Rugby vs NFL
-
-
@shark said in Rugby vs NFL:
My biggest takeaway from yesterday - and it was quite deflating - was the lack of elation at the end from the TB players, and lack of emotion from the commentators. It could have been any old one-sided regular season game.
who did you guys get as Commentators? We had an Australian specific feed, Griese i think and some other dude. And they suuuuuucked. What i would have given to hear Romo picking that game apart, let alone my boy Collinsworth
I think these seasons and games with no fans are making it feel a little unreal to the players. Even yesterday with 25,000 there.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
It's not like everyone here hasn't read my rants against modern rugby over and over again. Test rugby is a bit shit IMO. And in the interests of player safety we are making it worse.
I think that we are all aware of your views about rugby. Agree with your last comment but it isn't like the NFL doesn't have issues, in fact they started it. They might have to make some changes too due to CTE, but that is yet to come.
-
@Snowy I'm not saying they don't. I'm also not really making a comparison over which is better. Rugby has some structural issues that the NFL doesn't have. The NFL has some structural issues that rugby doesn't have. They are very very different games. And i love both of them.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
who did you guys get as Commentators? We had an Australian specific feed, Griese i think and some other dude. And they suuuuuucked.
We also got the ESPN commentators, the main guy was Steve Levy, who I associate more with NHL. They seemed to want to throw in as many shoutouts to Aust as possible.
CBS had the US broadcasting rights.
-
@Bovidae said in Rugby vs NFL:
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
who did you guys get as Commentators? We had an Australian specific feed, Griese i think and some other dude. And they suuuuuucked.
We also got the ESPN commentators, the main guy was Steve Levy, who I associate more with NHL. They seemed to want to throw in as many shoutouts to Aust as possible.
CBS had the US broadcasting rights.
Oh!! I thought it was really weird when he mentioned that the Aus/India cricket rivalry is nothing to the rivalry on show.
-
The NFL has plenty of issues with penalties. Only a couple of years since the infamous non-call when the Vikings beat the saints. Then a period of experimentation with allowing coaches to challenge pass interference calls, which revealed that the league really struggled to consistently define what interference is.
The catch rule is also a bit of a dogs breakfast, particularly around the goal line where the determination of whether it was a catch and the player was now a runner can be the difference between getting another go at a play and the ball being turned over and the opposition getting to start at the 25.
The NFL is generally incredibly reactive on rules changes. Until there's a controversy in a play off game they'll generally ignore rules problems. When they fix them they often are focused on what the specific controversy was rather than making a good rule. The catch rule is again an example of this where you can basically track each change against a controversial call.
The difference with rugby might be that the overall trend in the NFL is offence friendly. For example, defensive pass interference calls are much more frequent than in the past, making it much harder for defenders to really close down receivers. In contrast, rugby seems to be going the other way where defence is dominant, probably more down to increased fitness and defensive system planning than rule changes. That means NFL tends towards shoot outs with high tempo offences and defensive schemes built around getting to the qb, whereas rugby tends to be more attritional with a focus on strong defending and gradually wearing down the opposition defence.
-
professional sports' biggest problem is that coaches get paid to win, but the game gets paid by people watching. And what is good for one, is not good for the other in a lot of ways/sports.
-
I don't watch NFL a lot, so maybe wrong, but in point 3 on game speed you say
'Ask yourself this ... would you rather 2-3 mins of no play at all whilst players move / things setup, or 2-3 mins of scrum resets etc? '
Isn't the point that in NFL the 2-3 minutes happens every 2-5 minutes, and in rugby although scrums are a problem, there are very few in comparison to a stoppage and reset on every tackle/fumble?
I get that you enjoy NFL, and don't have a problem, but to have a player who has a job of just coming on to kick the ball, or be in defence when they on own line etc, but apart from that seemingly not part of game kind of ruins it for me. Like I say I not knocking NFL, just explaining one of biggest differences to me and why perhaps I can't see how it a better game. -
-
@nzzp no argument there mate, I don't watch much of it for the reasons I gave. If your only job is to kick, or receive kicks etc, you should be bloody awesome at it. Like I say, not for me , I like my players t be little multi skilled. I not arguing what is best mate, just how I see it.
