9 ms·

Speaking as someone from a rugby-playing nation, where mostly players wear no protection except mouthguards and shin pads, American Football is spectacular but

• alistairSH 9y ago
  The other difference is rugby limits the contact to the guy carrying the ball to a greater degree than American football. In the US version, the majority of players on the field will have contact on the majority of plays.
  • wavefunction 9y ago
    Also, I don't see too many 350lb corn-fed rugby players when I've watched compared to American football.
    • ghaff 9y ago
      No. But they are getting bigger which is a cause for concern with respect to injuries.
    • djKianoosh 9y ago
      You're looking at the evolution of the sport because of the equipment. If the players didnt wear so much protective gear they wouldnt have to be so big and fast and powerful, as described a few comments above. That said they cant all of a sudden change the gear but they can evolve the rules to adapt.
      • mcculley 9y ago
        Why wouldn't they be able to change the gear?
        • bluesroo 9y ago
          I'm not well-versed on the topic, but I'd guess that an abrupt change in protection could lead to more injuries in the short-term.
          • mcculley 9y ago
            Ah. That's a good point. I know nothing about football. I just assumed that they could make changes if motivated given the enormous amount of money it generates.
            • emodendroket 9y ago
              Changes are made regularly, often to encourage player safety. But I think you can only make a game so safe when it's predicated on tackling people.
      • Bud 9y ago
        This is incorrect. Football players actually wear substantially LESS padding now than in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Just go look at the pads from those eras. Players are bigger, faster, and more powerful because that makes them better players. Not because equipment has evolved. It's the training of the athletes that has evolved.
        • alistairSH 9y ago
          Do they wear less protective gear, or is the gear just less bulky due to improvements in design?
      • NoPiece 9y ago
        You are right that it is the evolution of the sport, but I think it is driven by the increasing value (Billions of dollars at stake), more than the equipment.
    • desireco42 9y ago
      There are some but in sport agility is super important and technique as well. Mass helps but not as much as good tehnique.
    • rodgerd 9y ago
      That's because the biggest American football players, while having wonderful explosive power, would likely struggle with the endurance requirements of rugby.
  • ovulator 9y ago
    Rugby has the same problem with big hits and concussions occurring during them as American Football, but you are right in that it is illegal to block players without the ball in rugby and that is a pivotal part of American Football. In fact the disease most discussed and studied has been Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE. The position most likely (nearly 50%) to be affected are the linemen[1], not the guys leveling or receiving the bone crushing hits, but the guys doing the hum drum blocking on every play. The positions reporting the most concussions though are the guys who are doing the hitting and being hit, the guys with the ball and tackling him[2]. But these guys get the big hits rarely as players are subbed in and out and the ball is given to different players all the time. If they get a concussion it is obvious and are usually pulled from the game. Linemen on the other hand, are consistently in every play, and are blocking on every single play. They may be getting minor concussions every play, but not something noticeable enough to be pulled from the game. [1]https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/07/25/boston-university-study-cte-nfl-player-brains https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/07/25/boston-university-study-ct... [2]http://apps.frontline.org/concussion-watch/#positions_2015 http://apps.frontline.org/concussion-watch/#positions_2015
    • alistairSH 9y ago
      Thanks for that additional detail - I hadn't realized the CTE was so heavily concentrated among the linemen, though it does make sense.
    • Pxtl 9y ago
      > In fact the disease most discussed and studied has been Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE. The position most likely (nearly 50%) to be affected are the linemen[1], not the guys leveling or receiving the bone crushing hits, but the guys doing the hum drum blocking on every play. This actually means there might be hope. The game could be modified to reduce the impact on the linemen. Reduce the distance the defense has to back off from the line of scrimmage, maybe even right down to zero or even a straight-up scrum. No lead-up to that first hit, they start out in contact. No lunge forward to close the gap between offence and defense. Same gameplay happens - two lines of men trying to break through/protect the QB, but without that initial impact because they're already in a wrestling position.
