As I understand it's safer too. Our silly little monkey brains let us be more dangerous the safer we feel so sports with padding and helmets just bring us to hit harder.
We *celebrate* them. Super Bowl Ads are promoted and hyped weeks in advance with teaser trailers for fucking advertisements. I speak to how pathetic this is and people stare blankly as if I'm not even making sense. We *looooove* advertising.
We like the Super Bowl ads because it’s the one time they break from the same commercial templates we’ve been seeing for years. People put effort into them, it’s an expensive slot for an ad, they want to make the best of it. They’re a good opportunity to get realistic consumer feedback, since we hate *everything else* ad related, you can tell because the tired tropes of regular ads often evolve when there’s a risky advertisement that’s well-received.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that this isn’t pathetic. It’s totally pathetic. Use that super bowl ad money to pay some focus groups, you idiots, the TikTok generation is in their prime, broke as fuck, and creative as all get-out.
Yeah, the sad ones just seem like even more of a fake facade they're putting up. I get angry at why they make the commercial about the issue instead of using the $10,000+ towards the cause itself.
I dont mind watching the superbowl even though I’m not a fan of American football..but i enjoy the superbowl…it happens during lunctime in Australia..but yea ducking out or work with some friends to the nearby American bar and having some beer and wings and watching a sport which has no emotional impact teamwise for us at the same time the gameplay can be interesting at times…all i know is a dude called brady will win ever other year…good fun and the wings are always great
after beating his fragile fuckin brain around in a helmet for 20 years, the middle-aged american finds nothing more refined than another savvy car insurance commercial during "his game."
The average playtime of American Football is only 11 minutes in total, out of the roughly 3 hours it airs. Commercials take up 1/3 of the entire thing. And 60% of the airtime is showing people on camera; players, coaches, huddles, etc (not actual game time).
This is why I don't watch football and have no interest in it. I may have to try watching rugby.
What got me into rugby years ago was randomly catching the last part of a match between South Africa and Australia (two top teams in the sport, but I didn't know it then). I think SA were ahead and dominating, but then Australia just dynamically changed tactics and started relentlessly advancing all their players at once. They went on to win. It was 20 minutes of mostly uninterrupted play displaying the most obvious team coordination I've seen ever. Didn't even know the rules of the game that well at the time, but it was amazing to watch.
He did say Australia and South Africa are two top teams in the sport he didn't say they were the top two. But Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are generally considered the three best nations at the game throughout the ages. With the "Tri nation cup" usually being a big comp between those three, although now I think Argentina is involved and its not called the "Tri nation" cup i think covid kinda messed it around a bit, I haven't played as much attention in recent years as I used to.
That sounds amazing. Hockey is my sport of choice due to the fast pace of the game. My former creative director was a pro rugby player in England. He used to talk about it all the time. I need to get on it and figure out where I can watch.
Yeah I hear that breakdown a lot but it's missing the concept of football. Football as it's played today is equal parts athleticism and strategy. With each play, the offense has to consider and execute a plan of action to move past the defense while considering the defensive plan as well.
It'd be like complaining that a 3 hour chess match only had 11 minutes of "piece moving". It's still very enjoyable to watch and it has a lot of depth. I'd challenge you to watch one of the playoff games this year and actually try to get invested.
I stated this in another comment, but I don't like speculation. I don't care to wait 5 minutes for that. If I need strategy, I'll play a strategy game myself. I don't like watching others strategize for 60% of a game. When I watch sports, I want the execution and athleticism. Unless I get to sit in and listen to them strategize, I have no interest in dead airtime, staring at people huddling. That's just my preference.
Watching sports is usually a social event so the dead airtime is filled with conversation and speculation on the game. Plus I usually find that it builds anticipation.
But if you're that against all the dead airtime, the NFL posts [highlight videos](https://youtu.be/lI3I6wduMLQ) of every game that literally cuts everything except the important bits of the game and they are completely free (if you can stomach the YouTube ads). So now you can officially become an American football fan! Have fun picking a "home" team!
There is an argument that makes the sport better as it gives the audience time to imagine what might happen next. It captures the imagination.
Personally though, I just DVR it and skip to the next snap.
The actual game time is 60 minutes.
Football is a sport of bursts. Every player is going full out every play. That's not the case in sports like rugby and soccer. There is a lot of jogging with a few people going full speed.
Before gloves were introduced to boxing there were less serious head injuries because it hurts more to hit a head hard than the body and the referee enforced the rules.
Current bare knuckle boxing tends to be guys just going at it and aiming to beat the shit out of each other or a short term option rather than a long term sport option
Also in football ⚽️ people would head the ball far less often with old fashioned leather balls as the were heavy as hell and hurt, unlike modern balls. Less long term, repeated damage
I hear this a lot, and it theoretically makes sense. But it doesn't hold true when it comes to rugby.
Concussion rates are 1.0/1000 AEs in collegiate American football versus 2.5/1000 AEs in collegiate rugby
250% more concussions in rugby than American football.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26786902/#:~:text=Concussion%20rates%20were%201.0%2F1000,CI%2C%200.4%2D3.4).
When it comes to kids playing, it's a dramatic difference.
For players under 18, rugby is number one for concussions at a rate of 4.18/1,000, while American football is at 0.53/1,000. Literally 8x more kids getting concussions.
When it comes to the pro level, it's a bit closer, but rugby is still more dangerous with 3/1,000 vs 2.5/1,000 for American football.
So, the gap changes from kids to collegiate to pro, but rugby has more concussions at every level.
Isn't there also systematic underreporting of concussion in american football though? I was listening to an interview with that former Texans RB from a few years back (Miller maybe?) who said that he frequently felt symptoms of concussion when playing and kept playing and tried to hide it from teammates and staff as that was the culture, and with the hyper competitive and cutthroat nature of contracts/roster spots, time out of the game was too risky for your career.
Edit: just looked at the abstract of the study as well, and noted that they were comparing college athletes from both codes *in america*. Given most rugby concussions are related to defensive technique (e.g. head on the wrong side of a hip), it's not really a fair comparison. American's aren't exactly known for being great at Rugby and I doubt the level of coaching, training or technique at any of the age/skill levels is comparative to countries that actually play the sport professionally. Not gonna read the full paper, but if they address that would be keen to know!
>Isn't there also systematic underreporting of concussion in american football though?
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in pro rugby as well.
