To think that rugby players really show footballers up for the wimps that they are?

[HangingBasketCase]

Just saw on the news that a Welsh rugby player was knocked out cold during their game with England last night, despite most likely being concussed he got up and carried on. Earlier in the game another player broke his nose, was strapped up and just carried on. Meanwhile footballers roll around on the pitch in mock agony when they break a sodding finger nail!

I'm a life long football fan, but I'm becoming more and more disillusioned with the game if I'm honest. The vile insults hurled at each other by fans, the over dramatic displays of "agony" because the played want a penalty thrown in their way. It's pathetic.

Why isn't rugby more popular than football?

See I'd throw in that Jump jockeys are amongst the toughest sportsmen. Take a look at Tony McCoy who has announced his retirement today, he's broken so many bones during his career, including several vertebrae. They're out in all weathers, taking crunching falls on a regular basis (the average is a fall every 7/8 rides), and probably one of the few careers where you are followed by an ambulance as you go about your job.

what is this thing about being 'wimpy' and 'real men'

it's 2015 people - move on!

I think that the injuries suffered are often more life changing in football

Wow! Someone really doesn't have a clue.

Yabu you get diving in rugby too

Exactly ghosty.

Goady as fuck.

I've got 2 teenage boys, both with different body types, who play rugby and football each to a semi-professional standard.

To tell me one is tougher, or more real, than the other - is a pile of bullshit.

The fans are much better behaved in rugby.
The players are much better behaved off the pitch too.
The opposing sides are much more civilised towards each other at the beginning and end of the match.

We watch both in this house, but I much prefer rugby.

Having watched a bit of amateur rugby and football over the years, i think I've seen more broken legs and ankles at a football match than I've seen bad injuries at rugby. I think it's the whole mechanism of injury which is different.
I suppose I had phrased it badly but leg breaks and the more severe soft tissue injuries do take a long time to get over. I don't think either players are wimps. If anything, perhaps rugby players are more inclined to take risks.

From Men's Health magazine

Football: Injury rate per 1000 hours: 35.3. Your legs cop 77% of injuries, with 21% to the knee and 18% to the ankle. "Changing direction constantly strains your joints and ligaments, but you're far less likely to get injured," says Morgan. Try telling John Terry and Petr Cech.

Rugby: Injury rate per 1000 hours: 69. Officially the world's most dangerous team sport, with an average of 1.4 "serious" injuries per match (a quarter of them being to the head). Those tea-cosy helmets might look ridiculous. But so does sucking your meals through a straw.

despite most likely being concussed he got up and carried on

That's not "not being a wimp". It's stupidity.

Actually some injuries hurt like sin for a short while and after a few minutes there's no sign of them. If I get cramp it's seriously painful at the time but left alone there's no pain a few minutes later.

Someone messed up in that match! There a strict protocols regarding concussion and they're in place for very good reasons, whoever failed to follow them needs to be disciplined (can't blame the player, it's not yhei call to make).

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31202835

Governing body looking into whether all protocols re head injuries were followed by Wales after North's incident.

Former international Josh Lewsey said it was madness not to have taken North off the pitch.

I find rugby much more exciting to watch, and I love watching it live as the crowds are completely non threatening - there's a lot of banter and piss taking but no real aggression.
George North shouldn't have been allowed to play on if he was concussed.

George North took a knock and, according to protocol, he left the pitch to receive medical testing to check for concussion.
He then came back on (early) and took another knock and appeared to be knocked out but it wasn't spotted on the pitch by the officials and he played on.

Rugby takes this incredibly seriously and the fact that he continued to play is being investigated with the Welsh medical team being asked to explain themselves.

As far as the player himself is concerned, my son had a bad concussion and played on. It wan't a choice. He doesn't remember the hit, he doesn't remember the next 20 minutes. We only realised after the match.
So calling the player stupid is quite probably, literally, blaming the victim.

Totally agree with pagwatch last paragraph.

I've been concussed before, according to others I was walking and talking but I can't remember anything of the few minutes before and about 4 hours after banging my head.

YABU to equate playing sport with a head injury as evidence of 'manliness'.

However, YANBU to suggest that in general rugby players show premiership footballers up for the prancing overpaid peacocks that they (mostly) are.

I don't understand this need to compare sports, put people down and use outdated sexist stereotypes. However, as an example, this is a video of footballer Steven Taylor
m.youtube.com/watch?v=fiQsS8y9gnA
I was there and actually heard the thud. It was quite worrying as he didn't move for what seemed like ages. He was taken off, checked out and played on.
Yes some players ham up injuries but a lot more are dedicated and hard working. Why do you feel the need to belittle them? Does it make you feel better? I just don't get it.

And yet you feel the need to post a video of a footballer being injured as some kind of "proof"?

Just using Taylor as an example. I think footballers get picked on too easily. I know some of them earn silly money but this sort of attitude towards them really bugs me

It always bemuses me that male tennis players are depicted as being in some way more effete than football players. There are not many football players who could cope with running around a tennis court for five hours whilst having small hard balls fired at them at over 100 mph.

But why the need to compare sports and their players at all?
I'm sure tennis players couldn't hit a golf ball as far as a golfer, but what relevance does it have?

Steve Mildenhall (football goalkeeper) suffered a tear to his scrotum, had it stitched at half time and then played the entire second half

I agree that there's a lot less fuss and faking in rugby than in football. I think that a lot of it (in football) is to do with the vast sums of money involved in winning matches. Players are more likely to dive in order to get penalties/other players sent off.

I do think that rugby players are tougher when it comes to injuries (not including concussions). Its not unusual for rugby players to go off and get injuries stitched up by the medical teams and then come back on to play again.

JPR Williams' Dad famously stitched up his face (30 stitches I think) when he was stamped on playing against the All Blacks and then went back on again!

I don't really see why there's a problem with comparing footballers and rugby players. Tennis, golf, cycling, etc are completely different disciplines. Rugby and football are both team-based ball sports, and (arguably) the two most popular sports in this country, on the basis of media coverage, public interest, etc. They take place on similarly sized pitches, they don't require props/equipment other than a ball (no ice skates, hockey sticks, etc).

Why is discussing possible parallels between them not feasible? It's like comparing Eastenders and Coronation Street, isn't it? Similar, but not the same ...

'That' facial injury. Tough bastards they were back in the 70's

www.welshrugbypics.co.uk/events/jpr-williams-injury/CDF_JPR_Williams01.JPG?1200583312