Rugby vs NFL
-
The fatigue factor is one thing, and you could argue the NFL doesn't suffer from it (though a lot of guys play a lot of downs in a game, especially linebackers).
The NFL also has a 3D field to play in. you can spread an 11-man defense because you can run or you can pass. There is more field to cover
Rugby all you have to cover is one dimension, across.
-
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
I enjoy the action, the athletic ability, and the coverage, I used to go to college football games for the atmosphere, when I lived in the US, but I just find it way too slow with all the stoppages.
I went to a few college games as well. A televised game becomes so much longer will all the ad stoppages.
The amazing stat is that less than 5% of D1 college football players are drafted and even less make it to the NFL.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
The NFL also has a 3D field to play in. you can spread an 11-man defense because you can run or you can pass. There is more field to cover
Rugby all you have to cover is one dimension, across.Not quite getting your point there?
The NFL is 2d unless they can fly. I suppose you could include the aerial game, but rugby has that too. You can also go forward in rugby, not just across, you just have to kick it instead of throw / pass it. -
@Snowy yeah the wording is a bit fuzzy but
they are not really the same. In rugby if you want to go aerial, the guy has to be behind you to start with. In NFL he gets that headstart to you have guys all around the field to cover.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Snowy yeah the wording is a bit fuzzy but
they are not really the same. In rugby if you want to go aerial, the guy has to be behind you to start with. In NFL he gets that headstart to you have guys all around the field to cover.
Right, with you.
Could counter that the headstart is negated by possibly getting taken out before you even get to the ball. I like them both, they're just different games. -
@Snowy i do to. But this is a discussion around the differences.
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.
-
-
@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) .
