I think the nature of American football's constant starting and stopping, which many complain about, allows players to recharge and go 100% every play. Where as in Ruby you may have just already run for 20 seconds straight before you get a chance to square up and hit someone.
and in Rugby, neither player (especially those on D) rarely builds up a full head of steam, so to speak, to collide. the action in Rugby is mostly to the sides with a short burst upwards from like a few yards. whereas in NFL, RBs can build momentum from like 7-10yds back, while receivers are usually in motion. more importantly, defenders in the NFL often have time to build up a lot of speed to collide with you.
Big difference mate in both rugby and league they don't have breaks for defences and attacking sides .They are on the for eighty minutes with a ten minute break after the first forty minutes Unlike NFL that constantly stop start and has more options for replacement players .
It's way more than that. The coaching staff in the NFL is constantly switching out players to adapt to certain plays on both Offense and Defense. Sometimes they bring them out for a breather for a couple of plays, but mostly it's to adapt and overcome to what the opposing team is trying to do. It's way more chess than checkers. People really underestimate the mental aspect of the NFL, and especially if you're a top-level QB or Coach, like Kyle Shanahan and Brock Purdy or John Harbaugh and Lamar Jackson. The pressure on those men is enormous.
Yes, the padding allows for much harder hits. It's similar to how boxers can punch much harder than MMA fighters without breaking their hand because of the padding on their gloves. The smaller gloves that MMA fighters wear actually limit how hard they can throw a punch without breaking their hand. MMA fighters receive more cuts from strikes. Boxers receive more concussions.
@@laurencebyron9183obviously you don't watch the Nfl. I watch both league and union and they don't compare to the reckless abandon players hit each other in the NFL
@@laurencebyron9183 agree mate. Are these tossers saying if rugby league players wore all that padding and NFL players didn’t , then rugby league is tougher. Typical Americans who think there tougher and stronger whilst wearing a heap of protective gear..
Years ago, as a child while we lived in Norway, we had some British friends who were arguing that rugby was tougher. They traveled to the US and went to a American football game. They said they changed their minds because of two reasons. 1) The size of the players. NFL players were huge compared to the rugby players. 6' plus, and weighing up to 300lbs. 2) The collisions. Watching players in the open field, running at full speed colliding into each other "You could feel the impact in your chest sitting in the stands". Yes, both violent sports and players from both sports have my respect. Now I'm off to watch some Sumo wrestling. Another great video guys, thank you.
@@dropemoff1877 Very small. Might be an okay Line Backer, but not a Defensive Lineman. And it's not just size, you also have to have speed and technique. That's why it's so impressive when you see someone like 6'4" 280lb Nick Bosa destroy a Left Tackle for a sack with the explosiveness and speed that a man his size possesses.
I played football in college as well as pickup games with the local rugby club. The hits on a football field are far more violent. Playing rugby I more often got superficial injuries like a black eye, busted nose, fat lip, etc. In football I had far more serious injuries beyond just the superficial stuff, though to be fair I played football for many more years. Broken foot, torn ankle ligaments, broken fingers and toes, cracked ribs, dislocated shoulder, various ligament sprains and strains, torn muscle in my forearm, and a herniated disc and that was only playing until I was 21. I haven't played organized football in over 20 years but can still feel the impact from the injuries every single day and I only played low level college football. I can't even fathom taking the hits the guys do constantly at the elite college and NFL levels for as many years as they do.
1) you played rugby union, not rugby league. Rugby league hits are different because defence has to retreat 10m and many legal hits on RL would be illegal in RU. 2) Comparing a local RU club in the USA to the NRL would be like comparing an amateur Canadian football club to the NFL
So in Australia we play a schoolyard game called "British Bulldog"... It has been banned in many schools because thats where the boys run at eachother hard and alot of broken bones were the norm. The ones who can take it tend to play league. The rules for BB have been cleaned up to be tag now not tackle and used as a PE game. But I tell u back in the 70s when i was a kid, it was on like donkey kong at lunchtime.... australia has 1 hr for lunch in school so plenty of time to go nuts and get hurt. Great way to toughen up the future league players hehehe
A player in American football gets tackled ... play STOPS. Everyone celebrates, takes a break, gets a breather. A player in Rugby League gets tackled ... play is still LIVE and CONTINUES. Tackled player quickly shakes it off, gets to his feet and plays the ball to put the defending team out of position. Getting tackled and taking a hit is the norm in Rugby League. In American football you have an offensive team and a defensive team ... kind of like a change in shift. In Rugby League EVERY PLAYER is an attacking player AND a defensive player. They tackle and they get tackled. In American football a game is officially what? 60 minutes officially ... split over 4 quarters ... which in reality will be spread about 3 - 3.5 hours. Rugby League is 80 minutes ... 2 halves of 40 minutes ... and that's an ACTUAL 80 minutes of game play (unless injury time needs to be added on) ... no mucking around with breaks, rests and time outs. It's CONSTANT action. In American football there's a total of approx 50 players on each team ... 11 players on the field at any time with a crap load of players on the bench ... with limited specialised roles for each of them. Some players will never pass a ball, or tackle a player, or run because it's "not their job". In Rugby League there's 13 players on field ... with just 4 subs on the bench ... EVERY PLAYER is running the ball, passing, receiving, tackling, getting tackled, attacking, defending, busting lines, maintaining defensive lines, kick and chase ... they do everything. These are objective facts. Who's tougher? Well, there's a reason a lot of NRL players become boxers or were boxers. Part of their Rugby League training is gloving up and bashing the crap out of each other. Taking punishment and carrying on is just the norm to them. Pfft ... ANYONE can tackle hard ... who cares? It's when you can get busted up in a tackle, take the hit and carry on playing.
Rugby has more superficial injuries like busted up noses and black eyes but brother trust me American footballs hits are a whole other level of violent. Imagine a 6'3 265 lb man running full speed dozens of yards slams into you. It fucks people up and use to kill players before more rules were added
I think there are hits in pretty much every game of American Football that are just part of the game where the same hits would get a Rugby player ejected.
@Morkz DeLorean that came off a tad deuchy, or maybe that was the intention. One would not have to know how many countries pay its players to form a rugby team, nor would one have to know the distinction between club rugby and pro rugby to know the basics of the game. Its played here in the states, its just not popular because most people here prefer football. But I've watched it here, and yes, the majority of legal football contact is not allowed in rugby.
If you’re playing for 80 minutes straight wouldn’t the hits have less impact later in the match when everyone is fatigued? The constant stop and start in the NFL means the impact stays consistent for the entire game. Oh and Joe Rogan knows nothing about sports and just agrees with whoever his guest is so I’d take what he said with a grain of salt
Yes I would take what Joe Rogan says with a grain of salt when it comes to football. He never played it. How can you be so emphatic about rugby being tougher when you have never played that or football. He should have said rugby looked tougher to him. I've played football but never rugby. I've hardly ever watched any rugby so I really can't tell you anything about how tough that sport is compared to football. The only problem I have when people compare rugby and American football is when they bring up the wearing of pads in football and think that makes football a less brutal sport.
What’s tougher? Getting hit by someone who is fully recovered fully recovered or running for 80 minutes? 🤦♂️ rugby players get hit all the time, and they run non stop for 80, NFL players can’t run 80 minutes straight, but can hit and take a hit. So you tell me what’s tougher for you? Take a hit or run 80 minutes
From the beginning of 1900's thru the 1940's they had so many people being killed and crippled playing football that some people wanted to ban it, so they had to start wearing pads and helmets to cut down the injuries.
Interesting selection of clips in this video. Seemed like the Rugby clips were all the hardest hits you can find, while the NFL ones were mostly players just running, and even showing pointless clips from practice
I played Rugby for Pitt in the national championship tournament (15 on 15), and played the same for a semester at imperial College of London. I'm an American...football is the only true collision sport. I equate ruggers to hockey players...arguably tougher or as tough, as NFL players but American football is the far more violent sport. Just is.
Morkz you made my point. Rugby is not a collision sport...maybe once a game you'll have someone flatten the fullback but that's the exception not the rule. Almost every play in football ends with a full on collision, Rugby is more of a grind. Intensely physical and an endurance test but a collision sport it is not.
I used hockey as an analogy because most Americans are more familiar with it than Rugby. Both sports are tough and the players are undoubtedly tough but football is the tougher game.
I never understand why people don’t point out to foreigners that football pads are not like hitting someone wearing a pillow. The thickest pads normally available are only about 1 inch(2.5 cm) thick, with many being thinner than that, made with a small layer of shock absorbing foam between 2 thin linings of plastic. They really don’t do very much when the average linebacker is 6’2 109 kg running an average of 27.3 kph straight into your chest with his shoulder. The only reason they even wear pads and helmets is because the game was nearly banned from being played because so many people were actually dying in the games. I respect rugby players but they have no right to call American football players soft until they actually take a hit from one of them. Rugby is more a game of stamina and endurance whereas American football is a comparable to a chess match that includes incredible violence
Depends on what you mean by tougher, does tougher just mean the force of tackling? Or does is it mean the entire game including endurance, the distance a player runs over the entire game. The number of tackles an individual player both makes and receives. Actual time on the field. Seems to me we are just talking about the force of the impact of a tackle. Need to consider all aspects of a game not just one.