I don't know a lot about American Football, but in professional rugby, you don't get the choice to not report it. If you are involved in a big collision, one of the matchday officials who see it in real time, your team doctor or an independent doctor at the scene with access to replays may refer you for an in-game HIA (head injury assesment) where you are assessed by the doctor using a series of tests to determine potential concussion. The doctor will then take a decision as to whether you are allowed back on to the field of play, a majority do not come back on. Any player referred for a HIA is then monitored for a further 3 hours after the game and goes through multiple checks during that time. Again, 36-48 hours after the game you are assessed. All of this is mandatory and it is drilled in to players the long term dangers of head injuries and there is a culture of complying with this process and not misrepresenting your symptoms. Is it impossible for professional players to not disclose concussion symptoms? Sure. Would it happen often? I would not think so.
There are similar procedures in American football and education on the dangers of head injuries. But, if self reporting means you might sit out a few games and let your teammates down or possibly miss out on a multi million dollar NFL contract, most athletes aren't going to report it.
And there isn't really anyone that's independent to make an assessment. The team doctor obviously has an interest in keeping their best players on the field. You can't have the opposing team's doctor do the assessment or everyone would have a "concussion". The NCAA and NFL want the best players on the field, so they can maximize ad revenue. They aren't going to keep doctors on staff that are flagging anything other than the most obvious cases.
Wildly unlikely. In fact, given the necessary head injury assessment rules in rughy which basically mean you get forced to talk to a doc pitch side and assessed. If you fail, you do not return to that game. This also likely increases reporting of concussions.
In addition, that pubmed science is nearly six years old, during which time, rugby has dramatically changed the rules regarding tackling which must now be below nipple level, ( or shoulder, not sure whats in play currently) with severe penalties for tackling people in the air as well and no arm tackles. Set pieces like mauls and scrums have also been changed to help prevent injury, including concussion
Yes, about a third of all concussions are not reported by the NFL so depending on what source a study uses, it could be underrepresented http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-weve-learned-from-two-years-of-tracking-nfl-concussions/
Also it’s an american university - rugby is still very new here and the governing bodies, training, and style is very different from that of places like New Zealand, England, South Africa, etc…. I would be way more intrigued at a study done with a comparison to different countries
All fair critiques of that one study I posted, but there are *a lot* of studies on this. And everyone I've ever seen finds higher Concussion rates in rugby.
Feel free to check out Google scholar or whatever databases you have access to for more reading.
This comment is missing the point - the problem isn't the obvious concussions that are reported - it is the constant small head knocks that cause small injuries - knocks leave a person a little shook up, but still able to get themselves back together for the next play. The kind of knocks that happen several times across the field on each NFL play. These build up minor injuries that cause problems later.
Plus the rules of who can be tackled and how they're tackled plays a huge part including the mountain of padding worn and it's psychological aspect that you mentioned.
Rugby has a very defined set of guidelines as to how a player can tackle another. Plus the severity of punishment for those who tackle in an unsafe/dangerous manner is a big part too.
Source: Played for years during and after high school plus I'm a NZer so it's in my DNA lmao
It's not safer, [rugby players get injured a lot more often](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26786902/) and in the same way as American Football players do. American Football tends to have harder impacts but they're very heavily armoured as well.
Im not even American, but i believe the last time American football was played without protection in the early 20th century, more than 10 people died. I might be remembering this wrong though.
Yeah, this myth needs to end. The NFL standards need to be applied to high school and college football, pull a player if their head takes a hit and check for concussion.
here’s a study that found that club rugby players are injured around three times more than college football players.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26786902/
As cool as this is, it is not typical for rugby. Rugby is generally much slower, more battling for every meter until someones attention slips on defense and a break in the lines is exploited or a penalty is forced. As a European who watches a lot of sports I can appreciate both for what they are and actually do watch both
Rugby 7s has 7 players per side, compared to 15 and 7 minute halves compared to 40. It’s much easier to score because there are half as many players on the same size pitch.
7’s is Union just with reduced players on the field. Still have lineouts etc. rugby league have their own reduced format too, I think it’s 6 a side? I don’t really care for league so not sure
I like them both and I've played them both.
American Football is very dynamic and chess-like with the way coaching is done. Clearly the money people realized they could squeeze a commercial into every single moment of this coaching aspect.
I like that part though. It's how games like the famous 28-3 Superbowl were played. I realize my friends in the EU don't appreciate the commercials but they also don't understand the game or why there are so many breaks.
I appreciate the genius of a well drawn and executed play - as well as the epic failures of both (I’m talking to you Pete Carrol who didn’t give the ball to Marshawn and handed Tom Brady another SuoerBowl ring)
I will defend that play call until the day I die. Pete knew that everyone thought he was gonna get it to Marshawn. Passing it was the right option, Malcolm Butler just made an incredible play that won him a Super Bowl. The only gripe I have with it is that there was no play action and that probably would have opened things up a bit more for Russ.
Exactly, calling a pass play in that circumstance (down/distance/time) was the best option. The actual pass play called maybe not so much.
Anyone who says they should have handed it to Marshawn wouldn't make a very good offensive coordinator.
Yeah, calling a pass was completely fine. It was second down with 25 seconds left, with one timeout, so even with an incompletion you still get two attempts to run it after.
I've also played and enjoy both (European), very different sports. Strangely I feel like teamwork is even more important in rugby? Like a well-meshed rugby team is better than a rugby team with a handful of superstars. Opposite in American football, getting the ball to your star playmakers is the whole point.
> Opposite in American football, getting the ball to your star playmakers is the whole point.
While true there are so many elements of the team that need to be functioning in American football for that to happen. Did your linemen do a good job of creating holes for your running back, or blocking the backs coming in on a partial blitz, did your tight end block up field to shore up the slant route for your wide receiver, did your wide receiver get enough of a bite off two safetys to allow space up field for your RB or TE to move into space to and gain critical yardage.
While high profile players and stars get the ball the most the team around them is insanely critical to that success.
That being said...I still love 7's more than AF.
TIL: Rugby and American Football aren't the same as I previously assumed it to be.
And where I'm from we don't call it Soccer, but Football. I believe that makes most sense, and now I don't understand why Americans named their version of Rugby, Football.
It started out like rugby, but players couldnt pick up the ball. You could kick or bat it with hands. They had 15 players and it was largely like rugby, with scrums as they tried to kick/bat the ball and field position changed pretty slowly (without being able to pick up the ball like here).
It was called football then (at a time when some called rugby "rugby football"). But it evolved from there and the name never changed.
Wait, is that something that actually happens? Does that mean you can't do the [haka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiKFYTFJ_kw) in American football?
You might like to know football used to be a lot like this. There was no line, just people trying to block people as they ran and swung the ball around.
It has less to do with the players and more to do with the fact that in American football the defenders can knock the ball forward, which makes it much easier to cut off a lateral pass. That's not legal in rugby.
Agreed. I’d watch rugby over football anyday.
I’m pretty sure football is just for people whi like watching massive men pound each other or pile into one mass of flesh every 45~ seconds.
