Talk:Comparison of American football and rugby union

Most Significant Differences

"The most significant difference in play is the allowance of blocking for the ball carrier, which is to say preventing a defender from tackling the player with the ball; this added aspect creates a more complicated and strategic flow of play with top flight teams including hundreds of different plays in each and every match."

This opening paragraph is partial. It also isn't necessarily the most important difference. If any of this needs to be preserved it should be in the Gameplay subsection. Jonknight73 (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very POV. Rugby union has all kinds of elements that aren't very significant in American football that add to the tactical depth e.g. dummy runners, offloads, missed pass etc.GordyB (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's plainly stupid. The most significant difference must surely be the forward passing of the ball in American Football which would be illegal in Rugby Union. Blocking and tackling are principally the same. If you watch enough rugby you'll know what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.239.196 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do and I don't.GordyB (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is incomprehensible. It needs to say things like 'In American football' throughout, in order to make clear which action is allowed in which game. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing comparisons

I believe two important comparisons are missing...

I'm American and I'm relatively unfamiliar with Rugby but from what I've seen and what I've read this article appears to miss two important comparisons. The first noticable comparison is this article fails to note is the differences in the sports uniforms. Rugby players look more like American soccer players. No big pads, helmets, face masks, nothing. The second comparison I thought was missing was the differences in penalties in the two sports. Penalties can play a big part in the final score of an American football game. I would presume pentalties in Rugby would also play a part but to what extent and the differences themselves I don't know. I think it would be a fine improvement to touch on the differences on these points between these two sports. And unfortunately, I'm not qualified add such a contribution to this article.

to compare a rugby player with an american soccer player is just a bit silly. they may not wear pads but i doubt there is too many 6foot 6 300lbs soccer players. some rugby players "only" weigh around the 200lbs mark but they are called backs and there jobs is to be quick. the saying goes, "today the backs tackle like forwards, and today the forwards tackle like dumper trucks". Pratj 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is there to be edited. If you want to add / change something then do so.GordyB 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gentlemen. I misspoke my thoughts. I was refering to the players uniforms, not their physique, when I compared Rugby players to soccer players. This is perhaps a good example of the reason I chose to make my comments here rather than attempt an edit there. I enjoyed reading the histories and the comparisons of both sports. I just thought I'd suggest the improvement and see if there a kindred interest out there who was better suited to make the contribution. Thanks again. And sorry if I didn't sign my post earlier. Dennis 19:23, 12 mOctober 2006 (UTC)

well, until about 3 years ago, players would wear cotton long sleeve shirts and shorts. the cotton was very strong (so it didn't rip when people grabbed it)and thats how shirts have always (within reason) been. basically they were so strong that you could probably hang a man off of them and they won't rip. but then around 2003 in the world cup skintight lycra based shirts came in. apparently they were stronger than cotton but i saw many ripped in the world cup. but the skin tight shirts make you harder to grab, which is a benefit (kinda like the vaseline on your legs trick which works at school) Pratj 20:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Advancing the ball

Sorry signing in with my IP. I don't have an account over here (I'm just a rare visitor) but I do have one the Dutch Wikipedia. I would like to comment the paragraph Advancing the ball. Though it may be a matter of definition I reckon Union sure deals about yardage as well. For the principal objective is grounding the ball in the opponents in-goal area. And without yardage no grounding. Would like to hear from you. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.92.23.133 (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I've tried to improve the section accordingly. though rugby union does not talk of yardage as it uses the metric system.GordyB 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

we still use the term yardage, meterage doesn't really fit, when we talk about gaining territory. even though technically the field is metric not imperial, old sayings die hard.

'Meterage' is a horrible word but yardage is not a word I hear on rugby commentary.GordyB 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We mostly use words as gainline and statistics as time in opponents half. But that's not what I was referring to. Unlike to soccer where goals are made by a player who's at a certain (even very far!) distance from the goal-line, scoring (i.e. a try) in rugby can only be done if the player is very near to or behind the goal-line. On base of the 6 points touchdown/3 points field goal and the 5 points try/3 points penalty or drop kick one could say that american football emphasizes yardage slightly more. Klompco.

A lot more, in rugby union you can keep the ball as long as you don't drop it or allow it to be stolen. In American football if you don't make ten yards in four downs, you have to hand the ball over.GordyB 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

in rugby union at leats yardage is less important (league its important). as long as u don't keep falling behind the gainline (essentially how much yardage ou have made or lost) yardage isn't important as such Pratj 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning that a common tactic in union is to kick for territory (as in kick the ball out of play but much further up the touchline) to relieve pressure or when you are making very little progress. Also common in wet conditions to avoid knock-ons. (user:alihaig) 130.246.132.26 11:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This tactic is also true in American football, in a tight defensive game teams will kick to play for field position. And yes, in wet conditions this is typical, in American football there will be very little forward passing to avoid incompletions and interceptions.--Theurge14 07:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Strength and Power

