COMMENTS:
maybe they do that in american football... but rugby is different. theres no gayness in it.
by SeaN on Wed Jan 14, 04 10:19am
[+]
It's obvious you've never played American football and that you don't understand the physics of the game (Rugby doesn't have the forward pass). Go try it and then get back to us. Also, are you saying that ice hockey players are fags too because they wear pads?
America had Rugby teams to retards! Its just that know one watches it, because it's a faggit English game.
The author of this ballot is speaking of two different sports and should get his facts correctly before he embarrassess himself again.
Hyacinth, is your name pronounced "Bouquet?"
American football isn't rugby + pads. The game has significant differences. Rugby is small-scale with offenses drives consisting only of runs and some sweep passes. The players are already bunched up and tackling is about dragging people down.
American football has the forward pass and a much more open field of play. Nothing in rugby compared to getting nailed by 2 safeties sprinting toward you as you catch a ball 11 feet in the air over the middle of the field.
Would a guy without a helmet in rugby be really prone to giving you a head-to-head tackle? No. But people wearing a helmet will gladly do so. Wearing equipment allows people to be more aggressive.
Yes, American football has -optional- short intervals between plays so teams can make personnel changes and develop strategy. Unlike sports where all the players are similar, having a set with 5 wideouts is significantly different than one with 2 TEs, 2 WRs, and a fullback.
Ha, they are fucking pussies who have to wear it. Fucking gay americans
I enjoy both games, regardless of how the players are padded. How bizarre.
England, how is that funny? None of America's top athletes enter Rugby. We don't care.
Rugby is much tougher and if it became a professional sport in this country, we would be flooded with lawsuits and players would probably bring hidden weapons. Football players are engineered to be goliath brutes in which one injury can end their career prematurely. Most would be injured in a rugby match of their peers. Salaries would increase astronomically and there would probably be protests against the sport from weak spectators.
British rugby is tough and would never catch on professionally in this country.
Now come on whos harder 'The Miami DOLPHINS' or 'leicester TIGERS'. I think we know.
Unlike American football, most rugby players play the whole game, continuously. We dont need no 5 min break every 30 seconds, or a separate team to do a fuckin field kick!
Seems that American football players can only handle one skill each. Rugby players can play the whole game!
Guest_0fad4, I take it you have never seen a rugby match?
We have brains, dolt, thus we realize that getting injured for life isn't a cup of tea. Id rather wear pads and have a successful, high-paid career than be "macho" in a wheelchair.
Two Prime motivations for wearing pads in American football: 1) To deal with greater forces of impact from higher velocity contact, and 2) so companies producing pads and such make a lot of money.
^Has it occured to you that American footballers wouldn't bash into each other anywhere near as hard if they didn't have the protection? They'd change the rules to make it safer mate.
It's a lot more sanitized and less intense than rugby anyway. Rugby's a constant war of attrition and the injuries compared to American football are horrendous.
I remember watching my England play in the world cup three years ago and one of our guys was walking around with a fucking hole in his head - STILL playing as if nothing had happened!
Talk of Americans not being man enough to play rugby is, of course, nonsense. The Americans generally are a courageous race who have a certain amount of self-belief about them. Rugby is much tougher though.
|
