7 ms·
from my understanding of rugby, another big difference is rules regarding how a team keeps possession of the ball. In rugby (to the best of my knowledge) it's
by bps4484 15y ago
from my understanding of rugby, another big difference is rules regarding how a team keeps possession of the ball. In rugby (to the best of my knowledge) it's important to fall properly so that your team can ruck over you and keep possession. There is little to no incentive to try to ram forward at full speed, especially if it means falling improperly, which would just lead to a turnover.
In football it's the opposite, every yard is fought for because the team maintains possession after being tackled, and the way you keep possession long term is by moving 10 yards in 4 downs.
In rugby this means 2 players slamming directly into each other at full speed happens very rarely, while in football it happens all the time, and is in fact practiced.
- philwelch 15y agoIn football, if you don't fall on the ball properly, you might fumble it and turn over possession prematurely. It's not exactly the same but more similar than you're making it seem.
- bps4484 15y agoreally? I played running back for 5 years (through high school), and the only thing they taught us about falling was to fall forward. The moment your knee, hip/butt, or elbow hits the ground the play is over, so you don't have much to worry about.
- philwelch 15y agoI'm just judging from NFL commentary, since they always criticize the running back for not protecting the ball when they fumble it.
- bps4484 15y agoprotecting the ball is different than how you fall. Protecting the ball is practiced, and there are fundamentals for it (covering both tips of the ball, pressing the ball tight to your body, putting 2 hands on the ball in traffic, and transferring the ball from one hand to the other safely), so commentators are correct to judge a player for not protecting the ball properly.