6 ms·

It' interesting how American Football is perceived as more violent when Rugby exists and is a lot more brutal. Futból (in Spanish to distinguish it) in its simp

by hk1337 3y ago

It' interesting how American Football is perceived as more violent when Rugby exists and is a lot more brutal. Futból (in Spanish to distinguish it) in its simplest form seems non-violent but the players can be just as merciful and the fans just as bad.

taeric 3y ago
Is rugby more brutal? More kinetic, I easily agree with. Reading the data, it seems that concussions are indeed higher in rugby, such that that should be concerning. That said, the specialization allowed by American Football results in some people that can hit far harder than should be encouraged. Especially true in youth sports, in my mind, as growth just isn't even by age for people. At least in professional leagues you can somewhat control for that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- atourgates 3y ago
  I subscribe to the perspective that brain injuries are the injuries that matter most in sports, so that's what I focus on in the "what's more dangerous" question. I had believed that rugby carried a lower concussion risk because of the lack of padding/helmets changed player behavior, but it looks like that's not the case. This[1] is one of the best analysis/discussions I found. It references this[2] 2021 meta-analysis as the most expansive. A few key quotes: > This meta-analysis demonstrated rugby has the highest concussion risk, followed by American Football, ice hockey, and wrestling. > Meanwhile, a 2015 study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine looked at 13 articles that addressed sports concussion rates. It found that rugby placed first, with a rate more than three times higher than ice hockey and eight times higher than American football. > One paper, published in 2016 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, looked at NCAA Division I injuries over three seasons for both sports. The authors found that the overall injury rate was about three times higher in rugby than in American football, and that a subset of this, the concussion rate, was about 2.5 times higher in rugby than in football. The authors deemed these differences to represent a "substantially higher" risk for rugby. TL;DR: Rugby's probably the most dangerous for concussions and overall injury of any major team sport. [1] https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-biden-says-football-is-more-dangerous-than-rugby/20828386/ https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-biden-says-football-is... [2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23776916-concussion-risk-across-sports https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23776916-concussion-...
  - Retric 3y ago
    At the professional level Brian injuries are the most important, but most pro athletes are often absolutely wrecking their body. However, at the level of high school students concussions are significant but joint injuries are more likely to be life altering. Of course that’s less impactful per person than death, TBI, spinal injuries, etc but you also see that stuff from people driving to and from less dangerous sports so there’s many ways to slice this stuff. Consider vastly more football players people have died getting to the event than at the event. So arguably the biggest way to make these sports safer is to ban players traveling long distances to events.
  - jaclaz 3y ago
    And there is Australian Rule too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_... No idea about severity or frequency of incidents but the (very few) matches I happened to watch were far more "physical" than rugby.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Awesome links! I'll try to dive on both, a little at least. I think it is safe to say both sports should continue to get the attention they are getting with regards to safety. Hopefully they follow up on that more. I'm curious on how the data works by position. Thinking on it for a moment, I'd expect risk of injury for most positions in American Football is low. Such that, for the entire sport, this data actually does make a lot of sense. However, it is also easy to see that positions like quarterback are far more likely to get certain kinds of injuries. To the credit of the league, many of the more severe injuries that we saw years ago would be illegal hits in today's game. Again, this data does make sense. And I think it is safe to say that rugby is almost certainly more dangerous.
  - stanford_labrat 3y ago
    I also used to ascribe to the belief that rugby had fewer concussions (as a collegiate/semi-pro rugby player) but I wasn't aware of these data, thanks for sharing. In retrospect, it makes sense to me. I think the nature of rugby collisions and how you play the game just lends itself to more concussions than American football. A lot of AF is throwing passes which get broken up by less violent hits versus in rugby the only way is to tackle the guy carrying the ball.
watwut 3y ago
Isn't it just artefact of American Football being culturally important in America while Rugby is simply not? Americans watch American Football and their kids play it. Rugby is a niche sport, people just do not think about it.
poulsbohemian 3y ago
I recognize this is anecdata, but the first concussion I got was playing Rugby - the first day I went out - not all the years I spent playing American Football up to that point. American Football is a far more controlled game, and the bodies are spread out over more of the field. I believe both of these points are important differences to understand injury risk. With Rugby, the pace is non-stop and the bodies are massed closer together. The lack of protective gear is also a factor. In terms of perception - American Football is simply better known. I bet if you stood on a street corner and asked 50 people to tell you something about Rugby, they would describe it as soccer but you get to carry the ball.
- dylan604 3y ago
  >they would describe it as soccer but you get to carry the ball. that's an interesting bet/theory. i would never have expected that as a description. like, even after hearing the description, i can't imagine how it could have come to be.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    I think I have about an average knowledge of Rugby for an American. So, not much. My attempt at a succinct explanation would be “football (American) but they start plays all bunched up instead of in lines”. I’m sure it’s very wrong. Cricket would be “baseball, but the home plate umpire is made of sticks”.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      which is a succinct example of why "X like Y, but different" type of descriptions are horrible. the "Uber of ______" type of elevator pitches are just so lame and uninspired, really benefit no one.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      Are you suggesting that in baseball pitchers actually aim to hit the "home plate umpire"?
dylan604 3y ago
There's a saying "Rugby is a thug sport played by gentlemen where Football is a gentleman's sport played by thugs"
Waterluvian 3y ago
I always kind of thought American Football effectively suffers from the SUV problem: once someone is in huge armour, everyone else has to be as well. Is there something fundamentally different with rugby that they don’t need nearly as much equipment?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Ichthypresbyter 3y ago
  The big difference is the continuous nature of the game- rather than a serious of short plays, there are two 40-minute halves, during which the ball is in play, and in motion, continuously until it either leaves the field (whether by someone scoring or via a touchline) or a rule is broken that requires the ball to be given to the other team. There are also very limited tactical substitutions, in contrast to American football's platoon system where specialist offensive and defensive teams alternate being on the field. This means that a rugby player must be able to keep running for the whole match, so they can't be as big as the biggest NFL players. For example the heaviest player on the England rugby team, prop Will Stuart, weighs in at 291 lb (most of his teammates, even those who play the same position, are significantly lighter). Every single offensive lineman on the current Chiefs roster, plus several players in other positions, is heavier than him. Another effect of the stop-start nature of American football, and in particular the system of downs, is that small differences in how far the ball advances are often very important, and are more important than actually bringing the ball carrier down. In American football, a tackle is a head-on collision between the ball carrier and (often) several defensive players, with the aim of immediately stopping the forward progress of the ball. A rugby tackle is usually one player, often from behind, wrapping his arms around the ball carrier's legs to bring him down, at which point he has to give up the ball but play continues. It's designed to bring him down as efficiently as possible (because play won't stop), while leaving the tackler's teammates free to tackle whoever receives the ball if the ball carrier can get rid of it.
User23 3y ago
> Futból (in Spanish to distinguish it) Or in English you can distinguish it as "Association Football", which abbreviates to "soccer" by dropping the leading vowel and the suffix from "association", and then tacking on the customary English rhotic ending.
sdfghswe 3y ago
"Just as bad"? Soccer fans are the worst.
brightball 3y ago
Exactly. Football today is the safest its ever been, especially at the high school level. There is no sport on earth that brings in more diverse people in terms of body types, sizes, races and forces them to work together to achieve their goals. You can't be selfish in football or the team suffers. Whether you're a huge offensive lineman protecting the skinnier and more studious quarterback, a tall and fast wide receiver, a short / quick running back, any type of defender or one of the multiple kicking positions...there is a place for you on the team. The team that in college can be up to 120 players who train together, study together and support each other to succeed. There's no sport that brings people and communities together better than football, because it's the most inclusive sport out there.