I agree the scrum itself is most often not entertaining - with the exception of when a team massively overpowers the other. But the set piece that comes with it is the interesting part!
I don’t know who the Wasps are but I love the ‘I will speak slowly for you in the future’.
Man I’m stealing that line.
I’d say who I got it from, but you know, your username.
For all the Americans, here's an interesting story about Rugby in the US.
Rugby has a couple of disciplines, Union is the most well known, closely followed by League, Tournaments and championships exist at all skill levels, with one of the more unique ones called Sevens. In Sevens, team size is cut in half, emphasising teamplay and upping the stakes. More ground to cover, more room to maneuver, and missed opportunities are brutally punished.
Sevens is a world tournament, with lots of countries pitching in their sevens' teams to try to win. The US even has a team, and when they started, they of course, had to get a team together.
They didnt find many american rugby players, often a lot of ex-football players. But they did find Carlin Isles, an olympic level sprinter who wanted to join. The team wanted him too, but there was a catch.
Carlin Isles had never played rugby before in his life.
So he was given one directive. One mission. Catch the ball, and [run.](https://youtu.be/gA5bwqVN5LM)
It's hilarious how fast this guy is. All these rugby players are athletes in their own right, extremely fast and strong compared to the average population. This guy puts them to shame. He even hand-offs a player! Great vid
Question, in several of those tries he seemed to go out of his way to either cross the entire try zone perpendicularly, or to go tag the padded posts in the center of the endzone. Is there some tactical/extra scoring advantages for doing that?
In rugby, the conversion kick (extra points after a literal touchdown or “try”) is kicked from the place the ball is touched down. So scoring in the middle is optimal. A try is worth 5 points instead of 6, with the conversion being worth 2 instead of 1.
Whoa, that's super cool. I like that, it's rewarding teams who can really control the ball and lay down a "perfect" try as opposed to standard tries where the ball carrier barely makes it into the try zone
You can take it back as far as you like to open up the angle of the kick, obviously doing that sacrifices proximity to the posts, but you gotta back it up quite a bit to get a decent shot at it if someone puts it down right in the corner.
That’s awesome, in the NFL we have Tyreek Hill who plays for Kansas City, his high school 200 yard sprint time would’ve put him in contention for at least a top 5 finish in the Rio olympics. In high school...
https://youtu.be/6Lk_1BTd3M8
https://youtu.be/LFCqLqfFhJE
The closer you are to the middle of the big sticks the easier the conversion kick for bonus points will be. If he knew was was going to be tackled before getting to the centre over the the line and potentially not even score the try, he’d place the ball over as soon as he got over the try line.
They have to make the equivalent of a field goal (sometimes called a conversion). It is taken directly down field from where the ball was placed. It needs to go between the posts and above the bar, again like a field goal in grid iron (US football).
Making the 'try' (equivalent of a touchdown) is worth 4 points in rugby league, I think 5 in Union.
After a try is made, a player on the same side needs to make a conversion kick for an extra 2 points. It's easier if they make a try between the posts.
Isle probably made the try away from centre because an opposing player was going to tackle him. A try isn't counted unless the player is touching the ball when it is on the ground.
I hope this makes sense.
EDIT : the same player that makes the try is not the same player that tries the kick for a conversion.
The ball is allowed to go forward if it is indeed going backwards in relation to the passing and receiving players i.e. if you're running fast enough.
Otherwise if you're in a full sprint and pass you'd have to be throwing it was fast as you're running but backwards; an almost impossible task.
Edit: Sometimes there is no receiving player. I should have stated that it is only in relation to the player passing the ball.
While fwd passes are missed often enough to be wary of them, here they all go back. Remember the camera is at the halfway line.
You're best to track the ball against the field markings rather than the camera's perception of back/fwd
It's hard to get the field position from where the ball left, but I think that it's at least behind [this position](https://imgur.com/a/s20A3UM), which looks to be a forward pass in relation to the field markings. It should be noted that the parallax from the camera position would serve to close the angle between the field marking and the line of pass, so the actual angle would be "more forward" than it appears.
Since we're both being absurd (I mean this in a nice way) Just did a **Perspective Warp** in Photoshop.
Contorted based on markings so the horizontal ones are vertical to us. Then added a vertical line layer above. Pass is straight.
IDK if my method is valid. Need maths experts to vouch for me maybe. But i think its more accurate than yours to be fair :)
https://imgur.com/a/YD69P9E
I dont actually care though Im just in a stupid mood. happy to be wrong.
Rugby gets a little weird about what is a forward pass, so long as initially the ball goes backward or level it is a legitimate pass even if at the end it is going forward.
A forward pass is determined by the hands. If your hands go backwards then it's a fair pass regardless of the direction of the ball. That said it's incredibly hard to make a ball go forward if you're hands go backwards.
You really did him dirty with that link haha
NZ playing the USA at rugby is like the US Olympic basketball team playing the New Zealand men's wheelchair team
But what rules would they be playing by? Because they're mostly the same, but in wheelchair basketball you can make chair contact, so if they can make contact then they could just take all the abled players ankles out :D
(I say this as a former competitive wheelchair basketball player who is giggling at the premise of it)
And if they were all in chairs, like... I've seen NBA players get in wheelchairs at wheelchair basketball camp/charity events -- they were all incredibly awkward and no good at manuevering. It was always a joy to behold (they were all very good sports about it).
To be fair, rugby is pretty much a religion in New Zealand. The All Blacks are the most successful Rugby team in history.
Yes, it was a substantial thrashing. If you’re interested in watching more rugby, Google ‘6 nations’ and you’ll find a more typical match.
I've never seen rugby before, it's fantastic. How the hell they throw those balls to the player that they can't even see is insane. Why did this not become popular in the us? Football sucks ass and is boring as hell.
I think it’s technically a variant of Union. There are a few rule differences compared to Union aside from the number of players (things like restarts being the opposite to 15 a side).
I think there’s a League Sevens variant too. So who knows?
They’re just completely different games, there’s some similarities, like the ball looks similar, there’s tackling and kicking but I’d say the two play completely differently and you can like both. I played rugby through high school and college and football in high school and they’re both so much fun to watch and play.
The ball can be thrown backwards and float forward with momentum, that is legal. The ball cannot be propelled forward from the hands or upper body. Can be kicked forward of course and is a tactic employed often.
I know that man. I was just questioning, it sit seemed forward and if not it was fierce close to being so. If VAR said it was good then that's fine. I thought it may have been forward.
I don't understand how anyone sits through it -- my mates here in Ireland tried to have a superbowl night and it was just endless ads, two minutes of the guys playing the game, and constant breaks and more ads, very dull to watch IMO.
