Rugby is a sport for fat uncoordinated sport vegetables.

[Stat Brother]

Perhaps. I'm bored though and looking to pick pointless fights.

It's the NSC way.

 

[Nibble]

I'm probably gonna get scolded for sweeping generalisations but 90% of Rugby players i've met, and I've met a lot, have been beligerant, self satisfied oafs.

 

[Badger]

I assume the OP has just got home from school and was having an argument about this in playground.

 

[piersa]

Where's the option for "They both require different skills and abilities, so they cannot be compared"?

And do you have any evidence to back up such a ridiculous thread title?

Would you like a tissue for your tears?

 

[maltaseagull]

Why cant egg chasing fans accept it is harder to play football than eggby and is played by fat messes?

I am not sure how you can compare the two. Rugby is much tougher physically and generally a more honest game but professionalism has started the cheating in rugby too. The day when we see rugby players rolling around in agony after being touched and getting up with no injury a few seconds later, will be a very sad one. In fact the game will probably be abandoned by all concerned.

 

[piersa]

I assume the OP has just got home from school and was having an argument about this in playground.

Oh no, don't say that, it's really going to affect my sleep.

 

[piersa]

I am not sure how you can compare the two. Rugby is much tougher physically and generally a more honest game but professionalism has started the cheating in rugby too. The day when we see rugby players rolling around in agony after being touched and getting up with no injury a few seconds later, will be a very sad one. In fact the game will probably be abandoned by all concerned.

Fair point

 

[maltaseagull]

Would you like a tissue for your tears?

Played both?

 

[maltaseagull]

Would you like a tissue for your tears?

Played both?

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Would you like a tissue for your tears?

No thanks. Would you like to answer either question?

 

[countryman]

They are just as hard as each other. They take as much skill as each other, although rugby is harder to start playing then football.

 

[wehatepalace]

Its all about what you're good at, if you're good at football then you play football. Having played rugby for about 30 years at a fairly high level, I have seen plenty of footballers come and play rugby and I'd say 95% of them were crap at Rugby and quickly went back to football. Of course there are a exceptions to the rule.
Personally I was a bit crap at football, but pretty good at rugby.

 

[piersa]

Played both?

Yep, played both and can honestly say, I found Rugby very easy and although I am ok at football, I find it much more technical than Rugby.

 

[Hiney]

Why cant egg chasing fans accept it is harder to play football than eggby and is played by fat messes?

I'm guessing you are what, 15 years old?

There are so many holes in that statement.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

The games are too different to compare. The argument that it is much harder to control the ball with your feet than hands is negated but the two different shapes of ball. The round ball much easier to predict bounce, the oval ball is a complete lottery some of the time.
Rugby players have got bigger and fitter in recent years. 30 years ago it was rare to find a back anywhere near 13 stone. Nowadays 15 stone is commonplace. The talented ball players of the past e.g. Barry John, Mike Gibson, Phil Bennett etc were all small slim men, now the only smaller player tends to be the scrum half. Everyone states footballers are much fitter than in the past but we now have some managers claiming that their players are tired after 15 games.
Rugby still allows proper physical contact. Football is trying to eliminate it.
Referees are wired up in rugby. They should be in football but can't as every parent watching and listening would never let their child ever go near a football field.
Fit, strong, athletic rugby players crash through tackles that make the earth shudder. Fit, strong, athletic footballers go down at the slightest touch and often when there is no touch at all.
Footballers play-act continually. Rugby players don't.
Footballers earn far more, on average, than their ability and contribution warrants. Rugby players don't.
Football is a simple game that the whole world can understand. Some people try and complicate it to give it more credibility but you still cannot disguise its basic simplicity. Rugby is a deeper, more complicated game and tends to attract players from a different background. i.e the private and public schools.
Rugby players interview better and generally appear better educated. Most footballers trot out simplistic, cliched answers and lack a full education.
Every rugby player I have ever met ( and that includes the highest level ) all play the game because they love it. Every game they play is full-out, no quarter given, for 80 minutes. A lot of them can barely drag themselves off the field at the end. Even if they have been soundly beaten, every fan knows that every member of that team has given their all for the cause.
I wish we could say the same for football.

 

[piersa]

I'm guessing you are what, 15 years old?

There are so many holes in that statement.