@@UltraMelladoesn’t matter any nfl player can get on a rugby team. Not many rugby players can transfer over. Even when we are talking straight athleticism. You ever hear of dk metcalf? Go look him up and you will see rugby has no athletes like that.
American football 100%. The gear gives you the illusion that you can run into someone full speed without suffering the consequences of physics. Grown men weighing 200+ pounds going full speed into each other is brutal… no other sport like it. There’s a reason there is no other sport that has even 1/5th the concussions.
The way I was convinced to start playing was everyone said it doesn't really hurt the pads take most of the impact😂😂 well the Pads didn't help protect my broken and fractured fingers or my knees and feet
Y’all talking like every tackle in the nfl are big hits, they are all highlights 90 percent of the time it’s a normal tackle, Rugby? They run 80 minutes straight, same team defends and attack, and there’s big hits highlighted in there, Ask someone what they think is tough? Get hit being fatigued and running 80 minutes or get hit maybe once but you get enough sleep time on tge bench
In America FB you can get hit from 360° and tackled up high or blown out at the knees. Any means nessessary expect a head shot . Without the ball you can get hit at any time from 180° ... Priority is put on explosive power and speed over endurance. Larry Allen benches 700 LB/ squared 900 LBs... ESPN sports science calculated (with sensors ⁸on real players) a rugby hit at 2300 Lbs per sq inch to a Football hit measured at 4800 LBs per sq inch . Equal to a 35 MPH car crash .
But thing is, it’s not just about hits. And I don’t mind being hit super hard if I can take an hour break in between, plus the ad breaks and you keep getting water or some kind of hydration. Rugby on the other hand is getting all that work for 80 minutes plus you still have to constantly run at full speed with no protective gear, players are not getting swapped out much. All you get is a 10 minute break, broken nose, concussion, black eye, broken neck (maybe) and if your lucky no one will step on your face with their cleats. But there’s also a very high chance of ending up with cauliflower ears
@@UltraMellaif you think the padding does so much watch damar Hamlins injury. Watch bijan Robinson and Kevin wares injury. Watch joe theismann’s injury. All it takes is one play, stop being ignorant.
I remember reading an article about the difference in force between the two. I don't remember the numbers, so I won't try to quote them, but American football hits were substantially harder. That doesn't tell which sport is tougher, but the tackles are far more dangerous in US football.
Rugby would have evolved to be as hard as US football if they also wore armor (helmets, pads, etc). That is the BIG difference. In rugby, you really have to be more careful bumping skulls. And the long false historical narrative that US football came from football (soccer), because of the same words, did not help either. US football by all intents & purposes really did descend from rugby. The only time you use the foot in US football is during kickoffs & field goal. The rest of the game, using your foot on the ball is a penalty. Thus, it should not have been called US FOOTball in the first place. It is irony.
Football players are faster and wearing equipment as well so if you calculate that each football hit is insanely tough to take a lot more than a rugby hit
@@robwebnoid5763 you do know that rugby is also a type of football right? Football isn’t really a sport it’s more of an umbrella term that was used to differentiate between sports that were played on horseback and sports that were played on your feet.
@@ftmws293 ... Yes it is a type of ball sport, but the term "football" has been a misleading description of US football for a long time. When we think of football today, it has always come to mean a sport that consistently & continuously means using the foot/feet in contact with a ball during most of the game. As mentioned, US football rarely uses the feet to play the ball. It also uses the hands for throwing, but yet it's not called throwball or handball. Over the years, "real" football/futbol (soccer) fans had always teased US football as not being football per se. Even in the US, the teasing was the other way around, saying that US football is the real football. The point is that the wording is not unique & does not describe the game more accurately. Sure there is running in it (feet), but many other sports with a ball also have running in it. Basketball is unique because it has the word basket in it, as established historically from its origin using actual baskets. When you have a sport with the word "ball" in it, it usually describes what you are doing with the ball. Baseball (bases), volleyball (volleying), handball (hands), etc. And of course there are ball sports with original traditional unique names in it that does not describe the sport point black with the name ... cricket, tennis, pingpong, badminton, golf, lacrosse, hockey (a ball in the form of a puck), etc. And rugby of course. With US football, with the unique oblong ball & above-ground non-net goal posts, at least these point to rugby as mostly its origin, yet the word "football" & not "rugby" was chosen. It's one reason why people around the world who have only seen global soccer become confused when they see US football, with the name "football", because they notice that the feet are not being used on the ball 99% of the time. If you could go back in time & talk to the people who were inadvertently making up the name of the sport to make it unique, I would have perhaps chosen "Runball" or "Carryball", which is a more apt description. Of course some people might laugh at those names but that's because of hindsight. In an an alternate universe where the game is actually called "Carryball", those people would then laugh if you called it US "football". And as with the point of the video, all that traditional rugby would have needed to get even hard-hitting was slowly adding on armor over the decades, much in the same way US football kept putting on better protection, since the days of leather helmets. You don't see people getting hit hard in a leisurely picnic game of US football because you don't want your family & friends getting injured. Same with flag football, because now tackling becomes a penalty due to avoiding injury & adding the flag as a form of finesse. Today & in the past few decades, long term brain trauma in US football is getting attention, including retired players who have this syndrome. That is one of the allures of US football ... hard hits. And there is a probability that less & less families are introducing their kids to the game during little league ages, although the numbers are uncertain. At the same time, there seems to be some research showing that rugby has 2-3 more head injuries & that's because armor is not traditionally used in the sport. In a way, the helmet in US football was to protect from a head hit, as it evolved from rugby, yet at the same time, adding the helmet meant being able to hit harder & harder over the decades. In rugby, you could use a helmet to avoid that 2-3x injury statistic but still play the game without evolving into harder hitting, although that could have eventually happened if helmets were introduced more into amateur/pro rugby long ago & then you just had to wait & see if it started to get harder when rules got modified, over the span of a century.
In the NFL you can get your head knocked off if you don’t have the ball. You only get collisions in Rugby when someone has the ball/is going for the ball.
@@UltraMella no it’s because of the directions they’re running. Often times in opposite directions towards each other with running starts. This is created by the forward pass. Rugby doesn’t have that.
@@UltraMella no it’s because rugby players are mostly around the line. NFL players are coming at each other from opposite ends of the field at full speed.
I personally think it's all down to the rules. In american football, you can tackle however you want besides a few ways because they've got the pads, but in rugby, they need the rules to stop that because it's much easier for them to get seriously injured. If rugby had the same rules as american football, more than likely you'd never get a full game over with the same players that started as they'll need replacing every few minutes. That's how dangerous it is.
I grew up playing American football on the playground which is basically rugby and I have all the lingering injuries to prove it. There is no doubt that both sports can be similarly brutal. Its just that the argument that because rugby players don't wear helmets and pads makes it "tougher" can only come from people who don't understand the size and speed of both college and pro football players. I know there are some big boys in rugby, but in American football if they didn't wear helmets you would have a dozen concussions every game and life-threatening injuries every week. The speed and power of NFL players is shocking.
The big difference is the ridiculous recovery time in American Football. Its play, wait 15 30 seconds, have another play. Then change an entire team. League is tackle, tackle, tackle with no rest.
I read somewhere, on average, in an NFL game the ball is actually in play for only 11 minutes. In a Rugby league game the ball is in play on average 62 minutes. Lets talk about stamina and endurance.
To all the Americans commenting that they played “rugby” - sorry you did not play rugby league, you played rugby union. Comparing the NRL to your experience playing with a local RU club in the USA would be like me comparing the NFL to my experience in an amateur Canadian football team. What is considered an illegal hit RU is not in RL. The hits are also harder in RL because you’re charging at a defensive line 10m away. The ball is in play in a game for twice as long in RL. There are a thousand more differences
I've never forgotten the bumper sticker that read, "It Takes Leather Balls to Play Rugby". Did they consider the heat inside those pads and helmets in American football? Many stadiums in the south are not roofed and the temperature on the field can reach the nineties and higher. I'm not sure whether there is a lot of substitution in Rugby, but if not I have to say those players are better athletes. Forty minutes without a break??? Our football has 25 seconds between plays, penalties which can take a few seconds or as much as minutes to unravel, timeouts for television commercials, three 30-second timeouts per half, and a fifteen minute halftime. It takes at least 3 hours to play a game that has 60 minutes of actual playing time.
Yes rugby AFL NFL college football all have huge hits its the tremendous throwing and catching skills that separate American football from the rest.and I watched a rugby game on youtube once these hits are very rare most are just grabbing a player and pulling them to the ground.
The American talent pool is another huge aspect to the difference in these games. The biggest, strongest and fastest are widdled down to the ones who have the most talent. And from a population of over 360 million.