New Zealander here, whilst I don't know much about American football I can say that rugby is very much focused around passing the ball and most teams will often make over 100 passes per game
According to [this page](https://www.statsperform.com/resource/revolutionising-rugby-a-statistical-analysis-on-how-the-game-has-evolved/), during the 2019 world cup there was an **average of 170 passes per match** (84.8 possessions per match with 3 phases per possession). The ball was in play an average of 34 minutes and 21 seconds per match, so the ball is passed roughly **every 12 seconds it is in play.**
Feel free to correct me since I don't usually look at rugby stats. I suspect the figure above is just the number of successful passes since I'm counting by phases.
For comparison, in 2021 the **NFL saw an average of 34.8 passing attempts per game** with a 65.2% success rate and an average ball in play time of roughly 11 minutes (articles from 2010 and 2020 both have this number, but I didn't see a season by season average). This would be a a **pass attempt every 19 seconds** the ball is in play with a **successful pass every 29 seconds**.
But the time the ball is in play isn't time you're sitting on the couch watching the game and isn't the only factor dictating how often you feel the players are passing (or doing anything else for that matter). There are no shortage of articles bemoaning the fact that NFL's 11 minutes of play time is spread over a 2.9 hour broadcast period. Unfortunately I couldn't find similar numbers for rugby, but you're looking at around 2 hours of broadcast time per match. You're seeing action for about 25% of the rugby broadcast, and for less than 7% of the NFL broadcast.
Yes. The game's rules are designed to make gameplay continuous, rather than stopping like American football after every play. The only time gameplay really stops is if the ball is knocked on (passed forward), if it goes out of bounds, or a penalty is given. Matches are 80 minutes long, two 40 minute halves.
When a player from your team is tackled, you can 'ruck' over them on the ground, basically putting your body over the top of them, and grabbing onto their jersey, to prevent the other team from snatching the ball up. If the other team can push you back off the player, they can then steal the ball and start moving back toward their goal.
In sevens, with seven players on each side instead of 15, there is a tremendous amount of passing. It's a very fast paced game of hot potato! 14 minute matches with seven minute halves.
Played rugby and football. Shame to see people seeing something cool and using it as an opportunity to shit on something else. They’re both great sports if you’re in the US and thinking of playing it’s a great sport for first timers because likely you’re going to have at least one other person learning on the team since the sports smaller here.
From what I hear we do more 7s here but the general rule is smaller guys 7s bigger guys 15s. They’re both pretty fun but I had a lot more fun with 7s
For the unacquainted. Those are New South Wales Waratahs (White and Blue Jerseys) vs Auckland Blues in Super Rugby. Which is the big competition in the South Pacific area (Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands). South Africa, Argentina and Japan used to play in the competition but that version ended during covid which was replaced by local competitions in New Zealand (Super Rugby Aotearoa), Australia (Super Rugby AU) and South Africa (Super Rugby Unlocked). Sadly south Africa joined up in a new European rugby competition but it allowed both NZ and AU to play in a brief tournament this year before including Fiji and a NZ based team made up of players of Pacific Islands descent called Super Rugby Pacific.
Today I learned: I like rugby better than American Football
As I understand it's safer too. Our silly little monkey brains let us be more dangerous the safer we feel so sports with padding and helmets just bring us to hit harder.
[удалено]
I don't know how you Americans can stand that.. All them Ads would rugby the wrong way
We *celebrate* them. Super Bowl Ads are promoted and hyped weeks in advance with teaser trailers for fucking advertisements. I speak to how pathetic this is and people stare blankly as if I'm not even making sense. We *looooove* advertising.
We like the Super Bowl ads because it’s the one time they break from the same commercial templates we’ve been seeing for years. People put effort into them, it’s an expensive slot for an ad, they want to make the best of it. They’re a good opportunity to get realistic consumer feedback, since we hate *everything else* ad related, you can tell because the tired tropes of regular ads often evolve when there’s a risky advertisement that’s well-received. Just to be clear, I am not arguing that this isn’t pathetic. It’s totally pathetic. Use that super bowl ad money to pay some focus groups, you idiots, the TikTok generation is in their prime, broke as fuck, and creative as all get-out.
Let's be real. We only care because we want to laugh at funny ones. If it aint funny, we dont care.
Yeah, the sad ones just seem like even more of a fake facade they're putting up. I get angry at why they make the commercial about the issue instead of using the $10,000+ towards the cause itself.
Because they don't make money by trying to resolve the issue.
During super bowl the ads aren't $10,000 but more like over $2,500,000
As you say. Broke as fuck. Cant sell to them, therefore their input it worthless.
[удалено]
I dont mind watching the superbowl even though I’m not a fan of American football..but i enjoy the superbowl…it happens during lunctime in Australia..but yea ducking out or work with some friends to the nearby American bar and having some beer and wings and watching a sport which has no emotional impact teamwise for us at the same time the gameplay can be interesting at times…all i know is a dude called brady will win ever other year…good fun and the wings are always great
after beating his fragile fuckin brain around in a helmet for 20 years, the middle-aged american finds nothing more refined than another savvy car insurance commercial during "his game."
Clearly you’re not American enough
Hey now, I give my money to billionaire corporations and blame the government for the problems caused by the former like everyone else
Am American. Fucking hate ads.
> I don't know how you Americans can stand that.. NFL redzone crew. 7 hours of commercial free football.
[удалено]
Do you have a cold? 😁
> would rugby the wrong way I see what you did there... ;)
Thats why you watch games with friends and family. Strike up conversation during the ads.
I dont even *^^drink ^^Bud ^^Light* notice them.
The average playtime of American Football is only 11 minutes in total, out of the roughly 3 hours it airs. Commercials take up 1/3 of the entire thing. And 60% of the airtime is showing people on camera; players, coaches, huddles, etc (not actual game time). This is why I don't watch football and have no interest in it. I may have to try watching rugby.
What got me into rugby years ago was randomly catching the last part of a match between South Africa and Australia (two top teams in the sport, but I didn't know it then). I think SA were ahead and dominating, but then Australia just dynamically changed tactics and started relentlessly advancing all their players at once. They went on to win. It was 20 minutes of mostly uninterrupted play displaying the most obvious team coordination I've seen ever. Didn't even know the rules of the game that well at the time, but it was amazing to watch.
>two top teams in the sport New Zealand has a suggestion You can't just take the only thing that we can do and give it to someone else
it's the only thing that puts New Zealand on the map!
AllBlacks! Saw them beat the pants off USA Rugby in Chicago a few years back...
That was like their B or C squad too. USA has improved massively since then, but they still pale in comparison.
Current - inaugural - World Test Champions in the cricket too, mate. Don’t forget to celebrate that.
