4 ms·

The NFL isn't a 10 years old league, there's plenty of players who passed away. If anything there would be more examples since equipment was worse before and th

The NFL isn't a 10 years old league, there's plenty of players who passed away. If anything there would be more examples since equipment was worse before and there were less rules that protected players, especially top/crown helmet leading tackles which started getting penalized with 15yd only in 2013.

hervature 9y ago
I think the prevalence of concussions in football compared to rugby is proof that "better equipment" doesn't prevent concussions. It has the paradoxical effect of causing them. Better shoulder pads allow for people to launch their bodies without fear of separating their shoulders. Conversely, helmets are not designed to protect the brain, only to prevent skull fractures. Thus, I don't think your argument holds water.
- danso 9y ago
  Similar to how boxing gloves don't protect the punched as much as it allows the puncher to go full throttle without fear of breaking their hands: https://www.economist.com/news/international/21639765-bare-knuckle-fights-would-break-more-hands-fewer-heads-hang-up-boxing-gloves https://www.economist.com/news/international/21639765-bare-k...
  - lobf 9y ago
    Same with headgear- it's there to prevent cuts, not to cushion blows, but some people feel safer wearing headgear to spar in boxing. In my experience it makes my head a larger target than I'm used to, plus it affects my peripheral vision, making me take more shots to the head than I would have otherwise. Plus, put on some headgear, let me punch you, and tell me how cushioned you felt.
    - tnecniv 9y ago
      Won't the headgear just make your head a larger target to glancing blows, not the big direct hits? Also, the worst part of the headgear, in my opinion, is I find it way harder to breath when it's on and I can confirm that I've felt punch drunk up to an hour or two after catching a bad direct hit while sparing with headgear.
- FanaHOVA 9y ago
  You are right about the equipment (even though obviously only concussion vs concussion + skull fracture is a step forward!), but the difference between football and rugby goes way beyond the equipment. In the former there's no lateral passing, which means that the ball carrier will always be a target for the whole defense. In rugby you can pass the ball, which makes the defense spread wider and doesn't allow them to overcommit to a single player/tackle.
  - treehau5 9y ago
    Precisely. In rugby, it is much more stressed and emphasized to make secure tackles. In football, at any given point and time there is one person with virtually a huge bullseye on them and it is sometimes a valid tactic to lay down a more punishing hit (cause a fumble, make a statement, scare your opponent to make a mistake or drop the ball next time, etc) at the expensive of not making a "secure, form tackle" Ironically, if I am remembering correctly, the Seahawks and coach Pete Carroll teach more of a "rugby" style tackle, and that's why they consistently have one of the best tackling defenses.
    - jpindar 9y ago
      Indeed they do: http://www.seahawks.com/video/2015/06/11/2015-seahawks-tackling http://www.seahawks.com/video/2015/06/11/2015-seahawks-tackl...
    - kendallpark 9y ago
      I've played both sports, can verify this is 100% correct. Couple other notes. Football is a game of inches. There is huge incentive to slam someone as hard as you can to stop their forward progress and ultimately deny the first down. There's incentive for the ball carrier fight for the inches and "fall forward" (which makes your head more vulnerable). In rugby you don't care about fighting for the inches and hell, your teammates will shove you down once they're set up to ruck over you. Fighting for inches in rugby is a quick way to start a maul and nobody wants a maul. Furthermore, football is played with greater momentum (mass * velocity). Those breaks between plays equates to six seconds of full blown sprinting followed by forty seconds of rest. In rugby you're running about constantly so you simply don't have the energy most of the time for those massive hits. As for the mass side of the equation, football players are on average bigger than ruggers. People think rugby is so hardcore for playing without pads (and it still is) but the hardest hits I ever took were in football (and I played defense, for goodness sakes). This is the consensus between everyone I've met that's played both. You can play multiple rugby games in a weekend (happens all the time at fests) but more than one football game a week is unsustainable.
- will_brown 9y ago
  Its not the equipment thats the difference, its the rules, even the craziest/biggest rugby player couldnt "hit" (launching shoulder first from your comment) like they do in football, because its illegal, they must make wrapping tackles according to the rules. These can still be devestating tackles but nothing like the impact in football tackles, especially when players are prone to hits without seeing them. Also you dont have these monsters continually running full speed and colliding to make blocks because blocking is also illegal in rugby.
- djohnston 9y ago
  I would be careful here. The prevalence of CTE in former rugby players is unknown but there have been documented cases. This is all pretty new ground and we may be surprised to find that rugby poses similarly unconscionable risks.