I've played Aussie rule's, Rugby league, Rugby union & American football at club level & 110% Rugby league is the most taxing & hurting far much more so than the other sport's mentioned by head's & shoulders.
Concussion are very common in League, and they are taken alot more serious these days with HIA's during the game and automatic 11 day suspension if deemed a category 1 concussion.
Hey lads bloke in a bar is owned by and ex league player ,denim kemp,he has a beer called bloke in a bar as well which isnt a bad drop.He has a podcast discussing mostly league as well which is pretty popular here in Australia,you lads should hit him up hes a great guy.These are both gladiator sports so bring on the hits!!
Dave routinely seems to start certain videos with "I've never kept up with this sort of topic before, but I suspect...[goes on to explain argument in video)]." The boxing glove analogy might've made sense 10-15yrs ago in the NFL -- and by no means am I dismissing the toughness of rugby players, or pretending the NFL has figured out the perfect balance of athleticism, skill and toughness -- but, I would definitely feel confident saying rugby players would want no actual part competing against guys like Aaron Donald, Myles Garrett, Nick Bosa, etc, etc... as much as the NFL has "become soft" over the years to people who might otherwise be classified as meatheads, in terms of actual physicality, athleticism and skill I'm willing to bet the top NFL players could absolutely smoke the tip rugby players with just a few months practice. Zero chance the reverse is true
You know nothing. NRL players would run full steam at anyone and they would tackle anyone too.... something those bitches in the NFL don't do. No running off to sit on the sideline while a defensive team makes all the tackles, or vice versa. No stopping the game after each tackle to fix hair and makeup. Also, you need fitness to play in the NRL, no NFL player could finish a half of an NRL game, they don't have the stamina to play non stop on both sides of the ball.
I played both American football and Rugby Union in college at Sacramento State here in the US. I have to say the level of athleticism was far higher in football than even the best in rugby, even playing against Cal and Saint Mary's, probably just because there's more of a future playing football here. The hits were more brutal in football, where tackles in rugby were more calculated.
@@billymack333 Interesting fact that Sam Burgess while playing Rugby League for South Sydney in Sydney had a stint playing Rugby Union in England said that he doubted the Union players had the fitness levels to play League. And i guess that would be true of NFL players that have different teams on the field at different at times in a game. He thinks of the 3 football codes we are talking about here that League players would be the fittest.
Comparing your college Rugby experience to the juggernaut that is college Football in the US is a bad comparison. No offense but your college Rugby team is probably made up of a few passionate individuals mixed with the rejects from the American football team. They would struggle against low tier amateur Rugby teams in Rugby playing nations.
What code of Rugby are we talking about here Anton, and in 'Football' there is very little doubt that either AFL [Australian Football League or Simply Aussie Rules] or Rugby League have the highest fitness levels. And NRL is largely ignored because of the stop and start nature of the game and most times it is played by 2 very seperate teams.
The guy in the white T-Shirt nailed it. The pads and helmets in American Football, cause the players to hit harder, the "protection" gets nullified since they put more pace on each hit. Additionally, anyone here can look it up, the average American Professional Player is about 2 inches taller and about 25 lbs heavier than a rugby player. That being said, Rugby players have less breaks between action and have more overall endurance. Both great sports.
Where was the consideration for the lack of rest league players have. They said NFL is played 11 on 11, but that’s not accurate because there is a defence and attack team and they swap out, yet league has the whole team on the field, and everyone is expected to attack and defend. No time outs and the game is longer in league. League wins!
State of Origin is on soon you have to watch it for the best game of rugby league League isn’t as brutal as it used to be but being tough is a prerequisite because if it doesn’t hurt you’re doing it wrong
NFL players used to get a concussion sot out a couple of minutes and head straight bacl into the game. They also will shoot the players up with Toradol for injuries that they really should sit out weeks for
As kids, we played a game called “smear the queer”, then went to rugby, then went to football. Having pads def makes players hit way harder and way more explosive but rugby was more cardio intensive and has more restrictions for tackling/hitting. Personally, there’s something more “psychologically freeing” playing football because of the pads and just going full steam trucking other dudes whereas with rugby everyone tends to play more reserved for fear of getting injured. Then again, I got the boxers break fighting without gloves so there’s a lot of gray area imo
i played from Pop Warner league (children around age 6~10) up to semi-professional. the padding is not there to protect players, but to weaponize them.
Jordan Mailata, who played both at a high level (is on the Eagles O line and played for the Rabittohs U20), says American football is tougher when you're on the offensive line or defensive line.
We seem to have some comments here that some get on here with very different know-how of the very different codes of football indeed, the biggest i guess is the thinking there is only one code of Rugby.
Tough is using stamina, endurance and speed at the same time...most people are measuring tough through injuries players get after the game but what about during the game? Rugby has 80 minutes no stops except half time while NFL has way less than that and a lot of time out and long commercial breaks...so if I were to measure tough through stamina, endurance and speed during a game I'd say Rugby...but in terms of injury sustained after a game it's NFL (but that's because of poor tackling skills and defence) but hey the NFL makes the most $$$ so I guess money talks?
Before pads there were 15 players killed in American college football in one season. That's why the pads were introduced. A lot of fatalities led to the decision to institute and wear pads. I like the video but it was not nearly as in depth as it truly could've been. They wear pads on American football because people were dying on the field in the early 20th century.
What i don't see people talking about is strength, power, explosion. Who's going to be the more power explosive athlete. The guy running non stop for a whole game. Or the guy running for 5 seconds a play and then resting for 30 seconds.
Rugby seems more of an endurance sport, where A. football is more like sprinting or running intervals where the player goes full out for short periods. For running backs and receivers the game is much more hazardous than rugby, but less so for other positions. I think due to the resetting between plays there are more occasions for high-speed collisions between players in A. football. In the end, you have to be a crazy MF to play either sport.
Let's look at this, Rugby players play for 80 minutes with just a small break at half time. Its non stop for the majority of that time, no time outs no stopping once the ball is out or caught or someone is tackled. No pads or helmets and only 4 substitutes per team. NFL is a game supposedly played by 13 players per team but fail to mention that there are actually two teams each side, a defensive side and an offensive side. Time outs and stoppages make the game last a lot longer than its supposed running time so there are more time for catching ones breath. Rugby players run flat out at the opposition and are tacked by one, two or more players and then get up to play the ball and carry on. NFL players do the same but only because they have padding and helmets and after being knocked down there is a break , not playing on instantly. Self preservation is not an issue in Rugby as they tackle as hard or harder than NFL players and I doubt very much that an NFL player could play a full 80 minutes of Rugby but Rugby Players can transition to NFL with ease and are usually sort after as kickers and tackles.
Here we go again. By changing what you mean by tougher then you change answer. Football and Rugby's cores are so different that it is hard to compare the two. I think there could be great synergy between the two.
I'd dare you to tell a rugby player to his face they don't go %100 because they don't have padding! The clip you watched was also very misleading because the American sport has offensive and defensive teams for a total of 22 players per game (11 on the field at a time)
I've played them all, and to be honest, I stopped playing the NFL code because after years of playing the two rugby codes, grid iron as its coined in Australia, was for me, just too soft. Background, when you've been playing without padding and a helmet since childhood, I felt like I was playing with a mattress wrapped around me. Sorry, if I offend anyone but that is my honest experience.
So you wore pads but hit and tackled rugby style? I would guess that you hardly felt anything. The pads were built to protect against football collisions, not rugby ones.
The forward pass in football is what makes football more dangerous. And it isn’t close. And the majority of legal hits in football would get you kicked out of rugby. Also Joe Rogan has 0 knowledge of rugby or football. Not sure why he’s in this video so much
I played both rugby and football at the small college level. Loved them both. Rugby was more demanding on your stamina but football was definitely more dangerous.
Definitely Rugby No Contest. I played 2 years high school Rugby at a high level in Fiji. And 6 years American Football in the US of A. If you answer American Football then you have never played Rugby League. Although American Football players are much Superior athletically in many aspects, the game itself does not require as much as Rugby league demands. American Football has offense then the Defense comes in, basically 2 teams within a team. In Rugby, you are the offense and within a moments notice you trying to stop these big forwards plowing over you as you now playing defense. You have a breather after every play in American Football... yes afterevery play as you regroup and plan the next play and this does not include the team timeouts and the TV timeouts ( in College and NFL these lasts minutes)... None of this in Rugny. You get a break when the ballboy races to get the ball and you lining up for the lineout. So yes Rugby is tougher because of the endurance required or demanded. In a simplier way to explain this... teach a Rugby Player a few plays and put him in an American Football game, he may suck but he will survive... Put an American Football player in a Rugby game, tell him you dont have to hit anything, just run around for 2 halves, he will be begging to get out of the game less than 30 minutes in.