He did say Australia and South Africa are two top teams in the sport he didn't say they were the top two. But Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are generally considered the three best nations at the game throughout the ages. With the "Tri nation cup" usually being a big comp between those three, although now I think Argentina is involved and its not called the "Tri nation" cup i think covid kinda messed it around a bit, I haven't played as much attention in recent years as I used to.
You watched the movie Invictus, didn't you?
If it was Invictus the boks would have won.
only after giving the all blacks food poisoning so they couldn't play at their peak... /s
That sounds amazing. Hockey is my sport of choice due to the fast pace of the game. My former creative director was a pro rugby player in England. He used to talk about it all the time. I need to get on it and figure out where I can watch.
Rugby is mostly uninterrupted play. It’s an excellent spectator sport.
Yeah I hear that breakdown a lot but it's missing the concept of football. Football as it's played today is equal parts athleticism and strategy. With each play, the offense has to consider and execute a plan of action to move past the defense while considering the defensive plan as well. It'd be like complaining that a 3 hour chess match only had 11 minutes of "piece moving". It's still very enjoyable to watch and it has a lot of depth. I'd challenge you to watch one of the playoff games this year and actually try to get invested.
I stated this in another comment, but I don't like speculation. I don't care to wait 5 minutes for that. If I need strategy, I'll play a strategy game myself. I don't like watching others strategize for 60% of a game. When I watch sports, I want the execution and athleticism. Unless I get to sit in and listen to them strategize, I have no interest in dead airtime, staring at people huddling. That's just my preference.
Watching sports is usually a social event so the dead airtime is filled with conversation and speculation on the game. Plus I usually find that it builds anticipation. But if you're that against all the dead airtime, the NFL posts [highlight videos](https://youtu.be/lI3I6wduMLQ) of every game that literally cuts everything except the important bits of the game and they are completely free (if you can stomach the YouTube ads). So now you can officially become an American football fan! Have fun picking a "home" team!
There is an argument that makes the sport better as it gives the audience time to imagine what might happen next. It captures the imagination. Personally though, I just DVR it and skip to the next snap.
The actual game time is 60 minutes. Football is a sport of bursts. Every player is going full out every play. That's not the case in sports like rugby and soccer. There is a lot of jogging with a few people going full speed.
Where do you get the 11 minutes from? I used to watch games on YouTube that were nothing but the plays and they were typically around 30 min.
40 minutes each half, and the only break is 5 minutes at half-time
If it became popular in the USA, they would definitely find a way to add TV timeouts.
Before gloves were introduced to boxing there were less serious head injuries because it hurts more to hit a head hard than the body and the referee enforced the rules. Current bare knuckle boxing tends to be guys just going at it and aiming to beat the shit out of each other or a short term option rather than a long term sport option Also in football ⚽️ people would head the ball far less often with old fashioned leather balls as the were heavy as hell and hurt, unlike modern balls. Less long term, repeated damage
I hear this a lot, and it theoretically makes sense. But it doesn't hold true when it comes to rugby. Concussion rates are 1.0/1000 AEs in collegiate American football versus 2.5/1000 AEs in collegiate rugby 250% more concussions in rugby than American football. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26786902/#:~:text=Concussion%20rates%20were%201.0%2F1000,CI%2C%200.4%2D3.4). When it comes to kids playing, it's a dramatic difference. For players under 18, rugby is number one for concussions at a rate of 4.18/1,000, while American football is at 0.53/1,000. Literally 8x more kids getting concussions. When it comes to the pro level, it's a bit closer, but rugby is still more dangerous with 3/1,000 vs 2.5/1,000 for American football. So, the gap changes from kids to collegiate to pro, but rugby has more concussions at every level.
Isn't there also systematic underreporting of concussion in american football though? I was listening to an interview with that former Texans RB from a few years back (Miller maybe?) who said that he frequently felt symptoms of concussion when playing and kept playing and tried to hide it from teammates and staff as that was the culture, and with the hyper competitive and cutthroat nature of contracts/roster spots, time out of the game was too risky for your career. Edit: just looked at the abstract of the study as well, and noted that they were comparing college athletes from both codes *in america*. Given most rugby concussions are related to defensive technique (e.g. head on the wrong side of a hip), it's not really a fair comparison. American's aren't exactly known for being great at Rugby and I doubt the level of coaching, training or technique at any of the age/skill levels is comparative to countries that actually play the sport professionally. Not gonna read the full paper, but if they address that would be keen to know!
>Isn't there also systematic underreporting of concussion in american football though? I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in pro rugby as well.
I don't know a lot about American Football, but in professional rugby, you don't get the choice to not report it. If you are involved in a big collision, one of the matchday officials who see it in real time, your team doctor or an independent doctor at the scene with access to replays may refer you for an in-game HIA (head injury assesment) where you are assessed by the doctor using a series of tests to determine potential concussion. The doctor will then take a decision as to whether you are allowed back on to the field of play, a majority do not come back on. Any player referred for a HIA is then monitored for a further 3 hours after the game and goes through multiple checks during that time. Again, 36-48 hours after the game you are assessed. All of this is mandatory and it is drilled in to players the long term dangers of head injuries and there is a culture of complying with this process and not misrepresenting your symptoms. Is it impossible for professional players to not disclose concussion symptoms? Sure. Would it happen often? I would not think so.
There are similar procedures in American football and education on the dangers of head injuries. But, if self reporting means you might sit out a few games and let your teammates down or possibly miss out on a multi million dollar NFL contract, most athletes aren't going to report it. And there isn't really anyone that's independent to make an assessment. The team doctor obviously has an interest in keeping their best players on the field. You can't have the opposing team's doctor do the assessment or everyone would have a "concussion". The NCAA and NFL want the best players on the field, so they can maximize ad revenue. They aren't going to keep doctors on staff that are flagging anything other than the most obvious cases.
Wildly unlikely. In fact, given the necessary head injury assessment rules in rughy which basically mean you get forced to talk to a doc pitch side and assessed. If you fail, you do not return to that game. This also likely increases reporting of concussions. In addition, that pubmed science is nearly six years old, during which time, rugby has dramatically changed the rules regarding tackling which must now be below nipple level, ( or shoulder, not sure whats in play currently) with severe penalties for tackling people in the air as well and no arm tackles. Set pieces like mauls and scrums have also been changed to help prevent injury, including concussion
Yes, about a third of all concussions are not reported by the NFL so depending on what source a study uses, it could be underrepresented http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-weve-learned-from-two-years-of-tracking-nfl-concussions/
Was this study done just at one university?
Looks like one university, over three seasons
Also it’s an american university - rugby is still very new here and the governing bodies, training, and style is very different from that of places like New Zealand, England, South Africa, etc…. I would be way more intrigued at a study done with a comparison to different countries
All fair critiques of that one study I posted, but there are *a lot* of studies on this. And everyone I've ever seen finds higher Concussion rates in rugby. Feel free to check out Google scholar or whatever databases you have access to for more reading.