• komali2 9y ago
  This is how I feel about boxing vs MMA. Boxing gloves are huge and massively padded, meaning you take hit after hit after hit, bouncing your brain around like a ball. MMA gloves are only padded enough to maybe prevent you from breaking your knuckles, and maybe prevent your knuckles from breaking someone's jaw. If you threw the kind of punches people throw in boxing with MMA gloves on, you'd wreck your hands. That one is safer than the other has been discussed before: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mixed-martial-arts-safer-than-boxing-study_us_563ce23be4b0411d3070c8d6 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mixed-martial-arts-safer... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/science/which-is-more-dangerous-mma-or-boxing.html?mcubz=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/science/which-is-more-dan...
  • jklinger410 9y ago
    Every knockout is a concussion, and likely brain damage. It may be relatively safer than Boxing but you can't keep striking and knockouts and think it's too much better.
  • kasey_junk 9y ago
    The issue with those studies is that they don't really account for more modern views about brain injuries. We know that boxers suffer "serious" head trauma more frequently but lots of modern research suggests small repeated head trauma is as dangerous. Incidents of cte for instance in soccer maybe accounted for by heading drills. Which is why talks about concussions isn't enough. I'd still expect MMA to be safer in this regard than boxing but there is enough head banging events in things like gaurd practice that don't occur during normal boxing practice that I wouldn't be shocked to learn MMA has as serious a problem with CTE as boxing.
  • scott_s 9y ago
    > If you threw the kind of punches people throw in boxing with MMA gloves on, you'd wreck your hands. MMA fighters often wreck their hands during fights. They are in no way pulling their punches; they throw as hard as they can, just as boxers do. I find it plausible that MMA fights tend to end with less concussions and serious head trauma than boxing. But I doubt it's significantly safer. That ignores training, where fighters spend much more time, and still receive many, many sub-concussive hits. I have trained BJJ for over 13 years. During that time, I have also trained MMA. I have helped training partners for MMA matches. I have cornered training partners for MMA matches. I follow professional MMA. But I am finding myself more and more unable to justify even paying attention to it because of the evidence that even repeated sub-concussive hits cause brain damage.
• unethical_ban 9y ago
  Another reason rugby tackles are different: The goal is to stop the player. The difference between one meter and another is minimal. In football, inches matter for the downs. So the hits are blowouts to stop people as soon as possible.
  • lancewiggs 9y ago
    There are many many more tackles in rugby and the repeated inches do matter. Great defensive teams like the All Blacks fight for every inch.
    • mfringel 9y ago
      In rugby, except for a couple of lines on the field, one inch doesn't strictly matter more than another, within the bounds of the rules. In american football, one inch anywhere on the field can make the difference between four more downs or having to kick the ball away.
      • thesehands 9y ago
        Rugby also has the method of tackling baked into the rules. If you tried to tackle in rugby in the same way as a block in NFL you'd immediately be penalised and could see yourself off the field. A typical rugby tackle almost by its definition in the rules will cede a metre or so to the attacking player as they are brought down to set up the ruck. IIRC Pete Carroll of the seahawks has taken advice from rugby professionals to help the d with their method of tackling
        • jnordwick 9y ago
          Reference? I always like to see these cross pollination stories, but I need a source on this one. The rugby way of tackling is the same as the way you are taught in Pop Warner and the way you do angle tackle drills, I thought.
• Isamu 9y ago
  > Wearing protective helmets just ups the ante as players launch into each other with full force. Agreed, but funny thing is the protection has gradually developed over time to limit injury. American football used to be played with no protection, then with very limited protection, leather helmets, pads. Then hard helmets, armored pads. Etc. Kind of an arms race, as with increased protection, the hits keep getting harder. Unintended consequences of trying to reduce harm.
  • cavanasm 9y ago
    I'm not so sure about this. If you look historically, in game deaths seem very common in early football. As the game has gotten better pads, players have also been getting much MUCH bigger, which is increasing risk, but we haven't seen regular documented deaths during games like in the 1890s~1930s every few years. Now we get lots of deaths due to outside issues though (lots of car accidents and shootings on that list in recent years; lots of recent suicides on the NFL list just above too). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_players_who_died_during_their_careers#College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_play... EDIT: I realize we're talking long term vs short term, but I wasn't able to find pre-compiled data comparing timelines of major advances in football pads and injury rates.