by hk1337 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

Is rugby more brutal? More kinetic, I easily agree with. Reading the data, it seems that concussions are indeed higher in rugby, such that that should be concerning. That said, the specialization allowed by American Football results in some people that can hit far harder than should be encouraged. Especially true in youth sports, in my mind, as growth just isn't even by age for people. At least in professional leagues you can somewhat control for that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
atourgates 3y ago
I subscribe to the perspective that brain injuries are the injuries that matter most in sports, so that's what I focus on in the "what's more dangerous" question. I had believed that rugby carried a lower concussion risk because of the lack of padding/helmets changed player behavior, but it looks like that's not the case. This[1] is one of the best analysis/discussions I found. It references this[2] 2021 meta-analysis as the most expansive. A few key quotes: > This meta-analysis demonstrated rugby has the highest concussion risk, followed by American Football, ice hockey, and wrestling. > Meanwhile, a 2015 study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine looked at 13 articles that addressed sports concussion rates. It found that rugby placed first, with a rate more than three times higher than ice hockey and eight times higher than American football. > One paper, published in 2016 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, looked at NCAA Division I injuries over three seasons for both sports. The authors found that the overall injury rate was about three times higher in rugby than in American football, and that a subset of this, the concussion rate, was about 2.5 times higher in rugby than in football. The authors deemed these differences to represent a "substantially higher" risk for rugby. TL;DR: Rugby's probably the most dangerous for concussions and overall injury of any major team sport. [1] https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-biden-says-football-is-more-dangerous-than-rugby/20828386/ https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-biden-says-football-is... [2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23776916-concussion-risk-across-sports https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23776916-concussion-...
- Retric 3y ago
  At the professional level Brian injuries are the most important, but most pro athletes are often absolutely wrecking their body. However, at the level of high school students concussions are significant but joint injuries are more likely to be life altering. Of course that’s less impactful per person than death, TBI, spinal injuries, etc but you also see that stuff from people driving to and from less dangerous sports so there’s many ways to slice this stuff. Consider vastly more football players people have died getting to the event than at the event. So arguably the biggest way to make these sports safer is to ban players traveling long distances to events.
- jaclaz 3y ago
  And there is Australian Rule too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_... No idea about severity or frequency of incidents but the (very few) matches I happened to watch were far more "physical" than rugby.
- taeric 3y ago
  Awesome links! I'll try to dive on both, a little at least. I think it is safe to say both sports should continue to get the attention they are getting with regards to safety. Hopefully they follow up on that more. I'm curious on how the data works by position. Thinking on it for a moment, I'd expect risk of injury for most positions in American Football is low. Such that, for the entire sport, this data actually does make a lot of sense. However, it is also easy to see that positions like quarterback are far more likely to get certain kinds of injuries. To the credit of the league, many of the more severe injuries that we saw years ago would be illegal hits in today's game. Again, this data does make sense. And I think it is safe to say that rugby is almost certainly more dangerous.
- stanford_labrat 3y ago
  I also used to ascribe to the belief that rugby had fewer concussions (as a collegiate/semi-pro rugby player) but I wasn't aware of these data, thanks for sharing. In retrospect, it makes sense to me. I think the nature of rugby collisions and how you play the game just lends itself to more concussions than American football. A lot of AF is throwing passes which get broken up by less violent hits versus in rugby the only way is to tackle the guy carrying the ball.