right, we need to clear this up. i don't wan't to start a revert war. the strength and power between equivalent sizes and positions of men in rugby and US football are similar. they are all professional athletes. if anything, rugby requires more power as wrestling is a more key component of the game, US football is often about blocking and hitting players to the ground. Pratj 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rugby requiring more power than American football??? No, no, no (pls. note, many more no's could be inserted here). And exactly with what engineering devices would that comparison be determined accurately anyhow? As stated, American football does indeed involve blocking and 'hitting players to the ground' (lol), however, the action between the defensive and offensive lines can be directly compared to a sustained mixed martial arts contest between hulking, yet surprisingly athletic, giants. What you would term 'wrestling' here is very much in the forefront of American football. Regards, 71.112.242.179 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Linesmen are much larger than rugby union forwards but they'd never be able to run around for 80 minutes, I think there isn't so much difference in the sizes of backs, a winger and a wide receiver / corner back might be about the same.GordyB 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree, u would expect that 350lbs of linesmen would be stronger than 200lbs of fly half. that's a given. but whether he would be stronger than a prop of 300lbs i don't know. probably but from what i have seen of linemen their job is just to block the way protecting those behind them, rather than physically lift or push them. anyhow, all i'm saying is i'm pretty sure that 200lbs of american footballer and 200lbs of rugby player will both be pretty much as strong as each other. the guy editing it before was saying it like american footballer lift trucks for fun Pratj 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Field dimension discrepancy.

In the section "The field" it states: ["The length from try line to try line is always 100 metres: the only varying distances on a rugby field are the width of the playing field, and the distance from try line to the dead ball line."] when the rules as stated in the IRB Rule Book only specify maximum lengths. I have played on 4 local fields, all of which are currently used by local college level teams in official games, none of which have the same dimensions. One is significantly smaller in length and width than any of the others, closer to 85m from try to try. I did not measure it but walking it noticed the difference. Yes the width of the field and the depth of the try area were also different for all, but the try to try and the height of the crossbar, level and slants of the fields were all different as well. If the wording was changed to say ["The length from try line to try line is expected to be 100 metres..."] it would have greater staying power because as most of us know the words "Always" and "Never" rarely hold up in an argument. -- Billy Nair 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe rather then expected to be have the IRB states (or International Rugby Board) because the rules are the rules, and if they aren't followed they aren't followed. - Shudda ^talk 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Comparison to Rugby League?

Is a comparison to Rugby League also valid? American Football has more in common with RL than RU.--ukexpat 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See Comparison of American football and rugby league.GordyB 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for that - could have sworn I searched for it!! --ukexpat 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of view

As an American I find the comparisons in this article to be bit biased towards a non-American football point of view.

For example, in the Scoring section it is pointed out that the American football term 'touchdown' is "a misnomer", it ignores that the term 'try' in modern rugby union is also (see the article on Try, specifically the Past to present section).

Another example is the very first section, quoted from the article: "In American football, a "team" actually consists of several teams taking turns to represent the "team" and games are drawn out over several hours (often more than 3 hours) due to the large number of breaks and stoppages." This is incorrect. In American football these are referred to units, the defensive unit, the offensive unit and the special teams (kicking and kick returning) unit. By putting the word team in double quotes and saying what a team "actually" is, this sentence comes across as condescending and reflects a passing understanding of American football.

There are likely more instances of this throughout the article and I would like to see this addressed. Thanks. --Theurge14 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "team" to "unit" but left misnomer. "Try" is not strictly speaking a misnomer since it still does set up an attempt to kick a goal whilst "touchdown" is a term that is used in rugby for the act of grounding the ball - so whilst it is a misnomer in American football, it is not in rugby.

If there are other issues in the article then that will have to be dealt with by another American. I don't know which terms are used in American football and which are not because I haven't watched the sport since the early 90s.GordyB 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Field

This brief section is blatantly incorrect. It states that Rugby Union fields may only be natural grass, but in the 2007 edition of the IRB laws it says the following: Law 1.1 (b) "Type of surface. The surface should be grass but may also be sand, clay, snow or artificial grass. The game may be played on snow, provided the snow and underlying surface are safe to play on. It shall not be a permanently hard surface such as concrete or asphalt. In the case of artificial grass surfaces, they must conform to IRB Regulation 22."

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am hesitant to change this section because I am of the opinion that the entire paragraph would need to be completely changed. It would seem that including some comparison between playing surfaces would make sense, but I am not sure what exactly should be stated in this section. Does anyone have any ideas

Marks Etc

The Game play section says that play in Union continues until the ball goes out of bounds, a try is score or there is a foul. Surely there are a couple of exceptions to this, in particular if a "Mark" is called. This would certainly not be covered by the above. Others I'm a bit more ambiguous about. Would holding the ball up over the try line be an infringement or out of bonds? Epeeist smudge (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Punishments

What about punishments for foul play? on the rugby pitch you can be sent off or concede a penanty kick, what are the punishments for foul play in american football?Petethewhistle (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It tends to be either a yards penalty i.e. the ball is moved forwards like the 10 metre rule for dissent in rugby union or a first down is awarded (kind of the equivalent of being given a scrum) or a combination of both.

You can be sent off in American football (there is no equivalent of the sin bin) but the major difference is having been sent off you can be substituted as normal i.e. the team stays at 11 men on the field but you can't go back onto the field.GordyB (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems clear.Petethewhistle (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison table

Just pointing that, for the first time, I see an article in Portuguese better than the English version, only because it's in a neat comparison table. I don't know much about the games, but it's worth a look on the format by people that know. Take a look: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compara%C3%A7%C3%A3o_entre_futebol_americano_e_rugby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atriel (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)