posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 12:26 AM
The players are just different. The men in the National Football League are generally the biggest, strongest, fastest men in the U.S. The brute
force exerted by these men would severely injure/kill without the protection.
If you were to look at an average injury report from any team for their one game a week you would be shocked. The same injuries the rugby players get
every game (cuts, bruises, broken bones, etc.) the NFL players get...even with their pads on!
Rugby players could very well be better conditioned. But you also have to take into account the fact that since players rotate in the NFL, there are
always fresh legs in the game to hit you as hard as they can. When your in a rugby match in the 60th minute, the man that hits you will be hitting a
bit easier than they were at the start of the match.
As for whose tougher, a Rugby player or NFL player? Its a draw. They both play the most popular violent sport their country has to offer which takes
definite balls, and both get hurt every time out on the field. As for which sport is more violent and has the greater risk of injury if neither
participants were to wear pads? It would be American Football. The real question is why isn't American football more popular in Europe and why
isn't Rugby more popular in America?