  • amiramir 9y ago
    This phenomenon is known as Risk Compensation[1]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
  • mcguire 9y ago
    It's likely that protection has improved the situation. http://time.com/3387798/football-deaths/ http://time.com/3387798/football-deaths/ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E5DC143EE033A25752C2A9679D946897D6CF&legacy=true http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E5DC143EE...
  • QuotedForTruth 9y ago
    And people were dying before helmets. The differences in risk between Rugby and football are not because of helmets. Its an entirely different game. There is blocking in football whereas hitting in Rugby is mostly limited to the ball carrier. The flow of rugby is much more lateral than football where most players run right at each other.
• toss1 9y ago
  Interesting watching that video of rugby hits, noticing the legs. Perhaps it's just selection, but I'm wondering if it is rules requiring tackling above the waist, but it seems like every hit on that vid caused no leg injury; no knees got bend backwards, or jammed sideways, and they seemed to invariably fall with bent knees (which is protective as the leg can rotate with the force rather than tear ligaments). The hands, however, seemed to be often at risk. Is this the case? If so, was the rule ever changed for improved safety, or just ~always that way?
  • duncanawoods 9y ago
    Those are not very typical tackles. Tackling by controlling legs is common but not flashy high impact events and tend to allow the player to pass the ball mid-tackle. Legs generally seemed to sort themselves out in the normal case. Main risks I experienced as a tackler would be getting a boot to the face or shoulder impact. Main risk as a tacklee is what you land on - head, shoulders but you usually have quite a bit of control in the situation so its your responsibility to land safely and ensure you keep possession for the play to keep moving. A tackle is rarely surprising. Outcomes tend to be much worse for collisions with > 2 players when players are more likely to get inverted or things bent out of shape or landed on.
    • toss1 9y ago
      very informative - thx!
• emodendroket 9y ago
  They started using that stuff because people were sustaining spectacular injuries (like cracking their heads open). I'm not sure it is so simple.
  • mcguire 9y ago
    "The committee counted 49 deaths related to football in 1931--31 direct and 18 indirect. The only year on record between 1931 and 2013 with more direct fatalities was 1968 (36), but that year's indirect fatalities were lower (12) than 1931. Indirect fatalities were only equal or higher in 1933, 1935, 1936, 1961, 1965 and 2009. Only 1965 manages to tie 1931 for total deaths, leaving them sharing the title of deadliest year." http://time.com/3387798/football-deaths/ http://time.com/3387798/football-deaths/
• agumonkey 9y ago
  Reminds me of roads without trees on the side. People drive faster with guardrails and accident are as bad if not worse than before.
• amiramir 9y ago
  Rugby has also included head injury assessments (HIA) into its laws. They sports governing body introduced HIAs in 2012 and they have been getting more stringent over the years. At he elite level a player who is suspected of having taken a significant knock to the head can be substituted off the field for 10 minutes to be assessed by a doctor. The referee, assistant referees, sideline medics or the television match official can make the get the player off the field and to the medic. Players almost always want to play on after a knock so the decision is left to officials who may have seen or heard a head impact. If a player fails the assessment then they do not return to the field and further tests will be performed after the match. If the player passes then the substitution is reversed. If an incident is missed during a game then an assessment can be ordered after reviewing a recording of the game. The laws of rugby also include clauses about contact with the head, tipping a player onto their head, or knocking a jumping player in such a way as to make them land on their head. Rugby players are getting bigger and faster and the hits are getting commensurately more energetic. Rugby is trying to keep players safe. Whether these measures help remains to be seen but I think the governing bodies take player safety pretty seriously. One interesting stat that I heard is that one of the things that seems to be inversely correlated with head injury is neck strength so we may see more players training their already powerful necks.