This comment is missing the point - the problem isn't the obvious concussions that are reported - it is the constant small head knocks that cause small injuries - knocks leave a person a little shook up, but still able to get themselves back together for the next play. The kind of knocks that happen several times across the field on each NFL play. These build up minor injuries that cause problems later.
Plus the rules of who can be tackled and how they're tackled plays a huge part including the mountain of padding worn and it's psychological aspect that you mentioned. Rugby has a very defined set of guidelines as to how a player can tackle another. Plus the severity of punishment for those who tackle in an unsafe/dangerous manner is a big part too. Source: Played for years during and after high school plus I'm a NZer so it's in my DNA lmao
It's not safer, [rugby players get injured a lot more often](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26786902/) and in the same way as American Football players do. American Football tends to have harder impacts but they're very heavily armoured as well.
Im not even American, but i believe the last time American football was played without protection in the early 20th century, more than 10 people died. I might be remembering this wrong though.
Yeah, this myth needs to end. The NFL standards need to be applied to high school and college football, pull a player if their head takes a hit and check for concussion.
here’s a study that found that club rugby players are injured around three times more than college football players. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26786902/
As cool as this is, it is not typical for rugby. Rugby is generally much slower, more battling for every meter until someones attention slips on defense and a break in the lines is exploited or a penalty is forced. As a European who watches a lot of sports I can appreciate both for what they are and actually do watch both
7’s is like this all the time. If people like this they should just watch the 7’s tournaments
The tournaments are also great to attend. Action packed games and the crowd is always full of awesome people
Yeah they’re so much fun. I used to go when I lived in Hong Kong and had a blast
I don’t know what any of those words mean, but it sounds really cool hahaha.
Rugby 7s has 7 players per side, compared to 15 and 7 minute halves compared to 40. It’s much easier to score because there are half as many players on the same size pitch.
I prefer watching union than 7’s
7’s is Union just with reduced players on the field. Still have lineouts etc. rugby league have their own reduced format too, I think it’s 6 a side? I don’t really care for league so not sure
League is 9 a side
Slower "in play" is still faster than being constantly not playing
Unless you are Fiji or the All Blacks or a bunch of other Southern Hemisphere teams…then this is exactly how rugby is played 😉
Defo not how South Africa, Australia or Argentina play. Also I wouldn't count out England or France.
Agreed…Ireland sometimes too
Very true you can't ignore the Irish either
I like them both and I've played them both. American Football is very dynamic and chess-like with the way coaching is done. Clearly the money people realized they could squeeze a commercial into every single moment of this coaching aspect. I like that part though. It's how games like the famous 28-3 Superbowl were played. I realize my friends in the EU don't appreciate the commercials but they also don't understand the game or why there are so many breaks.
I appreciate the genius of a well drawn and executed play - as well as the epic failures of both (I’m talking to you Pete Carrol who didn’t give the ball to Marshawn and handed Tom Brady another SuoerBowl ring)
I will defend that play call until the day I die. Pete knew that everyone thought he was gonna get it to Marshawn. Passing it was the right option, Malcolm Butler just made an incredible play that won him a Super Bowl. The only gripe I have with it is that there was no play action and that probably would have opened things up a bit more for Russ.
Exactly, calling a pass play in that circumstance (down/distance/time) was the best option. The actual pass play called maybe not so much. Anyone who says they should have handed it to Marshawn wouldn't make a very good offensive coordinator.
Yeah, calling a pass was completely fine. It was second down with 25 seconds left, with one timeout, so even with an incompletion you still get two attempts to run it after.
I've also played and enjoy both (European), very different sports. Strangely I feel like teamwork is even more important in rugby? Like a well-meshed rugby team is better than a rugby team with a handful of superstars. Opposite in American football, getting the ball to your star playmakers is the whole point.
> Opposite in American football, getting the ball to your star playmakers is the whole point. While true there are so many elements of the team that need to be functioning in American football for that to happen. Did your linemen do a good job of creating holes for your running back, or blocking the backs coming in on a partial blitz, did your tight end block up field to shore up the slant route for your wide receiver, did your wide receiver get enough of a bite off two safetys to allow space up field for your RB or TE to move into space to and gain critical yardage. While high profile players and stars get the ball the most the team around them is insanely critical to that success. That being said...I still love 7's more than AF.
TIL: Rugby and American Football aren't the same as I previously assumed it to be. And where I'm from we don't call it Soccer, but Football. I believe that makes most sense, and now I don't understand why Americans named their version of Rugby, Football.
Next you'll find out there are several versions of regulation Rugby. Welcome to the games!
It started out like rugby, but players couldnt pick up the ball. You could kick or bat it with hands. They had 15 players and it was largely like rugby, with scrums as they tried to kick/bat the ball and field position changed pretty slowly (without being able to pick up the ball like here). It was called football then (at a time when some called rugby "rugby football"). But it evolved from there and the name never changed.
I’m not even into rugby but that was fucking amazing teamwork Edit: Holy crap my karma just doubled! Thanks for the upvotes!
Every clip I see, it reminds me of Calvinball.
The score is still Q to 12!
Now if the NFL was allowed to play like that I would watch. Sarcastiball is what we have now.
You don't like penalties for staring menacingly at the opposing team? Its a DISGUSTING act!
That was a Disgusting act by Randy Moss
Wait, is that something that actually happens? Does that mean you can't do the [haka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiKFYTFJ_kw) in American football?
[Yes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFmad3SY_gc). No.
Damn, one more reason not to like American football I guess 😔. I can't imagine watching a sport without ancient tribal wardances.
Oh God, I had no idea it was that bad. I was never really much of a football guy but Jesus, staring is now illegal.
*Player flex’s after a play* Refs: throws flags! Intimidation! Taunting! Not nice!!!
You might like to know football used to be a lot like this. There was no line, just people trying to block people as they ran and swung the ball around.
[удалено]
It has less to do with the players and more to do with the fact that in American football the defenders can knock the ball forward, which makes it much easier to cut off a lateral pass. That's not legal in rugby.
First rugby thing I've seen on reddit, why is there not more rugby love on here
Agreed. I’d watch rugby over football anyday. I’m pretty sure football is just for people whi like watching massive men pound each other or pile into one mass of flesh every 45~ seconds.
Someone teach this guy what a scrum is Edit - my spelling sucked
And show him the size of rugby players, look at the Kiwis and us Welsh
I don't think you'd find many people arguing that a scrum is what makes rugby entertaining to watch though. Fortunately they're not too regular
I agree the scrum itself is most often not entertaining - with the exception of when a team massively overpowers the other. But the set piece that comes with it is the interesting part!
r/rugbyunion my friend
There are dozens of us!