hervature 9y ago

I think the prevalence of concussions in football compared to rugby is proof that "better equipment" doesn't prevent concussions. It has the paradoxical effect of causing them. Better shoulder pads allow for people to launch their bodies without fear of separating their shoulders. Conversely, helmets are not designed to protect the brain, only to prevent skull fractures. Thus, I don't think your argument holds water.

danso 9y ago
Similar to how boxing gloves don't protect the punched as much as it allows the puncher to go full throttle without fear of breaking their hands: https://www.economist.com/news/international/21639765-bare-knuckle-fights-would-break-more-hands-fewer-heads-hang-up-boxing-gloves https://www.economist.com/news/international/21639765-bare-k...
- lobf 9y ago
  Same with headgear- it's there to prevent cuts, not to cushion blows, but some people feel safer wearing headgear to spar in boxing. In my experience it makes my head a larger target than I'm used to, plus it affects my peripheral vision, making me take more shots to the head than I would have otherwise. Plus, put on some headgear, let me punch you, and tell me how cushioned you felt.
  - tnecniv 9y ago
    Won't the headgear just make your head a larger target to glancing blows, not the big direct hits? Also, the worst part of the headgear, in my opinion, is I find it way harder to breath when it's on and I can confirm that I've felt punch drunk up to an hour or two after catching a bad direct hit while sparing with headgear.
FanaHOVA 9y ago
You are right about the equipment (even though obviously only concussion vs concussion + skull fracture is a step forward!), but the difference between football and rugby goes way beyond the equipment. In the former there's no lateral passing, which means that the ball carrier will always be a target for the whole defense. In rugby you can pass the ball, which makes the defense spread wider and doesn't allow them to overcommit to a single player/tackle.
- treehau5 9y ago
  Precisely. In rugby, it is much more stressed and emphasized to make secure tackles. In football, at any given point and time there is one person with virtually a huge bullseye on them and it is sometimes a valid tactic to lay down a more punishing hit (cause a fumble, make a statement, scare your opponent to make a mistake or drop the ball next time, etc) at the expensive of not making a "secure, form tackle" Ironically, if I am remembering correctly, the Seahawks and coach Pete Carroll teach more of a "rugby" style tackle, and that's why they consistently have one of the best tackling defenses.
  - jpindar 9y ago
    Indeed they do: http://www.seahawks.com/video/2015/06/11/2015-seahawks-tackling http://www.seahawks.com/video/2015/06/11/2015-seahawks-tackl...
  - kendallpark 9y ago
    I've played both sports, can verify this is 100% correct. Couple other notes. Football is a game of inches. There is huge incentive to slam someone as hard as you can to stop their forward progress and ultimately deny the first down. There's incentive for the ball carrier fight for the inches and "fall forward" (which makes your head more vulnerable). In rugby you don't care about fighting for the inches and hell, your teammates will shove you down once they're set up to ruck over you. Fighting for inches in rugby is a quick way to start a maul and nobody wants a maul. Furthermore, football is played with greater momentum (mass * velocity). Those breaks between plays equates to six seconds of full blown sprinting followed by forty seconds of rest. In rugby you're running about constantly so you simply don't have the energy most of the time for those massive hits. As for the mass side of the equation, football players are on average bigger than ruggers. People think rugby is so hardcore for playing without pads (and it still is) but the hardest hits I ever took were in football (and I played defense, for goodness sakes). This is the consensus between everyone I've met that's played both. You can play multiple rugby games in a weekend (happens all the time at fests) but more than one football game a week is unsustainable.
will_brown 9y ago
Its not the equipment thats the difference, its the rules, even the craziest/biggest rugby player couldnt "hit" (launching shoulder first from your comment) like they do in football, because its illegal, they must make wrapping tackles according to the rules. These can still be devestating tackles but nothing like the impact in football tackles, especially when players are prone to hits without seeing them. Also you dont have these monsters continually running full speed and colliding to make blocks because blocking is also illegal in rugby.
djohnston 9y ago
I would be careful here. The prevalence of CTE in former rugby players is unknown but there have been documented cases. This is all pretty new ground and we may be surprised to find that rugby poses similarly unconscionable risks.