  • ancientworldnow 9y ago
    The NFL actually has very similar rules involving suspected head injuries though in practice they seem arbitrarily enforced - especially if it involves a key player.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • girvo 9y ago
    Even at club rugby level all of the players do neck muscle training! Even back in 2008 they were. Rugby is still dangerous, of course, but the governing bodies do take safety pretty seriously and reasonably openly, at least compared to the NFL. Besides, I prefer watching a huge perfectly executed tackle in union than I do watching two people run into each other without even attempting to get arms around them to bring them to the ground (I have issues with Leagues shoulder charges for the same reason)
• geebee 9y ago
  Sounds like you know a bit about this - any chance you could weigh in on my question above? Does tackling serve a different strategic purpose in rugby vs American football (ie., not giving up an inch can be a big deal in US football), and could this also be partially responsible for the brain rattling quality of tackling?
  • abraae 9y ago
    Sounds plausible. In rugby a goal is to always keep the ball in possession. When you are tackled, you try and feed the ball back to your own side, who are (ideally) close behind you in support. So yeah - yardage gain is somewhat meaningless for its own sake in rugby, as long as you maintain possession. If you maintain possession, the other team can never score, and you eventually will. So the player's thoughts as they are tackled are less about preserving yardage and more about ensuring you'll end up in a position where you can feed the ball back to your teammates to maintain possession. Maybe that means less impact in the tackle.
    • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      >Maybe that means less impact in the tackle. In rugby if you run at someone they'll step sideways and you'll go past. In American football that I've seen they run right at each other, on purpose. You can't hammer straight at someone flat out and still be able to adjust your trajectory to account for a side-step. (Though Union is getting more like League now in the silly, endless, rucking which is TBH more like NFL). In NFL they have plays of average ~4s, adding up to ~11 minutes across a 3½hr game time with regular changes of players using a massive team [see my other post for source]. In Rugby Union (UK) it's longer plays adding up to 45 minutes of ball-in-play across 90 minutes game duration (80 + 10 mins of half-time) with 15 players on pitch per team and up to 8 subs. Bulk and running speed/stamina tend to oppose each other.
      • gbacon 9y ago
        In the open field, American football players will attempt to sidestep or “juke” defenders. Between the tackles and other close quarters situations, running “north and south” or “downhill” is the best strategy. From early ages, coaches will discourage running backs behind the line of scrimmage juking, stutter stepping, wiggling their heads, and otherwise not gaining yardage by shouting “Quit dancin’ and hit the hole!”
• briankelly 9y ago
  People always point to rugby when this topic comes up, but there is no conclusive evidence that it is any safer. In fact, this study found that the risk of concussion in rugby was far higher (4.13 concussions per 1,000 athletic exposure hours vs 0.53 for American football) by pooling data from 13 previous studies: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-concussion-youth-sports-idUSKBN0TZ2RE20151216 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-concussion-youth-sp... Of course there are always flaws, limitations, and contradictory evidence in these studies, but at least it is more worthwile than the eyeball test.
  • abraae 9y ago
    The key factor in that report though is that it concludes that "Concussion rates highest for kids in rugby, hockey and football". I'd guess its likely that American football as played in the NFL is a very different game to the one played by kids, and there might be virtually no correlation of actual risks. Rugby is also very different between kids and professionals of course - my 5 yr old plays ripper rugby which involves no contact tackling but instead ripping a velcro tag off the opposing player. Great fun to watch!
    • briankelly 9y ago
      Even if there is no correlation of risks between the youth and professional levels of play (and I don't doubt that), parents steering their kids towards away from rugby, hockey, and football will eventually hemorrhage market share for those professional leagues in favor of safer sports. We have flag football in the US for younger kids, sounds roughly analogous to ripper rugby.
      • jnordwick 9y ago
        There is also flag football for adults! They often have different leagues from no and partial contact up to 8-on-8 full contact (this is still flag and no tackle).
• elicash 9y ago
  This is why I don't put a cover on my iPhone. Never dropped it.
• jMyles 9y ago
  The same is true of MMA and hand-wraps. Ostensibly introduced to protect fighters' hands, they are actually just a threat to their heads.
• bad_hairpiece 9y ago
  Rugby is a contact sport; football is a collision sport.