The Red Tornado wrote:Major Winchester just came out of the closet

Wizlah wrote:

laf837 wrote:Wiz,
I am having this silly turned serious argument with some Anglophiliacs over here with regard to rugby. My contention is if I could pick players that do not make the NFL or get drafted and had someone coach them up for a year, that that team could win a rugby title. My english-loving friends say I am insane. My contention is that rugby is a relatively simple game so natural ability will be able to take over more quickly.
Any thoughts?

Right, first up. I dinnae ken rugby, and I'll freely admit to studiously ignoring ANY aspect of american football.

Now, the rugby thing. Despite freely not understanding the game, I have been diligently watching 6 nations rugby (the main national tournament in the northern hemisphere, and the biggest competition outside of the heinken cup, which is the club competition) for about 10 years now. One of my best mates back home is a massive rugby fan. My da-in-law is an ex rugby player and staunch fan. You'd think after all this time I would understand rugby. But I don't. Because it is fiercely, fiercely technical.

When do you use hands to tackle. where. What constitutes a turnover. the many illegal behaviours that surround the scrum which cause the referee to restart. there isn't a rolling maul anymore. Why? WHO THE $#@! KNOWS WHAT A ROLLING MAUL IS?

Rugby, as far as I can work it, is all about superlative technical execution within a complex rules framework. And for this reason alone, I'm going with your friends. If you don't believe me, consider the following article on the latest set of rule changes, called Experimental Law Variations, and how it's supposedly killing the game. I draw your attention to phrases like 'full raft of ELVs', suggesting a lot of rules. I know, they're rugby players, so it's hard for them to count, but still.

I'm not saying it's more complex than American Football, but I think it's a mistake to assume that the game is comparatively easy to understand. It's not. And since Rugby Union became fully professionalised, every one of those players is every bit as fit and up to speed on sport science as yer fellas in the NFL draft. so I don't figure they'd stand any better or any worse chance than any other club. and if they went up against the all blacks, they'd be $#@! worse than a pig at a pig $#@! contest. But that goes without saying. I mean, anyone would.

The Dude wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=Xe7i_6b2IHU[/youtube]

Werthless wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:i feel really bad for Chris Ferguson. he's a really naturally funny guy and he's just been holed in a tough spot for a long time. i hope he dominates the $#@! out of Fallon.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

laf837 wrote:Wiz,
I am having this silly turned serious argument with some Anglophiliacs over here with regard to rugby. My contention is if I could pick players that do not make the NFL or get drafted and had someone coach them up for a year, that that team could win a rugby title. My english-loving friends say I am insane. My contention is that rugby is a relatively simple game so natural ability will be able to take over more quickly.
Any thoughts?

Right, first up. I dinnae ken rugby, and I'll freely admit to studiously ignoring ANY aspect of american football.

Now, the rugby thing. Despite freely not understanding the game, I have been diligently watching 6 nations rugby (the main national tournament in the northern hemisphere, and the biggest competition outside of the heinken cup, which is the club competition) for about 10 years now. One of my best mates back home is a massive rugby fan. My da-in-law is an ex rugby player and staunch fan. You'd think after all this time I would understand rugby. But I don't. Because it is fiercely, fiercely technical.

When do you use hands to tackle. where. What constitutes a turnover. the many illegal behaviours that surround the scrum which cause the referee to restart. there isn't a rolling maul anymore. Why? WHO THE $#@! KNOWS WHAT A ROLLING MAUL IS?

Rugby, as far as I can work it, is all about superlative technical execution within a complex rules framework. And for this reason alone, I'm going with your friends. If you don't believe me, consider the following article on the latest set of rule changes, called Experimental Law Variations, and how it's supposedly killing the game. I draw your attention to phrases like 'full raft of ELVs', suggesting a lot of rules. I know, they're rugby players, so it's hard for them to count, but still.

I'm not saying it's more complex than American Football, but I think it's a mistake to assume that the game is comparatively easy to understand. It's not. And since Rugby Union became fully professionalised, every one of those players is every bit as fit and up to speed on sport science as yer fellas in the NFL draft. so I don't figure they'd stand any better or any worse chance than any other club. and if they went up against the all blacks, they'd be $#@! worse than a pig at a pig $#@! contest. But that goes without saying. I mean, anyone would.

I've played both. The big difference is that a rugby player is running a lot. And there are limited substitutions, so I would imagine a typical NFL lineman would probably die. There's no forward pass of course, so that would be another set of skills that aren't useful. Everyone however needs to have some ball handling skills.