I accept that BOTH sports are tough. An NRL (17 players) game takes 90 minutes (40 each half + 10 for a half time break) whereas, NFL (46 players) takes aomething like 3-4 houra to play 60 mins. They take off just about the whole team depending on whether they are defending or attacking. So, with this in mind it's just plain crazy to say which is tougher. By these standards League is much tougher in my mind. Hey, I don't mind watching a good NFL game, but League has bought in some new rules that I am against, I was a Rugby League fan, but now I watch more Australian Rules than league. in the past couple of years I haven't actually watched a minute of the State Of Origin games and I'm a Queenslander. Just my thoughts.
The history of the NFL has many examples of really tough players. Jack Youngblood played while having a broken leg (tibia). Ronnie Lott had part of his finger amputated during the game and returned. Jim Otto played one game with a partially broken hand, and another with a rib broken off one of his back vertebrae! Many players "tough out" the practices and games nursing broken or dislocated fingers, thumbs, noses, etc. Obviously, toughness is a relative term. Regardless, the Rugby Leagues appear to have many tough dudes as well! i
Ronnie Lott did not return after his finger was amputated , he left a game with a broken finger, had it amputated after , missed 1 game but played following game ! Lets not tell stories !
@@chiefkelce5017 You're right, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying: he was a beast and his highlights are awesome. But you're right: he didn't have it amputated in the locker room lol. That's myth and legend.
NFL have offensive and defensive players that do one job. NRL players have to attack and defend. NRL only have 4 players on the bench NFL have either their defensive or offensive players on the field depending on the play. All NRL players run with the ball and tackle the opposite players all game every game for 80minutes.
Boxing is more dangerous than mma because the extra padding in boxing allows for more punishment to be handed out. Mma has smaller gloves so when you get hit you feel all of it. So instead of taking hundreds of hits you can only take 30 or 40 until one of them turn the lights off. Seems more brutal but mma is safer.
Padding doesn’t really help in any sport…. Sparring in boxing with head gear is honestly worse than no head gear for instance. You can’t see as well and the glove catches the head gear and twists your whole neck. Hurts like hell.
The NFL recruiters watch for talent all around the world. We had a couple of Rugby players play in the NFL. One was an Australian that played for the Dallas Cowboys. He was good, probably enjoyed the money. You have some catostrophic injuries in the NFL. You can't pull back because you might injure another player, the Coaching staff expects you to fuck someone up, or you're gone. For instance, the life expectancy of a running back is 3 yrs. He's spent after that. The force of the offensive and defensive lines colliding is the same force as 2 vehicles hitting each other at 35 mph. Maybe I'm prejudiced, but I like my NFL.
Rugby is tougher because they don't use protective equipment and probably need more stamina to play. American football is tougher because of the size, strength, and speed of the players and the fact that they are carrying an additional 8-12 pounds of equipment on their bodies while they are playing.
I note people are confusing Rugby with Rugby league apples and oranges guys. Put in simple terms Rugby league is more of a high impact game a lot closer to NFL wheras Rugby Union is based more around strength, that's not to say they don't have the odd big hit. Every play in league ends up with high contact Union is built more around the Rucks and mauls.
Theres no technique in NFL tackles when you just need to get a guy down from any angle In NRL players will have a shorter run up, tackled from the front and usually wrestled to the ground to stop passes
The best way to settle this is to take a NRL team and put them in the equipment against NFL players. Then take an NFL team and strip them of equipment to play against the NRL.
It's a hard one to answer reason being in nfl they have a specials team defense team and attacking team where in league league you only have 13 on the field who defend and attack so hard one to judge imagine nfl players both attacking and defending for the whole game
I played football and basketball. The difference in football is every play is 100% full speed. You demand so much every play, that there’s no way you could play continuously.
I can only speak from my American point of view, but rugby in this country is for people who couldn't make it in football. I have a friend who played rugby professionally and he was average at best on our football team in high school.
First both similar games but toally different. American Football has alot of breaks between downs and alot of subsitutions, there is not player on an NFL team that plays for the full 60 minutes. Rugby you are generally expect to play for the full 80 minutes and at all times you need to be ready for action. Since the action in Rugby league is almost constant the player have to train for not only power and speed, but stamina and endurance aswell. Take an the most exterme example, the kicker in the 2 sports, one sport the kicker is only on the field when the team needs him to kick the ball and he has special rules to protect him (Roughing the kicker). The other sport the kicker play the full game, attacking and defending, also being called on to kick the ball, with no special rules to protect him over everyone else. You have to be tough to play these sports at the top level, but Rugby players are tougher.
As an American with limited acess to rugby, I would think that the constant rugby play is harder than all the breaks in American football. In football, either the offense or the defense rests while the offense side plays. Players only have a 60 min. game, not 80
What did football do to Joe Rogan? Lol Both sports are tough but I’d give the edge to Football because of the speed of the game and there’s a more strategic component to Football than Rugby. You still have to remember plays, pass routes, blocking schemes, defensive assignments, audibles at the line etc etc, while getting the shit kicked out of you.
Nfl’s tackle isn’t art they just hurt each other. In rugby tackle is different and you have use your brain. 60 min match vs 80 minute one. Also reason why they get more head injuries there while ass tackles cause think gear protect them when helmet is problem actually.
So if u took away all the protective gear of a top NFL team and had a 40 minute game against a top NRL team with no stops,😂😂how many NFL players wud b still standing up.😂😂😂.
You cannot compare, although a ARL player could more easily adapt to NRL. The NRL player would probably have to do more work to get up to speed with ARL. I think?
I believe that hockey should be placed in this discussion as well. It is very physically demanding and then you put weapons on the players feet and in their hands.
I think the nature of American football's constant starting and stopping, which many complain about, allows players to recharge and go 100% every play. Where as in Ruby you may have just already run for 20 seconds straight before you get a chance to square up and hit someone.
and in Rugby, neither player (especially those on D) rarely builds up a full head of steam, so to speak, to collide. the action in Rugby is mostly to the sides with a short burst upwards from like a few yards. whereas in NFL, RBs can build momentum from like 7-10yds back, while receivers are usually in motion. more importantly, defenders in the NFL often have time to build up a lot of speed to collide with you.
Big difference mate in both rugby and league they don't have breaks for defences and attacking sides .They are on the for eighty minutes with a ten minute break after the first forty minutes Unlike NFL that constantly stop start and has more options for replacement players .
American football' is like everything from the US, more show than something else!
It's way more than that. The coaching staff in the NFL is constantly switching out players to adapt to certain plays on both Offense and Defense. Sometimes they bring them out for a breather for a couple of plays, but mostly it's to adapt and overcome to what the opposing team is trying to do. It's way more chess than checkers. People really underestimate the mental aspect of the NFL, and especially if you're a top-level QB or Coach, like Kyle Shanahan and Brock Purdy or John Harbaugh and Lamar Jackson. The pressure on those men is enormous.
@@Vladpryde tactic is crucial in every sport, but NFL sucks on every aspect! action, velocity and more
Yes, the padding allows for much harder hits. It's similar to how boxers can punch much harder than MMA fighters without breaking their hand because of the padding on their gloves. The smaller gloves that MMA fighters wear actually limit how hard they can throw a punch without breaking their hand. MMA fighters receive more cuts from strikes. Boxers receive more concussions.
This is a load of bollocks. League players put a full impact tackles. They don't hold back.
@@laurencebyron9183obviously you don't watch the Nfl. I watch both league and union and they don't compare to the reckless abandon players hit each other in the NFL
@@laurencebyron9183 agree mate. Are these tossers saying if rugby league players wore all that padding and NFL players didn’t , then rugby league is tougher. Typical Americans who think there tougher and stronger whilst wearing a heap of protective gear..
@Laurence Byron the nfl has been trying to get its players to tackle rugby style because it's much safer for the players.
@@vivec1077yes if I wore bubble wrap during a match I’d also be a bit more reckless lol
Years ago, as a child while we lived in Norway, we had some British friends who were arguing that rugby was tougher. They traveled to the US and went to a American football game. They said they changed their minds because of two reasons. 1) The size of the players. NFL players were huge compared to the rugby players. 6' plus, and weighing up to 300lbs. 2) The collisions. Watching players in the open field, running at full speed colliding into each other "You could feel the impact in your chest sitting in the stands".
Yes, both violent sports and players from both sports have my respect. Now I'm off to watch some Sumo wrestling.
Another great video guys, thank you.
Theres someone on my U17s Rugby team whos 6 foot 2 and 265 lbs
Thats 16 year olds
@@deadlyjaguar89 that’s considered small for a linemen in america
@@dropemoff1877 Very small. Might be an okay Line Backer, but not a Defensive Lineman. And it's not just size, you also have to have speed and technique. That's why it's so impressive when you see someone like 6'4" 280lb Nick Bosa destroy a Left Tackle for a sack with the explosiveness and speed that a man his size possesses.
I played football in college as well as pickup games with the local rugby club. The hits on a football field are far more violent. Playing rugby I more often got superficial injuries like a black eye, busted nose, fat lip, etc.