Bad guess sonny

 

[piersa]

The games are too different to compare. The argument that it is much harder to control the ball with your feet than hands is negated but the two different shapes of ball. The round ball much easier to predict bounce, the oval ball is a complete lottery some of the time.
Rugby players have got bigger and fitter in recent years. 30 years ago it was rare to find a back anywhere near 13 stone. Nowadays 15 stone is commonplace. The talented ball players of the past e.g. Barry John, Mike Gibson, Phil Bennett etc were all small slim men, now the only smaller player tends to be the scrum half. Everyone states footballers are much fitter than in the past but we now have some managers claiming that their players are tired after 15 games.
Rugby still allows proper physical contact. Football is trying to eliminate it.
Referees are wired up in rugby. They should be in football but can't as every parent watching and listening would never let their child ever go near a football field.
Fit, strong, athletic rugby players crash through tackles that make the earth shudder. Fit, strong, athletic footballers go down at the slightest touch and often when there is no touch at all.
Footballers play-act continually. Rugby players don't.
Footballers earn far more, on average, than their ability and contribution warrants. Rugby players don't.
Football is a simple game that the whole world can understand. Some people try and complicate it to give it more credibility but you still cannot disguise its basic simplicity. Rugby is a deeper, more complicated game and tends to attract players from a different background. i.e the private and public schools.
Rugby players interview better and generally appear better educated. Most footballers trot out simplistic, cliched answers and lack a full education.
Every rugby player I have ever met ( and that includes the highest level ) all play the game because they love it. Every game they play is full-out, no quarter given, for 80 minutes. A lot of them can barely drag themselves off the field at the end. Even if they have been soundly beaten, every fan knows that every member of that team has given their all for the cause.
I wish we could say the same for football.

Some good points but the one about the ball being easier to control with your hands than your feet is a physiological fact due to proprioception and mechanoreception.

 

[nwgull]

I am not sure how you can compare the two. Rugby is much tougher physically and generally a more honest game but professionalism has started the cheating in rugby too. The day when we see rugby players rolling around in agony after being touched and getting up with no injury a few seconds later, will be a very sad one. In fact the game will probably be abandoned by all concerned.

Can't see that happening as players will always get 'legally' injured due to the intense physical nature of the game. I've had a number of injuries over my rugby career; all from fair and legal tackles. I've also taken a few punches and been stamped on but have never suffered significant injury from the naughty stuff.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Fat messes?

I have had the entire Natal Sharks side in my shop and I would not describe any of them as fat. Huge, yes, but not fat. JP Pietersen, who Ronaldo would be up against, would catch him easily and then rip his head off in one simple movement. His Biceps are bigger than Ronaldo's wallet.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Cant compare the 2 different sports!

Correct. One's good, one's shit. (Disclaimer: not my actual opinion)

I am not sure how you can compare the two. Rugby is much tougher physically and generally a more honest game but professionalism has started the cheating in rugby too. The day when we see rugby players rolling around in agony after being touched and getting up with no injury a few seconds later, will be a very sad one. In fact the game will probably be abandoned by all concerned.

The games are too different to compare. The argument that it is much harder to control the ball with your feet than hands is negated but the two different shapes of ball. The round ball much easier to predict bounce, the oval ball is a complete lottery some of the time.
Rugby players have got bigger and fitter in recent years. 30 years ago it was rare to find a back anywhere near 13 stone. Nowadays 15 stone is commonplace. The talented ball players of the past e.g. Barry John, Mike Gibson, Phil Bennett etc were all small slim men, now the only smaller player tends to be the scrum half. Everyone states footballers are much fitter than in the past but we now have some managers claiming that their players are tired after 15 games.
Rugby still allows proper physical contact. Football is trying to eliminate it.
Referees are wired up in rugby. They should be in football but can't as every parent watching and listening would never let their child ever go near a football field.
Fit, strong, athletic rugby players crash through tackles that make the earth shudder. Fit, strong, athletic footballers go down at the slightest touch and often when there is no touch at all.
Footballers play-act continually. Rugby players don't.
Footballers earn far more, on average, than their ability and contribution warrants. Rugby players don't.
Football is a simple game that the whole world can understand. Some people try and complicate it to give it more credibility but you still cannot disguise its basic simplicity. Rugby is a deeper, more complicated game and tends to attract players from a different background. i.e the private and public schools.
Rugby players interview better and generally appear better educated. Most footballers trot out simplistic, cliched answers and lack a full education.
Every rugby player I have ever met ( and that includes the highest level ) all play the game because they love it. Every game they play is full-out, no quarter given, for 80 minutes. A lot of them can barely drag themselves off the field at the end. Even if they have been soundly beaten, every fan knows that every member of that team has given their all for the cause.
I wish we could say the same for football.

So...

Where's the option for "They both require different skills and abilities, so they cannot be compared"?

Happy to admit your basic argument is flawed, and not resort to petty responses when someone challenges your opinion?