Originally posted by Splinter
I’m sorry but I have friends who play both... and he will tell you they are both equally challenging in their separate areas. He will tell you that because of the lack of padding people DO hold back in rugby and that football players actually DO hit harder. He will tell you about how football is chess on a field and how comparing the two physically is pretty pointless. They are both extremely physically challenging in their own way and each in their own areas are harder then the other.
a) Padding. Padding. Padding. Padding.... Padding Padding. Why use it? What's the point?
I've never played in a rugby game where people held back, and that was at the lowest possible level (2nd row prop in school PE). Maybe your friend holds himself back in rugby because he doesn't have padding?
(there's not a scrum in American Football, is there? I rest my case if not....)
b) And this is the important point - It's not called football. You don't use your feet, for one thing (kicking doesn't count); if anything, it should be called american rugby. Do you have any idea how annoying it is going into a shoe store in America trying to get a proper set of cheap (exchange rate) boots, only to get given these steel-cleated monsters?
Poll