In football I had far more serious injuries beyond just the superficial stuff, though to be fair I played football for many more years. Broken foot, torn ankle ligaments, broken fingers and toes, cracked ribs, dislocated shoulder, various ligament sprains and strains, torn muscle in my forearm, and a herniated disc and that was only playing until I was 21.
I haven't played organized football in over 20 years but can still feel the impact from the injuries every single day and I only played low level college football. I can't even fathom taking the hits the guys do constantly at the elite college and NFL levels for as many years as they do.
When you said busted nose fat lip I knew straight away you talking out of your asss! 🤦♂️
1) you played rugby union, not rugby league. Rugby league hits are different because defence has to retreat 10m and many legal hits on RL would be illegal in RU.
2) Comparing a local RU club in the USA to the NRL would be like comparing an amateur Canadian football club to the NFL
So in Australia we play a schoolyard game called "British Bulldog"... It has been banned in many schools because thats where the boys run at eachother hard and alot of broken bones were the norm. The ones who can take it tend to play league. The rules for BB have been cleaned up to be tag now not tackle and used as a PE game. But I tell u back in the 70s when i was a kid, it was on like donkey kong at lunchtime.... australia has 1 hr for lunch in school so plenty of time to go nuts and get hurt. Great way to toughen up the future league players hehehe
@@flaminjamin okay and people who play college, amateur and even high school football get injured.
No matter what league
A player in American football gets tackled ... play STOPS. Everyone celebrates, takes a break, gets a breather. A player in Rugby League gets tackled ... play is still LIVE and CONTINUES. Tackled player quickly shakes it off, gets to his feet and plays the ball to put the defending team out of position. Getting tackled and taking a hit is the norm in Rugby League.
In American football you have an offensive team and a defensive team ... kind of like a change in shift. In Rugby League EVERY PLAYER is an attacking player AND a defensive player. They tackle and they get tackled.
In American football a game is officially what? 60 minutes officially ... split over 4 quarters ... which in reality will be spread about 3 - 3.5 hours. Rugby League is 80 minutes ... 2 halves of 40 minutes ... and that's an ACTUAL 80 minutes of game play (unless injury time needs to be added on) ... no mucking around with breaks, rests and time outs. It's CONSTANT action.
In American football there's a total of approx 50 players on each team ... 11 players on the field at any time with a crap load of players on the bench ... with limited specialised roles for each of them. Some players will never pass a ball, or tackle a player, or run because it's "not their job". In Rugby League there's 13 players on field ... with just 4 subs on the bench ... EVERY PLAYER is running the ball, passing, receiving, tackling, getting tackled, attacking, defending, busting lines, maintaining defensive lines, kick and chase ... they do everything.
These are objective facts. Who's tougher? Well, there's a reason a lot of NRL players become boxers or were boxers. Part of their Rugby League training is gloving up and bashing the crap out of each other. Taking punishment and carrying on is just the norm to them. Pfft ... ANYONE can tackle hard ... who cares? It's when you can get busted up in a tackle, take the hit and carry on playing.
Rugby has more superficial injuries like busted up noses and black eyes but brother trust me American footballs hits are a whole other level of violent. Imagine a 6'3 265 lb man running full speed dozens of yards slams into you. It fucks people up and use to kill players before more rules were added
I think there are hits in pretty much every game of American Football that are just part of the game where the same hits would get a Rugby player ejected.
@@dutchdlite he might not know about the sport but he isn’t wrong…
@Morkz DeLorean that came off a tad deuchy, or maybe that was the intention. One would not have to know how many countries pay its players to form a rugby team, nor would one have to know the distinction between club rugby and pro rugby to know the basics of the game. Its played here in the states, its just not popular because most people here prefer football. But I've watched it here, and yes, the majority of legal football contact is not allowed in rugby.
If you’re playing for 80 minutes straight wouldn’t the hits have less impact later in the match when everyone is fatigued? The constant stop and start in the NFL means the impact stays consistent for the entire game. Oh and Joe Rogan knows nothing about sports and just agrees with whoever his guest is so I’d take what he said with a grain of salt
80 mins of running and collision versus 10 mins in and out of 1 or 2 hits? Great debate I think.
Yes I would take what Joe Rogan says with a grain of salt when it comes to football. He never played it. How can you be so emphatic about rugby being tougher when you have never played that or football. He should have said rugby looked tougher to him. I've played football but never rugby. I've hardly ever watched any rugby so I really can't tell you anything about how tough that sport is compared to football. The only problem I have when people compare rugby and American football is when they bring up the wearing of pads in football and think that makes football a less brutal sport.
@Atheos B. Sapien (Ubi dubium ibi liberatas) cornerbacks and safety maybe🤷♂️
What’s tougher? Getting hit by someone who is fully recovered fully recovered or running for 80 minutes? 🤦♂️ rugby players get hit all the time, and they run non stop for 80,
NFL players can’t run 80 minutes straight, but can hit and take a hit.
So you tell me what’s tougher for you? Take a hit or run 80 minutes
@Atheos B. Sapien (Ubi dubium ibi liberatas) bro that’s why it’s not tougher🤦♂️
From the beginning of 1900's thru the 1940's they had so many people being killed and crippled playing football that some people wanted to ban it, so they had to start wearing pads and helmets to cut down the injuries.
I was looking for this comment. According to the sources I can find, between 1900 and 1905 there were 45 football players that died.
@@chaost4544how many have died recently. I mean those stats are pretty old if you ask me😂
@@UltraMellathey just explained why people don’t die anymore. The pads are the only thing saving these players
@@2patsfan588 oh so you DO think the pads are there to protect them? Make up your mind please
@@UltraMella that’s exactly what it’s there for. But at the same time pads lead to wilder hits and bigger impacts. It’s really not hard to understand
Interesting selection of clips in this video. Seemed like the Rugby clips were all the hardest hits you can find, while the NFL ones were mostly players just running, and even showing pointless clips from practice
😂😂😂😂okay.🥱
Absolutely, I noticed that right away
the creator definitely favors rugby. all the clips were people talking down on the nfl.
Lie!
Hahahaha! I stopped watching when I heard the accents and just started reading comments 😂
I played Rugby for Pitt in the national championship tournament (15 on 15), and played the same for a semester at imperial College of London. I'm an American...football is the only true collision sport. I equate ruggers to hockey players...arguably tougher or as tough, as NFL players but American football is the far more violent sport. Just is.
hail to pitt baby!! spent a few years there
Morkz you made my point. Rugby is not a collision sport...maybe once a game you'll have someone flatten the fullback but that's the exception not the rule. Almost every play in football ends with a full on collision, Rugby is more of a grind. Intensely physical and an endurance test but a collision sport it is not.
I used hockey as an analogy because most Americans are more familiar with it than Rugby. Both sports are tough and the players are undoubtedly tough but football is the tougher game.
Also....HAIL TO PITT!
u don't know hockey if u think its not a collision sport
I never understand why people don’t point out to foreigners that football pads are not like hitting someone wearing a pillow. The thickest pads normally available are only about 1 inch(2.5 cm) thick, with many being thinner than that, made with a small layer of shock absorbing foam between 2 thin linings of plastic. They really don’t do very much when the average linebacker is 6’2 109 kg running an average of 27.3 kph straight into your chest with his shoulder. The only reason they even wear pads and helmets is because the game was nearly banned from being played because so many people were actually dying in the games. I respect rugby players but they have no right to call American football players soft until they actually take a hit from one of them. Rugby is more a game of stamina and endurance whereas American football is a comparable to a chess match that includes incredible violence
Depends on what you mean by tougher, does tougher just mean the force of tackling? Or does is it mean the entire game including endurance, the distance a player runs over the entire game. The number of tackles an individual player both makes and receives. Actual time on the field. Seems to me we are just talking about the force of the impact of a tackle. Need to consider all aspects of a game not just one.
Exactly. It’s not just about tackling. There is so much more to it
@@UltraMelladoesn’t matter any nfl player can get on a rugby team. Not many rugby players can transfer over. Even when we are talking straight athleticism. You ever hear of dk metcalf? Go look him up and you will see rugby has no athletes like that.
American football 100%. The gear gives you the illusion that you can run into someone full speed without suffering the consequences of physics. Grown men weighing 200+ pounds going full speed into each other is brutal… no other sport like it. There’s a reason there is no other sport that has even 1/5th the concussions.
Sometimes grown men that are 325 running a 5 second 40 yard dash going full speed into people.
@@jimbojones7163 😬 yea dude. Seriously a brutal sport.
@@jimbojones7163 jordan davis is 330lbs 6’5” and runs a 4.80 secs 40 time
The way I was convinced to start playing was everyone said it doesn't really hurt the pads take most of the impact😂😂 well the Pads didn't help protect my broken and fractured fingers or my knees and feet
Y’all talking like every tackle in the nfl are big hits, they are all highlights 90 percent of the time it’s a normal tackle,
Rugby? They run 80 minutes straight, same team defends and attack, and there’s big hits highlighted in there,
Ask someone what they think is tough? Get hit being fatigued and running 80 minutes or get hit maybe once but you get enough sleep time on tge bench
Rugby players can’t even make nfl rosters
In America FB you can get hit from 360° and tackled up high or blown out at the knees. Any means nessessary expect a head shot . Without the ball you can get hit at any time from 180° ...
