Change It.
- Thread starter MrE
- Start date
What other sports aside from hockey?
It works for hockey because it's extremely fast paced and there are so few players on the ice. A man down for 2 minutes can and often times does result in a game changer.
If you have 11 men on the field and one goes down for two minutes your penalty kill would consist if kicking the ball out of bounds for 2 minutes. In hockey an action like that will net you another two minutes in the box.
The nature of the sport would deem a penalty box useless.
If we're on the discussion of doing away with reds, I would say evicting a player isn't the problem...it's punishing the team that's the problem. If a defender decides to charge a player instead of the ball it's not the goalkeeper's fault or a midfielder's fault.
Sin bins are used in rugby, and I believe it's the European exposure to rugby which has led to their consideration by FIFA. This, of course, is part of the reason it's so controversial over here - rugby and football are rival sports in the UK and it's very rare to find someone who actively follows both sports. Consequently one of the major argument against sin bins over here is "we are not rugby fans, please don't make us watch rugby".
Kind of. In rugby, all players sent to the sin bin are sent there for 10 minutes - there are no "minors" warranting a shorter spell, as there are in ice hockey. Also, rugby has no rules to allow players to remain on the pitch if their team has lost too many members (though when each team has, depending on whether you play Rugby Union or Rugby League, 13 or 15 members in play at once, this is not a problem) or to rejoin if the other team scores. Furthermore, rugby does still have a red card, and unlike ice hockey it doesn't allow the player sent off to be replaced unless they play in one of a couple of set positions, because scrums only work when certain key positions are filled.
You just reminded me of how little I actually know and understand about rugby.
I've watched a couple matches and I swear all I see is a bunch of giants kicking the shit out of each other. The only actual rule I know of is that the ball can only be passed behind the line of scrimmage.
Hey I live in the UK, have as much knowledge of American sports as Falastur, and you have more knowledge of Rugby than I.
A honest assessment, as far as I can tell, (and I have been around a club that plays both Football and Rugby)
Rugby is played by the type of guy who is to (not sure of the right word no insults meant) uncoordinated, ungainly,awkward, to play football.
Rugby is five minutes per half shorter in duration than football, in order to give the neanderthals that play it time to get to the bar (and hence the TV) before the footballers get there, thus ensuring that it has to be bloody Rugby shown in the bar.
Rugby players are failed football players.
Ok a tad biased but true !!!!
As an ex rugby union player and a non neanderthal those comments are extremely offensive 
and we must have superior intelligence to organise the sports duration to permit a clean run at the bar!
and we must have superior intelligence to organise the sports duration to permit a clean run at the bar! That's essentially the crux of what rugby is, yes. It's pretty similar to American football in principle; the main difference is in the way the ball is brought back into play from dead ball situations, and also that in rugby the ball can never be passed forward, the only way to get it past your opponent is to run it past them. The complete lack of body protection just means it's a quite violent game.
In fact, in general most US sports have a British equivalent. The difference between them is generally: in British sports, you can't wear any protective padding.
Last edited:
To take it full circle, we Yanks also set the curve for you guys that not standing still in formation while fighting a war is beneficial if you want to win.That's essentially the crux of what rugby is, yes. It's pretty similar to American football in principle; the main difference is in the way the ball is brought back into play from dead ball situations, and also that in rugby the ball can never be passed forward, the only way to get it past your opponent is to run it past them. The complete lack of body protection just means it's a quite violent game.
In fact, in general most US sports have a British equivalent. The difference between them is generally: in British sports, you can't wear any protective padding.
British or American, Rugby is a mystery to me. It has no visual appeal. Too damn many people in too tight of space.
To take it full circle, we Yanks also set the curve for you guys that not standing still in formation while fighting a war is beneficial if you want to win.
I think if you read up on your history you'll find that the reason you guys tipped the scales in WW1 was not your ability to move out of formation, but the fact that you sent out teams consisting of five times as many players as everyone else had previously using. They were still in strict formation, but there were so many of them that for every man removed from the field of play there was always another one ready to overrun the defenders. You could say brute force over finesse
Haha. I was thinking a little before then. You know, when you guys were marching around America in red coats...I think if you read up on your history you'll find that the reason you guys tipped the scales in WW1 was not your ability to move out of formation, but the fact that you sent out teams consisting of five times as many players as everyone else had previously using. They were still in strict formation, but there were so many of them that for every man removed from the field of play there was always another one ready to overrun the defenders. You could say brute force over finesse
That's essentially the crux of what rugby is, yes. It's pretty similar to American football in principle; the main difference is in the way the ball is brought back into play from dead ball situations, and also that in rugby the ball can never be passed forward, the only way to get it past your opponent is to run it past them. The complete lack of body protection just means it's a quite violent game.
In fact, in general most US sports have a British equivalent. The difference between them is generally: in British sports, you can't wear any protective padding.
Come again?
Yes, my comment may have been just a little sarcastic, although there is a grain of truth in it.
That said, what are the top two? I don't recognise them.
Fair enough. All I'll say is that we weren't wearing anything like that when we played in our PE (sports) lessons at school.
I'm guessing those are probably part of the recent changes to rugby on health and safety lines which try to reduce the impact of scrums locking together. I have an uncle who played rugby for a long time and he was unequivocal in his views that all rugby players hate the changes to the rules, as the very physicality and aggression of scrums are what make them so fun to the players.
I'm american and I played rugby. Many american rugby players feel its less violent than American football. I would much rather get hit in the stomach by someones shoulder or head than one encased in armor.
Similar threads
