football is more like Rugby with the forward pass.
AlexanderSextus
08-29-2009, 03:43
Without pads it's not really football. the way you are tuaght to hit in football requires the pads. Padless football is more like Rugby with the forward pass.
the hit is still more of a football hit than a rugby tackle.
pevergreen
08-29-2009, 04:08
Its not just League, Union has some big ones. not as many. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvA79_K3AcM little bloke (5 and a half feet?) but jeez.
But theres some big aussies.
Willie Mason, Sonny Bill, Webcke, tallis, Petro etc etc
And dont forget the Gillmeister!
Louis VI the Fat
08-29-2009, 16:45
:stunned: *Wakes up. Has lunch. Worships Moros some more*
Louis VI the Fat
08-29-2009, 17:41
I say the pads are necessary in American Football because you people can't afford decent healthcare...
Football players are bigger and heavier because it is a different sport. Rugby and American rugby require different skills and body masses. What works in one, doesn't necessarily work in the other. Rugby players run, stop and sprint much more. Carrying too much beef around can be detrimental. Whereas football is more run-collide-commercial break.
Consider too, that neither rugby nor football players could bring down a sumo-wrestler. Even so, a sumo-wrestler would be useless in either sport.
rugby guys have wayy smaller builds than a lot of these football players. Exception being the All Blacks from New Zealand. (BIIIIIG maoris down there)The All-Blacks, dressed in Mostly-Grey here, being stared down by Chabal and company, shortly before they barely made it out of Paris alive:
https://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7739/hakadiaporama.jpg
Sasaki Kojiro
08-29-2009, 18:15
Football players are bigger and heavier because it is a different sport. Rugby and American rugby require different skills and body masses. What works in one, doesn't necessarily work in the other. Rugby players run, stop and sprint much more. Carrying too much beef around can be detrimental. Whereas football is more run-collide-commercial break.
Consider too, that neither rugby nor football players could bring down a sumo-wrestler. Even so, a sumo-wrestler would be useless in either sport.
Football is almost all sprinting...
They do say that usain bolt would have a 3.7 40.
Football is almost all sprinting...
They do say that usain bolt would have a 3.7 40.
Rugby a more dynamic game than gridiron, I'm not sure about union, but in league the players are almost constantly running, the only time they get a break is when some scores a try and they wait for the conversion, or if someone gets a serious injury. Even a tackle doesn't slow down the game, since the aim is to keep the ball moving they basically jump straight back up and get the ball moving again. In a match where only one or two tries are scored, the players could be running for 70 of the 80minutes.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in american football don't you guys stop and set up your formations again after each tackle? I also think the guys are bigger in american football because they have specific roles that they stick to throughout the whole game, but in league, due to it's dynamic nature, every player needs to be good at every role on the field.
I think the games are just too different to be compared properly, american football is all about tactics and setting up your formations, and rugby is all about instinct and reacting to situations as they arise, nothing is really planned more than about 30seconds ahead.
Oh, and what's a 3.7 40?
Sasaki Kojiro
08-29-2009, 22:25
Rugby a more dynamic game than gridiron, I'm not sure about union, but in league the players are almost constantly running, the only time they get a break is when some scores a try and they wait for the conversion, or if someone gets a serious injury. Even a tackle doesn't slow down the game, since the aim is to keep the ball moving they basically jump straight back up and get the ball moving again. In a match where only one or two tries are scored, the players could be running for 70 of the 80minutes.
More of an endurance sport for sure, and it's nice to watch rugby and soccer for the constant back and forth action. But when you watch soccer, you like the tension and suspense before a penalty kick, corner kick etc right? That's more like american football. Of course if you don't care about the teams it's just boring, lol.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in american football don't you guys stop and set up your formations again after each tackle? I also think the guys are bigger in american football because they have specific roles that they stick to throughout the whole game, but in league, due to it's dynamic nature, every player needs to be good at every role on the field.
Well, tackles can easily be 350, linebackers 250, quarterbacks 220, wide receivers and running backs 180 (for the light and speedy ones I guess). Most good players are capable of playing the different positions decently they just aren't good enough because you have to specialize. Ocho Cinco had a pretty nice extra point kick :beam:
I think the games are just too different to be compared properly, american football is all about tactics and setting up your formations, and rugby is all about instinct and reacting to situations as they arise, nothing is really planned more than about 30seconds ahead.
Oh, and what's a 3.7 40?
Well, things don't usually go as planned. The running back has to pick his hole, the qb has to react to the blitz and pick his reciever etc.
40 yards in 3.7 seconds.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-30-2009, 03:10
Non-americans make fun of nfl players for wearing pads just because we make fun of soccer players for taking dives...just a bit of rivalry, nothing serious.