Priority is put on explosive power and speed over endurance. Larry Allen benches 700 LB/ squared 900 LBs...
ESPN sports science calculated (with sensors ⁸on real players) a rugby hit at 2300 Lbs per sq inch to a Football hit measured at 4800 LBs per sq inch . Equal to a 35 MPH car crash .
All that being said rugby is no joke !! More accumulative hits that hurt the bones .
But thing is, it’s not just about hits. And I don’t mind being hit super hard if I can take an hour break in between, plus the ad breaks and you keep getting water or some kind of hydration. Rugby on the other hand is getting all that work for 80 minutes plus you still have to constantly run at full speed with no protective gear, players are not getting swapped out much. All you get is a 10 minute break, broken nose, concussion, black eye, broken neck (maybe) and if your lucky no one will step on your face with their cleats. But there’s also a very high chance of ending up with cauliflower ears
@@UltraMellaif you think the padding does so much watch damar Hamlins injury. Watch bijan Robinson and Kevin wares injury. Watch joe theismann’s injury. All it takes is one play, stop being ignorant.
@@2patsfan588 oh so the whole sport revolves around hits and injuries. So whoever gets injured wins 😂 I think we’re not watching the same sport bud
@@UltraMella you wanna talk about toughness but don’t think a guy dying and being back to life on the field and playing the next year is tough?
I remember reading an article about the difference in force between the two.
I don't remember the numbers, so I won't try to quote them, but American football hits were substantially harder. That doesn't tell which sport is tougher, but the tackles are far more dangerous in US football.
Rugby would have evolved to be as hard as US football if they also wore armor (helmets, pads, etc). That is the BIG difference. In rugby, you really have to be more careful bumping skulls. And the long false historical narrative that US football came from football (soccer), because of the same words, did not help either. US football by all intents & purposes really did descend from rugby. The only time you use the foot in US football is during kickoffs & field goal. The rest of the game, using your foot on the ball is a penalty. Thus, it should not have been called US FOOTball in the first place. It is irony.
Football players are faster and wearing equipment as well so if you calculate that each football hit is insanely tough to take a lot more than a rugby hit
@@robwebnoid5763 you do know that rugby is also a type of football right? Football isn’t really a sport it’s more of an umbrella term that was used to differentiate between sports that were played on horseback and sports that were played on your feet.
American foot easily. Rugby is tou but the pads add too much impact
@@ftmws293 ... Yes it is a type of ball sport, but the term "football" has been a misleading description of US football for a long time. When we think of football today, it has always come to mean a sport that consistently & continuously means using the foot/feet in contact with a ball during most of the game. As mentioned, US football rarely uses the feet to play the ball. It also uses the hands for throwing, but yet it's not called throwball or handball. Over the years, "real" football/futbol (soccer) fans had always teased US football as not being football per se. Even in the US, the teasing was the other way around, saying that US football is the real football. The point is that the wording is not unique & does not describe the game more accurately. Sure there is running in it (feet), but many other sports with a ball also have running in it. Basketball is unique because it has the word basket in it, as established historically from its origin using actual baskets. When you have a sport with the word "ball" in it, it usually describes what you are doing with the ball. Baseball (bases), volleyball (volleying), handball (hands), etc. And of course there are ball sports with original traditional unique names in it that does not describe the sport point black with the name ... cricket, tennis, pingpong, badminton, golf, lacrosse, hockey (a ball in the form of a puck), etc. And rugby of course. With US football, with the unique oblong ball & above-ground non-net goal posts, at least these point to rugby as mostly its origin, yet the word "football" & not "rugby" was chosen. It's one reason why people around the world who have only seen global soccer become confused when they see US football, with the name "football", because they notice that the feet are not being used on the ball 99% of the time. If you could go back in time & talk to the people who were inadvertently making up the name of the sport to make it unique, I would have perhaps chosen "Runball" or "Carryball", which is a more apt description. Of course some people might laugh at those names but that's because of hindsight. In an an alternate universe where the game is actually called "Carryball", those people would then laugh if you called it US "football". And as with the point of the video, all that traditional rugby would have needed to get even hard-hitting was slowly adding on armor over the decades, much in the same way US football kept putting on better protection, since the days of leather helmets. You don't see people getting hit hard in a leisurely picnic game of US football because you don't want your family & friends getting injured. Same with flag football, because now tackling becomes a penalty due to avoiding injury & adding the flag as a form of finesse. Today & in the past few decades, long term brain trauma in US football is getting attention, including retired players who have this syndrome. That is one of the allures of US football ... hard hits. And there is a probability that less & less families are introducing their kids to the game during little league ages, although the numbers are uncertain. At the same time, there seems to be some research showing that rugby has 2-3 more head injuries & that's because armor is not traditionally used in the sport. In a way, the helmet in US football was to protect from a head hit, as it evolved from rugby, yet at the same time, adding the helmet meant being able to hit harder & harder over the decades. In rugby, you could use a helmet to avoid that 2-3x injury statistic but still play the game without evolving into harder hitting, although that could have eventually happened if helmets were introduced more into amateur/pro rugby long ago & then you just had to wait & see if it started to get harder when rules got modified, over the span of a century.
In the NFL you can get your head knocked off if you don’t have the ball. You only get collisions in Rugby when someone has the ball/is going for the ball.
Jus search up which sport has a higher injury rate
One helmet to the chin on a textbook tackle and you'll answer this question without even knowing what the other sport is.
I think in the NFL there’s a lot more full speed collisions.
Because they’re wearing shoulder pads and helmets
@@UltraMellatrust. That shit truly does not help lol. Gives a sense of security to try to hit someone harder.
@@UltraMella no it’s because of the directions they’re running. Often times in opposite directions towards each other with running starts. This is created by the forward pass. Rugby doesn’t have that.
@@billbrasky1288 rugby doesn’t have that, because they don’t wear so much padding and motorcycle helmets lol
@@UltraMella no it’s because rugby players are mostly around the line. NFL players are coming at each other from opposite ends of the field at full speed.
I personally think it's all down to the rules. In american football, you can tackle however you want besides a few ways because they've got the pads, but in rugby, they need the rules to stop that because it's much easier for them to get seriously injured. If rugby had the same rules as american football, more than likely you'd never get a full game over with the same players that started as they'll need replacing every few minutes. That's how dangerous it is.
I grew up playing American football on the playground which is basically rugby and I have all the lingering injuries to prove it. There is no doubt that both sports can be similarly brutal. Its just that the argument that because rugby players don't wear helmets and pads makes it "tougher" can only come from people who don't understand the size and speed of both college and pro football players. I know there are some big boys in rugby, but in American football if they didn't wear helmets you would have a dozen concussions every game and life-threatening injuries every week. The speed and power of NFL players is shocking.
Smear the Q….
@@djm3suxx That was the game every day of 5th grade recess tbh.
The big difference is the ridiculous recovery time in American Football.
Its play, wait 15 30 seconds, have another play. Then change an entire team.
League is tackle, tackle, tackle with no rest.
But the tackling is usually soft so that everyone can get back up quickly.
@@areguapiri Just like NFL. 99% of tackles are soft.
@@laurencebyron9183 no they’re not
@@laurencebyron9183 lol
I read somewhere, on average, in an NFL game the ball is actually in play for only 11 minutes. In a Rugby league game the ball is in play on average 62 minutes.
Lets talk about stamina and endurance.
That's why rugby players try to make it in the NFL and fail?
@@mikeyerian2562 They get bored.
@@spiderrabbit1556 that's it, sure
@@mikeyerian2562 that response took about half the length of an actual game of NFL.
@@spiderrabbit1556 brilliant. anyway, rugby players fail in the NFL. Always.
To all the Americans commenting that they played “rugby” - sorry you did not play rugby league, you played rugby union. Comparing the NRL to your experience playing with a local RU club in the USA would be like me comparing the NFL to my experience in an amateur Canadian football team.
What is considered an illegal hit RU is not in RL. The hits are also harder in RL because you’re charging at a defensive line 10m away. The ball is in play in a game for twice as long in RL. There are a thousand more differences
I've never forgotten the bumper sticker that read, "It Takes Leather Balls to Play Rugby". Did they consider the heat inside those pads and helmets in American football? Many stadiums in the south are not roofed and the temperature on the field can reach the nineties and higher. I'm not sure whether there is a lot of substitution in Rugby, but if not I have to say those players are better athletes. Forty minutes without a break??? Our football has 25 seconds between plays, penalties which can take a few seconds or as much as minutes to unravel, timeouts for television commercials, three 30-second timeouts per half, and a fifteen minute halftime. It takes at least 3 hours to play a game that has 60 minutes of actual playing time.