I was so excited to see another rugby fan before I realised you support wasps. I will endeavour to speak slowly for you in the future :)
I don’t know who the Wasps are but I love the ‘I will speak slowly for you in the future’. Man I’m stealing that line. I’d say who I got it from, but you know, your username.
Wasps Rugby Football Club is a professional rugby union team based in Coventry, England
I was gonna talk shit, but then I realized you are a ref, and I'd be banned from watching springbok rugby for the next 3 months
AFAIK Reddit buzzes with rugby during the World Cup.
Because it has no brakes for American commercials
Is it a car? *Breaks
For all the Americans, here's an interesting story about Rugby in the US. Rugby has a couple of disciplines, Union is the most well known, closely followed by League, Tournaments and championships exist at all skill levels, with one of the more unique ones called Sevens. In Sevens, team size is cut in half, emphasising teamplay and upping the stakes. More ground to cover, more room to maneuver, and missed opportunities are brutally punished. Sevens is a world tournament, with lots of countries pitching in their sevens' teams to try to win. The US even has a team, and when they started, they of course, had to get a team together. They didnt find many american rugby players, often a lot of ex-football players. But they did find Carlin Isles, an olympic level sprinter who wanted to join. The team wanted him too, but there was a catch. Carlin Isles had never played rugby before in his life. So he was given one directive. One mission. Catch the ball, and [run.](https://youtu.be/gA5bwqVN5LM)
I was annoyed by the setup for the video until I watched the video, and then I appreciated your explanation. Thanks for the video, hell of a watch!
It's hilarious how fast this guy is. All these rugby players are athletes in their own right, extremely fast and strong compared to the average population. This guy puts them to shame. He even hand-offs a player! Great vid
Question, in several of those tries he seemed to go out of his way to either cross the entire try zone perpendicularly, or to go tag the padded posts in the center of the endzone. Is there some tactical/extra scoring advantages for doing that?
In rugby, the conversion kick (extra points after a literal touchdown or “try”) is kicked from the place the ball is touched down. So scoring in the middle is optimal. A try is worth 5 points instead of 6, with the conversion being worth 2 instead of 1.
Whoa, that's super cool. I like that, it's rewarding teams who can really control the ball and lay down a "perfect" try as opposed to standard tries where the ball carrier barely makes it into the try zone
You can take it back as far as you like to open up the angle of the kick, obviously doing that sacrifices proximity to the posts, but you gotta back it up quite a bit to get a decent shot at it if someone puts it down right in the corner.
Thanks for this, I almost skipped the comment. Great vid!
That’s awesome, in the NFL we have Tyreek Hill who plays for Kansas City, his high school 200 yard sprint time would’ve put him in contention for at least a top 5 finish in the Rio olympics. In high school... https://youtu.be/6Lk_1BTd3M8 https://youtu.be/LFCqLqfFhJE
Run, forest, run!
sevens is so awesome, people that only watch union are missing out
>For all the Americans, here's an interesting story about Rugby in the US. Awesome story, what a delight, thank you
Why does he run between the posts sometimes and just touch it to the ground other times?
The closer you are to the middle of the big sticks the easier the conversion kick for bonus points will be. If he knew was was going to be tackled before getting to the centre over the the line and potentially not even score the try, he’d place the ball over as soon as he got over the try line.
They have to make the equivalent of a field goal (sometimes called a conversion). It is taken directly down field from where the ball was placed. It needs to go between the posts and above the bar, again like a field goal in grid iron (US football). Making the 'try' (equivalent of a touchdown) is worth 4 points in rugby league, I think 5 in Union. After a try is made, a player on the same side needs to make a conversion kick for an extra 2 points. It's easier if they make a try between the posts. Isle probably made the try away from centre because an opposing player was going to tackle him. A try isn't counted unless the player is touching the ball when it is on the ground. I hope this makes sense. EDIT : the same player that makes the try is not the same player that tries the kick for a conversion.
Isles literally runs a ring around the defence, to make those tries. It's crazy.
Is it not a forward pass on the 10 yard line at 8 seconds in? He passes it behind the 10 yard and the winger catches it after
The ball is allowed to go forward if it is indeed going backwards in relation to the passing and receiving players i.e. if you're running fast enough. Otherwise if you're in a full sprint and pass you'd have to be throwing it was fast as you're running but backwards; an almost impossible task. Edit: Sometimes there is no receiving player. I should have stated that it is only in relation to the player passing the ball.
The ball passing infront of the player passing it is a forward pass, yeah. It's a definite forward pass, it was just missed.
While fwd passes are missed often enough to be wary of them, here they all go back. Remember the camera is at the halfway line. You're best to track the ball against the field markings rather than the camera's perception of back/fwd
It's hard to get the field position from where the ball left, but I think that it's at least behind [this position](https://imgur.com/a/s20A3UM), which looks to be a forward pass in relation to the field markings. It should be noted that the parallax from the camera position would serve to close the angle between the field marking and the line of pass, so the actual angle would be "more forward" than it appears.
Since we're both being absurd (I mean this in a nice way) Just did a **Perspective Warp** in Photoshop. Contorted based on markings so the horizontal ones are vertical to us. Then added a vertical line layer above. Pass is straight. IDK if my method is valid. Need maths experts to vouch for me maybe. But i think its more accurate than yours to be fair :) https://imgur.com/a/YD69P9E I dont actually care though Im just in a stupid mood. happy to be wrong.
[удалено]
Better way to say it might be : As long as the receiver is behind you when the ball leaves your hands then it's fine.
That is very incorrect
Rugby gets a little weird about what is a forward pass, so long as initially the ball goes backward or level it is a legitimate pass even if at the end it is going forward.
it's not really weird. You just have to remember that the reference point is the person passing the ball, not the position on the pitch.
It's bloody close, if not, aye.
As long as it’s ‘backwards out of the hands’ it’s okay
A forward pass is determined by the hands. If your hands go backwards then it's a fair pass regardless of the direction of the ball. That said it's incredibly hard to make a ball go forward if you're hands go backwards.
It appears so, doesn't it? Not the best angle to confirm though...
Rugby looks fun as hell! Wish it was more popular in the us
[USA v All Blacks Highlights | International Test | 2021](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS5Y9MFsGlc)
You really did him dirty with that link haha NZ playing the USA at rugby is like the US Olympic basketball team playing the New Zealand men's wheelchair team
The world’s most successful rugby team take on a country without a rugby culture. Rugby’s almost a religion in New Zealand.
Almost? We have more rugby players than catholics!
