World Cup - "soccer is boring and stupid" thread

In summary: I don't think many people on this thread grasp the concept of a joke...When I say "football" here in Oklahoma, no one thinks of this game. We have to specify that we are taking about "soccer". How is that term useless when it is the only unambiguous name for the sport in some places?I don't think many people on this thread grasp the concept of a joke...I got your post. I don't think calling it "useless terminology, period" was a joke, though.But, that seems to have been edited out of the post in question.
  • #71
AlephZero said:
Could be you daren't play contact sports if you can't wear body armor.

Sports like soccer and basketball are contact sports. Football is a collision sport.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Yes, you can volunteer to be 'contacted' by a linebacker without those wussy pads first :D
 
  • #73
AnTiFreeze3 said:
Sports like soccer and basketball are contact sports. Football is a collision sport.

The last I checked rugby was pretty similar to (American) football but the players don't insist on getting up like a medieval knight at the joust.
 
  • #74
Curious3141 said:
The last I checked rugby was pretty similar to (American) football but the players don't insist on getting up like a medieval knight at the joust.

While I agree to a certain extent, the big difference is that in rugby, most of the tackles and hits are from the side, or grabbing legs, etc. In American football, the two teams stop, line up facing one another and then (try to) run directly at each other. Most hits and tackles in American football involve two men running nearly head on at full speed. Given the reset after each play, the defense is able to set themselves up and read the play, giving them an opportunity to be in a prime position for making a hit.

I know that there are some brutal hits in rugby, for sure, and the scrum is a super rough place to be as well, but I would wager that the potential for serious injury is higher in American football, given that the contact is typically direct and head-on.
 
  • #75
Seems like simple physics that playing American football without pads would be a disaster, for rugby players or anyone else. Therefore, rugby must not be too similar to American football in terms of collisions. Basically, what Travis_King said (probably...I've never watched rugby).
 
  • #76
Curious3141 said:
The last I checked rugby was pretty similar to (American) football but the players don't insist on getting up like a medieval knight at the joust.

There are more injuries in American football because of the padding. When no one is wearing a helmet, players will have a natural aversion to smashing skulls, seeing as it's counter-productive and will take both players out of play temporarily. When everyone is wearing a helmet, everyone has the confidence to start bashing heads together, but these helmets aren't omnipotent and can't prevent all sorts of gruesome concussions and spinal injuries.

Not to say that rugby players aren't badasses, because they are.
 
  • #77
AnTiFreeze3 said:
Not to say that rugby players aren't badasses, because they are.

Rugby is more of a gentlemans game. There are explicit rules for how/when to tackle (mostly shoulders and waist). In American football nearly anything goes.
 
  • #78
Greg Bernhardt said:
Rugby is more of a gentlemans game. There are explicit rules for how/when to tackle (mostly shoulders and waist). In American football nearly anything goes.

I was thinking of this when I made that comment :smile:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top