I played football and don’t get the shoulder pads. You don’t have pads where you actually get hit I like watching both and they are 2 different beast
Yes rugby AFL NFL college football all have huge hits its the tremendous throwing and catching skills that separate American football from the rest.and I watched a rugby game on youtube once these hits are very rare most are just grabbing a player and pulling them to the ground.
Watched a game. There’s the issue. You need to watch many games to appreciate it mate. It’s an incredible sport with high intensity
@counselthyself I haven’t you’re right. I have way too much sport in my life at moment to try and keep a family together 😂😂
@counselthyself I’ll give it a watch. Is it in season now?
The American talent pool is another huge aspect to the difference in these games. The biggest, strongest and fastest are widdled down to the ones who have the most talent. And from a population of over 360 million.
Very few NRL players are 5'6". The average height for male NRL players is over 6'1" with many well over that. And they tend to be 99kg or more.
I've played Aussie rule's, Rugby league, Rugby union & American football at club level & 110% Rugby league is the most taxing & hurting far much more so than the other sport's mentioned by head's & shoulders.
Concussion are very common in League, and they are taken alot more serious these days with HIA's during the game and automatic 11 day suspension if deemed a category 1 concussion.
Cte is completely fake science.
Hey lads bloke in a bar is owned by and ex league player ,denim kemp,he has a beer called bloke in a bar as well which isnt a bad drop.He has a podcast discussing mostly league as well which is pretty popular here in Australia,you lads should hit him up hes a great guy.These are both gladiator sports so bring on the hits!!
Post-career health might be a good indicator. Who's punchier and more addled in retirement?
Dave routinely seems to start certain videos with "I've never kept up with this sort of topic before, but I suspect...[goes on to explain argument in video)]."
The boxing glove analogy might've made sense 10-15yrs ago in the NFL -- and by no means am I dismissing the toughness of rugby players, or pretending the NFL has figured out the perfect balance of athleticism, skill and toughness -- but, I would definitely feel confident saying rugby players would want no actual part competing against guys like Aaron Donald, Myles Garrett, Nick Bosa, etc, etc... as much as the NFL has "become soft" over the years to people who might otherwise be classified as meatheads, in terms of actual physicality, athleticism and skill I'm willing to bet the top NFL players could absolutely smoke the tip rugby players with just a few months practice. Zero chance the reverse is true
You know nothing. NRL players would run full steam at anyone and they would tackle anyone too.... something those bitches in the NFL don't do.
No running off to sit on the sideline while a defensive team makes all the tackles, or vice versa. No stopping the game after each tackle to fix hair and makeup.
Also, you need fitness to play in the NRL, no NFL player could finish a half of an NRL game, they don't have the stamina to play non stop on both sides of the ball.
Now that's an interesting video to watch, unlike the boring fails type of video's you've been posting lately.
After reading comments, it appears Americans can't get their heads around, rugby and NRL are different sports.
I played both American football and Rugby Union in college at Sacramento State here in the US. I have to say the level of athleticism was far higher in football than even the best in rugby, even playing against Cal and Saint Mary's, probably just because there's more of a future playing football here. The hits were more brutal in football, where tackles in rugby were more calculated.
You go know there are two different codes of Rugby don't you?
Rugby League dude. Different game. Similar but different.
@@billymack333 Interesting fact that Sam Burgess while playing Rugby League for South Sydney in Sydney had a stint playing Rugby Union in England said that he doubted the Union players had the fitness levels to play League. And i guess that would be true of NFL players that have different teams on the field at different at times in a game. He thinks of the 3 football codes we are talking about here that League players would be the fittest.
Comparing your college Rugby experience to the juggernaut that is college Football in the US is a bad comparison.
No offense but your college Rugby team is probably made up of a few passionate individuals mixed with the rejects from the American football team. They would struggle against low tier amateur Rugby teams in Rugby playing nations.
What code of Rugby are we talking about here Anton, and in 'Football' there is very little doubt that either AFL [Australian Football League or Simply Aussie Rules] or Rugby League have the highest fitness levels. And NRL is largely ignored because of the stop and start nature of the game and most times it is played by 2 very seperate teams.
The guy in the white T-Shirt nailed it. The pads and helmets in American Football, cause the players to hit harder, the "protection" gets nullified since they put more pace on each hit. Additionally, anyone here can look it up, the average American Professional Player is about 2 inches taller and about 25 lbs heavier than a rugby player. That being said, Rugby players have less breaks between action and have more overall endurance. Both great sports.
Where was the consideration for the lack of rest league players have. They said NFL is played 11 on 11, but that’s not accurate because there is a defence and attack team and they swap out, yet league has the whole team on the field, and everyone is expected to attack and defend. No time outs and the game is longer in league. League wins!
And how many plays and schemes is the average League player expected to memorize to a T?
State of Origin is on soon you have to watch it for the best game of rugby league
League isn’t as brutal as it used to be but being tough is a prerequisite because if it doesn’t hurt you’re doing it wrong
NFL players used to get a concussion sot out a couple of minutes and head straight bacl into the game. They also will shoot the players up with Toradol for injuries that they really should sit out weeks for
As kids, we played a game called “smear the queer”, then went to rugby, then went to football.
Having pads def makes players hit way harder and way more explosive but rugby was more cardio intensive and has more restrictions for tackling/hitting.
Personally, there’s something more “psychologically freeing” playing football because of the pads and just going full steam trucking other dudes whereas with rugby everyone tends to play more reserved for fear of getting injured.
Then again, I got the boxers break fighting without gloves so there’s a lot of gray area imo
i played from Pop Warner league (children around age 6~10) up to semi-professional. the padding is not there to protect players, but to weaponize them.
Jordan Mailata, who played both at a high level (is on the Eagles O line and played for the Rabittohs U20), says American football is tougher when you're on the offensive line or defensive line.
We seem to have some comments here that some get on here with very different know-how of the very different codes of football indeed, the biggest i guess is the thinking there is only one code of Rugby.
Tough is using stamina, endurance and speed at the same time...most people are measuring tough through injuries players get after the game but what about during the game? Rugby has 80 minutes no stops except half time while NFL has way less than that and a lot of time out and long commercial breaks...so if I were to measure tough through stamina, endurance and speed during a game I'd say Rugby...but in terms of injury sustained after a game it's NFL (but that's because of poor tackling skills and defence) but hey the NFL makes the most $$$ so I guess money talks?
Before pads there were 15 players killed in American college football in one season. That's why the pads were introduced. A lot of fatalities led to the decision to institute and wear pads. I like the video but it was not nearly as in depth as it truly could've been. They wear pads on American football because people were dying on the field in the early 20th century.
What i don't see people talking about is strength, power, explosion. Who's going to be the more power explosive athlete. The guy running non stop for a whole game. Or the guy running for 5 seconds a play and then resting for 30 seconds.
Rugby seems more of an endurance sport, where A. football is more like sprinting or running intervals where the player goes full out for short periods. For running backs and receivers the game is much more hazardous than rugby, but less so for other positions. I think due to the resetting between plays there are more occasions for high-speed collisions between players in A. football. In the end, you have to be a crazy MF to play either sport.
Let's look at this, Rugby players play for 80 minutes with just a small break at half time. Its non stop for the majority of that time, no time outs no stopping once the ball is out or caught or someone is tackled. No pads or helmets and only 4 substitutes per team. NFL is a game supposedly played by 13 players per team but fail to mention that there are actually two teams each side, a defensive side and an offensive side. Time outs and stoppages make the game last a lot longer than its supposed running time so there are more time for catching ones breath. Rugby players run flat out at the opposition and are tacked by one, two or more players and then get up to play the ball and carry on. NFL players do the same but only because they have padding and helmets and after being knocked down there is a break , not playing on instantly. Self preservation is not an issue in Rugby as they tackle as hard or harder than NFL players and I doubt very much that an NFL player could play a full 80 minutes of Rugby but Rugby Players can transition to NFL with ease and are usually sort after as kickers and tackles.
I like Dave's mind working on how your are to measure toughness. And he's considering all the important factors.
Here we go again. By changing what you mean by tougher then you change answer. Football and Rugby's cores are so different that it is hard to compare the two. I think there could be great synergy between the two.
IMO, the NRL requires more toughness but the NFL is more dangerous
I'd dare you to tell a rugby player to his face they don't go %100 because they don't have padding!
The clip you watched was also very misleading because the American sport has offensive and defensive teams for a total of 22 players per game (11 on the field at a time)
I've played them all, and to be honest, I stopped playing the NFL code because after years of playing the two rugby codes, grid iron as its coined in Australia, was for me, just too soft. Background, when you've been playing without padding and a helmet since childhood, I felt like I was playing with a mattress wrapped around me. Sorry, if I offend anyone but that is my honest experience.
So you wore pads but hit and tackled rugby style? I would guess that you hardly felt anything. The pads were built to protect against football collisions, not rugby ones.