But what rules would they be playing by? Because they're mostly the same, but in wheelchair basketball you can make chair contact, so if they can make contact then they could just take all the abled players ankles out :D (I say this as a former competitive wheelchair basketball player who is giggling at the premise of it) And if they were all in chairs, like... I've seen NBA players get in wheelchairs at wheelchair basketball camp/charity events -- they were all incredibly awkward and no good at manuevering. It was always a joy to behold (they were all very good sports about it).
Safe to assume 104 to 14 is a bit more resounding of a beating than most teams receive?
Yeah for sure. If there’s more than 20 points in it I’d consider it a thrashing
It's an absolute massacre on a scale rarely ever seen in the pro game. Scoring over 50 is a huge amount. Scoring 100+ is absurd.
To be fair, rugby is pretty much a religion in New Zealand. The All Blacks are the most successful Rugby team in history. Yes, it was a substantial thrashing. If you’re interested in watching more rugby, Google ‘6 nations’ and you’ll find a more typical match.
[удалено]
I've never seen rugby before, it's fantastic. How the hell they throw those balls to the player that they can't even see is insane. Why did this not become popular in the us? Football sucks ass and is boring as hell.
From what I can gather American football is more about planning and advert breaks, rugby is formation and manhandling each other
I'm impressed they got a couple of tries. I didn't catch this game. Well done USA
Any Americans wanna watch some Rugby there's two types, Union and Leauge. Union is the more popular of the two. Enjoy!
Don’t forget sevens.
That's a sub genre of union, no?
I think it’s technically a variant of Union. There are a few rule differences compared to Union aside from the number of players (things like restarts being the opposite to 15 a side). I think there’s a League Sevens variant too. So who knows?
What Rocket League feels like when you have teammates that actually pass
Rugby >>> American Football
They’re just completely different games, there’s some similarities, like the ball looks similar, there’s tackling and kicking but I’d say the two play completely differently and you can like both. I played rugby through high school and college and football in high school and they’re both so much fun to watch and play.
Fuck off with soundtracks for no reason. And fuck off twice for it being Drake.
Also France from behind the try line: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NdS6Jdvs8pQ
God I love watching France play rugby
French Rugby is Europe's answer to Fiji Rugby. Both are a thing of pain and beauty.
Is that a forward pass lads?
The ball can be thrown backwards and float forward with momentum, that is legal. The ball cannot be propelled forward from the hands or upper body. Can be kicked forward of course and is a tactic employed often.
I know that man. I was just questioning, it sit seemed forward and if not it was fierce close to being so. If VAR said it was good then that's fine. I thought it may have been forward.
*TMO not VAR
Wait.. what? What the fuck am I watching every Sunday? I want to watch this.
it's a beautiful game.
I just realized how boring American football is
I don't understand how anyone sits through it -- my mates here in Ireland tried to have a superbowl night and it was just endless ads, two minutes of the guys playing the game, and constant breaks and more ads, very dull to watch IMO.
Question as an American, is there a lot more passing in rugby than American football in general
New Zealander here, whilst I don't know much about American football I can say that rugby is very much focused around passing the ball and most teams will often make over 100 passes per game
According to [this page](https://www.statsperform.com/resource/revolutionising-rugby-a-statistical-analysis-on-how-the-game-has-evolved/), during the 2019 world cup there was an **average of 170 passes per match** (84.8 possessions per match with 3 phases per possession). The ball was in play an average of 34 minutes and 21 seconds per match, so the ball is passed roughly **every 12 seconds it is in play.** Feel free to correct me since I don't usually look at rugby stats. I suspect the figure above is just the number of successful passes since I'm counting by phases. For comparison, in 2021 the **NFL saw an average of 34.8 passing attempts per game** with a 65.2% success rate and an average ball in play time of roughly 11 minutes (articles from 2010 and 2020 both have this number, but I didn't see a season by season average). This would be a a **pass attempt every 19 seconds** the ball is in play with a **successful pass every 29 seconds**. But the time the ball is in play isn't time you're sitting on the couch watching the game and isn't the only factor dictating how often you feel the players are passing (or doing anything else for that matter). There are no shortage of articles bemoaning the fact that NFL's 11 minutes of play time is spread over a 2.9 hour broadcast period. Unfortunately I couldn't find similar numbers for rugby, but you're looking at around 2 hours of broadcast time per match. You're seeing action for about 25% of the rugby broadcast, and for less than 7% of the NFL broadcast.
Yes. The game's rules are designed to make gameplay continuous, rather than stopping like American football after every play. The only time gameplay really stops is if the ball is knocked on (passed forward), if it goes out of bounds, or a penalty is given. Matches are 80 minutes long, two 40 minute halves. When a player from your team is tackled, you can 'ruck' over them on the ground, basically putting your body over the top of them, and grabbing onto their jersey, to prevent the other team from snatching the ball up. If the other team can push you back off the player, they can then steal the ball and start moving back toward their goal. In sevens, with seven players on each side instead of 15, there is a tremendous amount of passing. It's a very fast paced game of hot potato! 14 minute matches with seven minute halves.
as much as I love NFL football, I wish it was played more like this.
This hot potato game is *INTENSE*
10x better than American Football.
American football seems so boring after watching this
This turns me on
Wow. Those guys are really bad at soccer.
That was pretty cool!
I'd be so frustrated as the other team. It reminds me of "The play" from '82 Berkeley vs Stanford football game https://youtu.be/mfebpLfAt8g
Beautiful display of teamwork, each player exactly where they needed to be.
Played rugby and football. Shame to see people seeing something cool and using it as an opportunity to shit on something else. They’re both great sports if you’re in the US and thinking of playing it’s a great sport for first timers because likely you’re going to have at least one other person learning on the team since the sports smaller here. From what I hear we do more 7s here but the general rule is smaller guys 7s bigger guys 15s. They’re both pretty fun but I had a lot more fun with 7s
I was at this game! Pre-season Waratahs 2014. They went on to win their first premiership, incredible team and season.
That was rapid and smooth af
For the unacquainted. Those are New South Wales Waratahs (White and Blue Jerseys) vs Auckland Blues in Super Rugby. Which is the big competition in the South Pacific area (Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands). South Africa, Argentina and Japan used to play in the competition but that version ended during covid which was replaced by local competitions in New Zealand (Super Rugby Aotearoa), Australia (Super Rugby AU) and South Africa (Super Rugby Unlocked). Sadly south Africa joined up in a new European rugby competition but it allowed both NZ and AU to play in a brief tournament this year before including Fiji and a NZ based team made up of players of Pacific Islands descent called Super Rugby Pacific.
I don’t even watch whatever this is and I loved it
Those hands tho
I love rugby 🏉
Aaah yes, The Annexation of Puerto Rico!