Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:However, I could really careless about the game of American football and it's whole 12 minutes of actual game play...bunch of pansies!
12 Minutes
.
.

Palleease! American football is by far the most grueling, most physically demanding sport there is today, bar none. It has more career-ending injuries than all of professional sports put together. And that's only counting the .01% of the elite players who actually do make it to the NFL. And that 12-minute play time is a crock. Bring on those rugby-playing sissies any day, they will never measure up, suited or not (God, I feel so charged up since yesterday ).

You obviously haven't seen rugby league played here in Australia. The best way I could explain it is American football without all the padding and armor, replacement of throwing and catching the ball with more tackling and running with the ball = rugby league.

.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Not even close (pun very much intended ).

Seriously though, Rugby and Football may look similar but in reality they are very, very different, particularly when it comes to tackling. In Rugby the only one who gets tackled is the player holding the ball, whereas in Football most of the players on the field had better be tackling someone on every play. The purposes for tackling are very different too. In Rugby the purpose is to bring the player down to the ground to force a fumble so a few extra yards don't really matter. While a fumble is a secondary purpose in Football, the main one is to stop him from gaining yardage. For that, head-on collisions to the chest are the preferred method of tackling in Football. A Rugby player tries that without a helmet and he's likely not to walk again. So if one factors in the impact of a hard helmet and/or shoulder pads to the chest, as well as the full weight of a gridiron player (on average about 1.5 to twice the size of a Rugby player) one then will appreciate the full force of Football tackling (and the necessity for protective gear).

I'm sure Rugby is a great sport and if I lived in Europe or Australia I have no doubt I'd be the biggest fan. But I'm in the U.S. and in NY no less, so I'll stick to my Giants (and the Mets of course, for those who follow baseball).

Byblos wrote: I'm sure Rugby is a great sport and if I lived in Europe or Australia I have no doubt I'd be the biggest fan. But I'm in the U.S. and in NY no less, so I'll stick to my Giants (and the Mets of course, for those who follow baseball).

New York has a baseball team too? Next think ya know, there'll be indoor plumbing!!!

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Byblos wrote: I'm sure Rugby is a great sport and if I lived in Europe or Australia I have no doubt I'd be the biggest fan. But I'm in the U.S. and in NY no less, so I'll stick to my Giants (and the Mets of course, for those who follow baseball).

New York has a baseball team too? Next think ya know, there'll be indoor plumbing!!!

Don't you guys have another football team up there that nobody likes to talk about?

FFC wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Byblos wrote: I'm sure Rugby is a great sport and if I lived in Europe or Australia I have no doubt I'd be the biggest fan. But I'm in the U.S. and in NY no less, so I'll stick to my Giants (and the Mets of course, for those who follow baseball).

New York has a baseball team too? Next think ya know, there'll be indoor plumbing!!!

Don't you guys have another football team up there that nobody likes to talk about?

We actually have 2 (poor Bills, they're totally dissed). But I'm a Jets fan too, it's just that I've been a Giants fan ever since I came to the States 27 years ago.

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Not even close (pun very much intended ).

Seriously though, Rugby and Football may look similar but in reality they are very, very different, particularly when it comes to tackling. In Rugby the only one who gets tackled is the player holding the ball, whereas in Football most of the players on the field had better be tackling someone on every play. The purposes for tackling are very different too. In Rugby the purpose is to bring the player down to the ground to force a fumble so a few extra yards don't really matter. While a fumble is a secondary purpose in Football, the main one is to stop him from gaining yardage. For that, head-on collisions to the chest are the preferred method of tackling in Football. A Rugby player tries that without a helmet and he's likely not to walk again. So if one factors in the impact of a hard helmet and/or shoulder pads to the chest, as well as the full weight of a gridiron player (on average about 1.5 to twice the size of a Rugby player) one then will appreciate the full force of Football tackling (and the necessity for protective gear).

I'm sure Rugby is a great sport and if I lived in Europe or Australia I have no doubt I'd be the biggest fan. But I'm in the U.S. and in NY no less, so I'll stick to my Giants (and the Mets of course, for those who follow baseball).

Basically, Am. football is overweight boys bumping into each other needing crash helmets due to their inability to be real men and play mano-a-mano, if you will. Put up the average rugby player against the average Am. football player and the rugby player will out play, out wit, and out last the chubby dude all day long. The average citizen(s) can go to a park/field and play a "real" game of rugby without the need (or use) of all that baby-wear plastic. If Am. football players were/are so tough...let's see a game without their pads and see how tough they really are. Put a team of pro rugby players (that understand Am. football) to play a team of pro Am. football players in Am. football...and I'll wager that the rugby team wins...not only in points, but in hits. Rugby players are used to playing in shorts and t-shirts a tackle game.