Forget the contact... **Rugby League NON STOP full on body contact no pads**
American Gridiron... **Stop start contact with pads** Hmmm....let me see🤔
The forward pass in football is what makes football more dangerous. And it isn’t close. And the majority of legal hits in football would get you kicked out of rugby. Also Joe Rogan has 0 knowledge of rugby or football. Not sure why he’s in this video so much
I played both rugby and football at the small college level. Loved them both. Rugby was more demanding on your stamina but football was definitely more dangerous.
Appreciate both sports for different reasons. No need for chest-thumping off the field.
Pro Ice Hockey. Imagine doing everything these other sports have in them…, BUT ON THE EDGE OF A KNIFE BLADE, ON ICE!
Answer: NHL. The pads question is interesting. In hockey as pads improved and with the introduction of helmets, the stick work increased a great deal.
Definitely Rugby No Contest. I played 2 years high school Rugby at a high level in Fiji. And 6 years American Football in the US of A. If you answer American Football then you have never played Rugby League. Although American Football players are much Superior athletically in many aspects, the game itself does not require as much as Rugby league demands. American Football has offense then the Defense comes in, basically 2 teams within a team. In Rugby, you are the offense and within a moments notice you trying to stop these big forwards plowing over you as you now playing defense. You have a breather after every play in American Football... yes afterevery play as you regroup and plan the next play and this does not include the team timeouts and the TV timeouts ( in College and NFL these lasts minutes)... None of this in Rugny. You get a break when the ballboy races to get the ball and you lining up for the lineout. So yes Rugby is tougher because of the endurance required or demanded. In a simplier way to explain this... teach a Rugby Player a few plays and put him in an American Football game, he may suck but he will survive... Put an American Football player in a Rugby game, tell him you dont have to hit anything, just run around for 2 halves, he will be begging to get out of the game less than 30 minutes in.
Every American kid plays football without pads in the backyard. Only wear pads in an organized league
AFL says "Hold my beer!"
I accept that BOTH sports are tough. An NRL (17 players) game takes 90 minutes (40 each half + 10 for a half time break) whereas, NFL (46 players) takes aomething like 3-4 houra to play 60 mins. They take off just about the whole team depending on whether they are defending or attacking. So, with this in mind it's just plain crazy to say which is tougher. By these standards League is much tougher in my mind. Hey, I don't mind watching a good NFL game, but League has bought in some new rules that I am against, I was a Rugby League fan, but now I watch more Australian Rules than league. in the past couple of years I haven't actually watched a minute of the State Of Origin games and I'm a Queenslander. Just my thoughts.
The history of the NFL has many examples of really tough players. Jack Youngblood played while having a broken leg (tibia). Ronnie Lott had part of his finger amputated during the game and returned. Jim Otto played one game with a partially broken hand, and another with a rib broken off one of his back vertebrae! Many players "tough out" the practices and games nursing broken or dislocated fingers, thumbs, noses, etc. Obviously, toughness is a relative term. Regardless, the Rugby Leagues appear to have many tough dudes as well! i
Ronnie Lott did not return after his finger was amputated , he left a game with a broken finger, had it amputated after , missed 1 game but played following game ! Lets not tell stories !
@@chiefkelce5017 Dude was still a beast. Love me some Ronnie Lott, his highlights are amazing.
@@Vladpryde He was a best but to say " He had part of his finger amputated DURING a game and returned " is a little bit of a story
@@chiefkelce5017 You're right, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying: he was a beast and his highlights are awesome. But you're right: he didn't have it amputated in the locker room lol. That's myth and legend.
To quote Jeremy Clarkson
"Rugby is basically like American Football, but played by men"
I love Clarkson, but I doubt he even knows what a Quarterback does.
NFL have offensive and defensive players that do one job. NRL players have to attack and defend. NRL only have 4 players on the bench NFL have either their defensive or offensive players on the field depending on the play. All NRL players run with the ball and tackle the opposite players all game every game for 80minutes.
Boxing is more dangerous than mma because the extra padding in boxing allows for more punishment to be handed out. Mma has smaller gloves so when you get hit you feel all of it. So instead of taking hundreds of hits you can only take 30 or 40 until one of them turn the lights off. Seems more brutal but mma is safer.
In their own right they are both physically hard when given the opportunity to make big hits...
both are tough, and I respect rugby players, but american football is definitely the toughest.
Padding doesn’t really help in any sport…. Sparring in boxing with head gear is honestly worse than no head gear for instance. You can’t see as well and the glove catches the head gear and twists your whole neck. Hurts like hell.
The NFL recruiters watch for talent all around the world. We had a couple of Rugby players play in the NFL. One was an Australian that played for the Dallas Cowboys. He was good, probably enjoyed the money. You have some catostrophic injuries in the NFL. You can't pull back because you might injure another player, the Coaching staff expects you to fuck someone up, or you're gone. For instance, the life expectancy of a running back is 3 yrs. He's spent after that. The force of the offensive and defensive lines colliding is the same force as 2 vehicles hitting each other at 35 mph. Maybe I'm prejudiced, but I like my NFL.
Rugby is tougher because they don't use protective equipment and probably need more stamina to play. American football is tougher because of the size, strength, and speed of the players and the fact that they are carrying an additional 8-12 pounds of equipment on their bodies while they are playing.
I note people are confusing Rugby with Rugby league apples and oranges guys. Put in simple terms Rugby league is more of a high impact game a lot closer to NFL wheras Rugby Union is based more around strength, that's not to say they don't have the odd big hit. Every play in league ends up with high contact Union is built more around the Rucks and mauls.
I don’t know which sport is “tougher”, but I think American Football is certainly more dangerous
Im surpised America didn't call the NFL as WFL "World Football League" 😂
American baseball is called the World Series lol
Theres no technique in NFL tackles when you just need to get a guy down from any angle
In NRL players will have a shorter run up, tackled from the front and usually wrestled to the ground to stop passes
The best way to settle this is to take a NRL team and put them in the equipment against NFL players. Then take an NFL team and strip them of equipment to play against the NRL.
Rugby League had more big hits when shoulder charges were legal.
The thing about America is rugby is played.. in high school, D1 college level. Women’s and men. Definitely not at the level of other countries though
I think football is more brutal, but rugby is a lot tougher, just from an endurance standpoint.
It's a hard one to answer reason being in nfl they have a specials team defense team and attacking team where in league league you only have 13 on the field who defend and attack so hard one to judge imagine nfl players both attacking and defending for the whole game
I played football and basketball. The difference in football is every play is 100% full speed. You demand so much every play, that there’s no way you could play continuously.
American football is unnecessarily more dangerous because the padding gives the impression that they are protected.
I can only speak from my American point of view, but rugby in this country is for people who couldn't make it in football. I have a friend who played rugby professionally and he was average at best on our football team in high school.
Rugby league was started in Australia after world war 2 in Darwin..
Rugby League at the elite level is the ultimate physical team sport in the world
First both similar games but toally different. American Football has alot of breaks between downs and alot of subsitutions, there is not player on an NFL team that plays for the full 60 minutes. Rugby you are generally expect to play for the full 80 minutes and at all times you need to be ready for action. Since the action in Rugby league is almost constant the player have to train for not only power and speed, but stamina and endurance aswell.
Take an the most exterme example, the kicker in the 2 sports, one sport the kicker is only on the field when the team needs him to kick the ball and he has special rules to protect him (Roughing the kicker). The other sport the kicker play the full game, attacking and defending, also being called on to kick the ball, with no special rules to protect him over everyone else.
You have to be tough to play these sports at the top level, but Rugby players are tougher.
Most Americans don't know the differences in styles of rugby.
As an American with limited acess to rugby, I would think that the constant rugby play is harder than all the breaks in American football. In football, either the offense or the defense rests while the offense side plays. Players only have a 60 min. game, not 80
What did football do to Joe Rogan? Lol
Both sports are tough but I’d give the edge to Football because of the speed of the game and there’s a more strategic component to Football than Rugby. You still have to remember plays, pass routes, blocking schemes, defensive assignments, audibles at the line etc etc, while getting the shit kicked out of you.
it was once said that union is played by gentleman who play like thugs while league is played by thugs who play like gentleman.
Nfl’s tackle isn’t art they just hurt each other. In rugby tackle is different and you have use your brain. 60 min match vs 80 minute one. Also reason why they get more head injuries there while ass tackles cause think gear protect them when helmet is problem actually.
So if u took away all the protective gear of a top NFL team and had a 40 minute game against a top NRL team with no stops,😂😂how many NFL players wud b still standing up.😂😂😂.
You cannot compare, although a ARL player could more easily adapt to NRL. The NRL player would probably have to do more work to get up to speed with ARL. I think?
They're both rough has hell lol
I believe that hockey should be placed in this discussion as well. It is very physically demanding and then you put weapons on the players feet and in their hands.
Australian football is tougher than both!!
It's interesting how rugby caps look very similar to American leather helmets of the 1920s and 1930s.