I'd say diving is actually a fairly justified accusation, at least for certain players. The main case in point at the moment is the Portugese national squad, which can be blown six miles away from the pitch by a moderate wind.
Meneldil
08-30-2009, 10:06
Either way those New Zealand ruggers would look pretty damn close to the size of guys on the, say Dallas Cowboys or something. Like i said, Exception. I'll maybe give you S. Africa too.
Pretty much all good teams weighted more than the All Black pack during the last World Cup IIRC.
Hosakawa Tito
08-30-2009, 14:42
In American football the ball carrier is down and the play is over once one of his knees touch the ground after he makes contact with a defensive player.
The tackling techniques for both are much the same. Lower the shoulder *not the head*, run through the ball carrier keep those legs driving, wrap them up with both arms. The key is making first contact and hitting lower than the ball carrier.
The helmet & face mask make it possible to deliver particularly punishing blows because the tackler's face is protected by the cage and the helmet becomes a weapon in itself. The rules have changed since I played as a kid, but back in the day we were taught to stick our face mask *not the top of the helmet* into the ball carrier's numbers, with legs driving & running through the tackle, and finish him off by landing on top of him driving him into the ground.
Anyone who thinks pads & helmets means no pain :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: obviously has never played the game. suit up and let's rock, cupcake.
A video for your perusal. (http://www.kewego.co.uk/video/iLyROoaftV5g.html)
AlexanderSextus
08-31-2009, 14:13
Gah, chabal eats those guys for breakfast!
Lets see Chabal Play some American Football then.
AlexanderSextus
08-31-2009, 14:17
Does Rugby have the "WUUUUUP!"?
American Football is cooler IMO because we have the "WUUUUUP!"
:clown:
AlexanderSextus
08-31-2009, 14:24
Imagine you're an American QB. You receive the play in the huddle, come up to the line, make several adjustments according to what set the defense chooses. When the ball is snapped, you have anywhere from 3 to five eligible receivers all running different patterns, and adjusting their patterns in mid route according to how the defensive backs and linebackers react. O, u have about 2.5 seconds to read through all these progressions before 1,000 lbs of D-linemen crush u into dust.
That is just as difficult as rugby, IMO.
Louis VI the Fat
08-31-2009, 16:08
In American football the ball carrier is down and the play is over once one of his knees touch the ground after he makes contact with a defensive player.
A video for your perusal. (http://www.kewego.co.uk/video/iLyROoaftV5g.html)Fun video.
Until just now, I didn't know that in American Football the goal is not to bury a player, but simply to tip him off balance. That makes Football a fine high school introduction version of rugger then. :2thumbsup:
Meanwhile, Chabal teaching the wimpy Yanks how to stay on their feet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9N831lUbiU
Chabal delivering a bone-crunching tackle on les anglais:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEt-BThDUBs&feature=related
Strike For The South
08-31-2009, 17:07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9jgP1brUn8 You simply don't get these kind of hits in rugby
Lets see Chabal Play some American Football then.
Chabal weighs about 265 lbs, which is probably about as big as a rugby player can get and still have the conditioning necessary to play a full game. For pro football, he would be a little big to be a linebacker, and not quite big enough to be on the O or D lines (maybe as an edge DE rusher). Best fit might be a tight end.
They are two different games, with two different styles of play. The biggest rugby players would be too small for the lines in football, while the biggest linemen would have a heart attack trying to play rugby. Both games require toughness, but the rule sets affect the size of players and manner of play. Football requires more planning and strategy beforehand, with on-field execution. Rugby is more free-flowing, the players think on their feet, and the lack of Cialis ads after every 5 plays is a definite plus.
Don't football/rugby threads usually end up generating warning points? :smash:
Don't football/rugby threads usually end up generating warning points? :smash:
First we need the flame war. Wait, I'll start it!
Watch your language!
Last edited by Lemur; Today at 01:20
Centurion1
09-01-2009, 01:20
Football is still a very dangerous sport even with "pads". Thanks to pads i broke my leg when i was 15 when a helmet hit me in the tibia and snapped it in half. I took myself off the field, *had to add in a manly statement it was more like dragging myself.*
Owen Glyndwr
09-04-2009, 07:52
I've never watched too much rygbi (hehe), but seeing a QB get sacked has got to be one of the most painful looking things allowed on television. I mean you can really see his body getting contorted, and you can hear his bones crunching. It's outrageous! I mean, compared to the D-Lineman, the QB looks like a 9 year old getting mauled by a bear! :laugh4:
However, I prefer football (soccer) myself. I just find it to be one of the most nerve-wracking, downright exciting sports in the world. I can't wait for the next world cup!! :2thumbsup:
Oh, and then baseball. I'm a big baseball fan too.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.