watwut 3y ago

Isn't it just artefact of American Football being culturally important in America while Rugby is simply not? Americans watch American Football and their kids play it. Rugby is a niche sport, people just do not think about it.

poulsbohemian 3y ago

I recognize this is anecdata, but the first concussion I got was playing Rugby - the first day I went out - not all the years I spent playing American Football up to that point. American Football is a far more controlled game, and the bodies are spread out over more of the field. I believe both of these points are important differences to understand injury risk. With Rugby, the pace is non-stop and the bodies are massed closer together. The lack of protective gear is also a factor. In terms of perception - American Football is simply better known. I bet if you stood on a street corner and asked 50 people to tell you something about Rugby, they would describe it as soccer but you get to carry the ball.

dylan604 3y ago
>they would describe it as soccer but you get to carry the ball. that's an interesting bet/theory. i would never have expected that as a description. like, even after hearing the description, i can't imagine how it could have come to be.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  I think I have about an average knowledge of Rugby for an American. So, not much. My attempt at a succinct explanation would be “football (American) but they start plays all bunched up instead of in lines”. I’m sure it’s very wrong. Cricket would be “baseball, but the home plate umpire is made of sticks”.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    which is a succinct example of why "X like Y, but different" type of descriptions are horrible. the "Uber of ______" type of elevator pitches are just so lame and uninspired, really benefit no one.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    Are you suggesting that in baseball pitchers actually aim to hit the "home plate umpire"?

dylan604 3y ago

There's a saying "Rugby is a thug sport played by gentlemen where Football is a gentleman's sport played by thugs"

Waterluvian 3y ago

I always kind of thought American Football effectively suffers from the SUV problem: once someone is in huge armour, everyone else has to be as well. Is there something fundamentally different with rugby that they don’t need nearly as much equipment?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Ichthypresbyter 3y ago
The big difference is the continuous nature of the game- rather than a serious of short plays, there are two 40-minute halves, during which the ball is in play, and in motion, continuously until it either leaves the field (whether by someone scoring or via a touchline) or a rule is broken that requires the ball to be given to the other team. There are also very limited tactical substitutions, in contrast to American football's platoon system where specialist offensive and defensive teams alternate being on the field. This means that a rugby player must be able to keep running for the whole match, so they can't be as big as the biggest NFL players. For example the heaviest player on the England rugby team, prop Will Stuart, weighs in at 291 lb (most of his teammates, even those who play the same position, are significantly lighter). Every single offensive lineman on the current Chiefs roster, plus several players in other positions, is heavier than him. Another effect of the stop-start nature of American football, and in particular the system of downs, is that small differences in how far the ball advances are often very important, and are more important than actually bringing the ball carrier down. In American football, a tackle is a head-on collision between the ball carrier and (often) several defensive players, with the aim of immediately stopping the forward progress of the ball. A rugby tackle is usually one player, often from behind, wrapping his arms around the ball carrier's legs to bring him down, at which point he has to give up the ball but play continues. It's designed to bring him down as efficiently as possible (because play won't stop), while leaving the tackler's teammates free to tackle whoever receives the ball if the ball carrier can get rid of it.

User23 3y ago

> Futból (in Spanish to distinguish it) Or in English you can distinguish it as "Association Football", which abbreviates to "soccer" by dropping the leading vowel and the suffix from "association", and then tacking on the customary English rhotic ending.

sdfghswe 3y ago

"Just as bad"? Soccer fans are the worst.

brightball 3y ago

Exactly. Football today is the safest its ever been, especially at the high school level. There is no sport on earth that brings in more diverse people in terms of body types, sizes, races and forces them to work together to achieve their goals. You can't be selfish in football or the team suffers. Whether you're a huge offensive lineman protecting the skinnier and more studious quarterback, a tall and fast wide receiver, a short / quick running back, any type of defender or one of the multiple kicking positions...there is a place for you on the team. The team that in college can be up to 120 players who train together, study together and support each other to succeed. There's no sport that brings people and communities together better than football, because it's the most inclusive sport out there.