-
Hi Dan - good comments. The idea of the write up was more to talk about the changes & draw some parallels between the two games. Here's my thoughts.
@Dan54 said in Rugby vs NFL:
I don't watch NFL a lot, so maybe wrong, but in point 3 on game speed you say
'Ask yourself this ... would you rather 2-3 mins of no play at all whilst players move / things setup, or 2-3 mins of scrum resets etc? '
Isn't the point that in NFL the 2-3 minutes happens every 2-5 minutes, and in rugby although scrums are a problem, there are very few in comparison to a stoppage and reset on every tackle/fumble?Correct. However, the time taken for a game of rugby now is not far off 2 hours. And it's not getting any shorter. Injuries account for a lot (and this is only getting worse as players get bigger), but the time taken in scrums is often ludicrous. NFL downtime is strictly enforced and you know what you are getting. I.e - you know you have 2 mins. In rugby, you can sit and watch 5 mins of action where nothing real happens.
I get that you enjoy NFL, and don't have a problem, but to have a player who has a job of just coming on to kick the ball, or be in defence when they on own line etc, but apart from that seemingly not part of game kind of ruins it for me. Like I say I not knocking NFL, just explaining one of biggest differences to me and why perhaps I can't see how it a better game.
I hadn't watched it in years and I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. The reasons I enjoyed it, are similar to the reasons my enjoyment of rugby has dipped. Ultimately we watch professional sport because we want to watch the best. NFL you certainly feel like you are watching the best. Modern rugby, it feels like you are watching the biggest.
-
A rugby game is around 2 hours for 80 minutes plus half time. An nfl game is around 4 hours for 60 minutes of play.
Not much comparison there in terms of time wastage. I'm a big nfl fan and enjoy watching it, but the breaks are painful and I generally need to have something to do. A favourite way of mine to watch is streaming on one monitor with something else on the second (often social media or forums coveringthe game) .
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@nzzp no argument there mate, I don't watch much of it for the reasons I gave. If your only job is to kick, or receive kicks etc, you should be bloody awesome at it. Like I say, not for me , I like my players t be little multi skilled. I not arguing what is best mate, just how I see it.
Sorry, was on my phone before, and wanted to get a more substantial answer to you later. American Football is a bit of an a acquired taste. I've really got into it, and a good game is an absolute cracker. What's interesting about the clocks is that the drives (when they happen) are intense and don't have many stoppages. You tend to get 10-15 seconds action, then a 25-30 second break to reset, and then go again. What makes it good is that it's like cricket - there is time between the plays to scheme up something offensively or defensively.
In terms of specialisation, it's strong. They have specialist coaches for each position, and body shapes and sizes generally optimise for the specific activities. Again - there's a fair bit of nuance in it that makes it interesting.
I love it because it's apex sport. There's so much money in it that there are few barriers to analysis, conditioning and prep ... and yet some teams and coaches transcend that and change things so massively.
Personally, I watch on replay so that I don't have to sit through breaks and stoppages. THat works in NZ as it's Mon/Tue/Fri afternoon games.
Try again sometime if you like; it's good fun, with good storlyines and massive media interest out of the US
-
@majorrage hi major, well now I back home in NZ and retired, got more time perhaps I will in future try to watch a bit more. I do enjoy a lot of sport when I give it a go, so why not. Another thing sometimes sports I compare to rugby, and I shouldn't when they different as NFL, I can't watch League because I realise it came from rugby, and quite similar, so the things I dislike are amplified. And I do find I can enjoy NBA at times, so why not?
-
-
@dan54 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@nzzp Great suggestion mate, I will try watching replays etc to see if I get the swing of it a bit more, hell who knows we might even start picking our own teams to support etc on this forum.
it's really fun.
That said, like bad league/rugby, there can be some absolute stinkers.
I've really enjoyed watchign NCAA as well - the college level, with amateurs. It's offense driven, and there isn't the same sophistication or cynicism in teh defence. Still a very very high level to watch, and amazing crowds (80,000 is common).
see you in the NFL thread soon sometime