Am. footballers...of the 12 minutes of total ball-in-play time couldn't even handle playing a few extended minutes of actual activity without the need to call in their "special teams". What a joke Am. football is. Almost 70 players on a team...and only how many on the field at a time? For 192 minutes of TOTAL season game time in almost 40 hours of "game"?
.
.

.
.
To add to the NFL idiocy...

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.shtml
.
.

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Not even close (pun very much intended ).

Seriously though, Rugby and Football may look similar but in reality they are very, very different, particularly when it comes to tackling. In Rugby the only one who gets tackled is the player holding the ball, whereas in Football most of the players on the field had better be tackling someone on every play. The purposes for tackling are very different too. In Rugby the purpose is to bring the player down to the ground to force a fumble so a few extra yards don't really matter. While a fumble is a secondary purpose in Football, the main one is to stop him from gaining yardage. For that, head-on collisions to the chest are the preferred method of tackling in Football.

What like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNDoCjQi5Nc

League is very different from Union. Like I said, NFL without all the armour.

Byblos wrote:

FFC wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Byblos wrote: I'm sure Rugby is a great sport and if I lived in Europe or Australia I have no doubt I'd be the biggest fan. But I'm in the U.S. and in NY no less, so I'll stick to my Giants (and the Mets of course, for those who follow baseball).

New York has a baseball team too? Next think ya know, there'll be indoor plumbing!!!

Don't you guys have another football team up there that nobody likes to talk about?

We actually have 2 (poor Bills, they're totally dissed). But I'm a Jets fan too, it's just that I've been a Giants fan ever since I came to the States 27 years ago.

I completely forgot about the Bills!

Put a team of pro rugby players (that understand Am. football) to play a team of pro Am. football players in Am. football...and I'll wager that the rugby team wins...not only in points, but in hits.

I know that in your deluded mind you would love to believe that, but it's more likely that your scrawny little boys would end up in traction for months...or sent running back to their mums in tears.

FFC wrote:

Put a team of pro rugby players (that understand Am. football) to play a team of pro Am. football players in Am. football...and I'll wager that the rugby team wins...not only in points, but in hits.

I know that in your deluded mind you would love to believe that, but it's more likely that your scrawny little boys would end up in traction for months...or sent running back to their mums in tears.

Truth be told...the Am. football players would probably shutter in their Nike's about being hit by a person used to hitting another human skin to skin, head to head. If you ever watched the first UFC's and even now, size has nothing to do with the damage that can be done by a well trained person. Rugby players are not afraid of getting hit and in fact are quite at home playing rough in shorts and a t-shirt. Am. football players, without their armor would feel naked and vulnerable...thus they'd be hesitant to do the things they do when in full battle dress. Getting your head pounded into the dirt/grass without a helmet and face cage is a whole different ball game!!
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

FFC wrote:

Put a team of pro rugby players (that understand Am. football) to play a team of pro Am. football players in Am. football...and I'll wager that the rugby team wins...not only in points, but in hits.

I know that in your deluded mind you would love to believe that, but it's more likely that your scrawny little boys would end up in traction for months...or sent running back to their mums in tears.

Truth be told...the Am. football players would probably shutter in their Nike's about being hit by a person used to hitting another human skin to skin, head to head. If you ever watched the first UFC's and even now, size has nothing to do with the damage that can be done by a well trained person. Rugby players are not afraid of getting hit and in fact are quite at home playing rough in shorts and a t-shirt. Am. football players, without their armor would feel naked and vulnerable...thus they'd be hesitant to do the things they do when in full battle dress. Getting your head pounded into the dirt/grass without a helmet and face cage is a whole different ball game!!
.
.

Why don't you show them this then let's talk (especially the head-on collisions into the chest with the helmet). Are you serious? Can you say cripple city? But whatever, to each his own ...

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

FFC wrote:

Put a team of pro rugby players (that understand Am. football) to play a team of pro Am. football players in Am. football...and I'll wager that the rugby team wins...not only in points, but in hits.

I know that in your deluded mind you would love to believe that, but it's more likely that your scrawny little boys would end up in traction for months...or sent running back to their mums in tears.

Truth be told...the Am. football players would probably shutter in their Nike's about being hit by a person used to hitting another human skin to skin, head to head. If you ever watched the first UFC's and even now, size has nothing to do with the damage that can be done by a well trained person. Rugby players are not afraid of getting hit and in fact are quite at home playing rough in shorts and a t-shirt. Am. football players, without their armor would feel naked and vulnerable...thus they'd be hesitant to do the things they do when in full battle dress. Getting your head pounded into the dirt/grass without a helmet and face cage is a whole different ball game!!
.
.

Why don't you show them this then let's talk (especially the head-on collisions into the chest with the helmet). Are you serious? Can you say cripple city? But whatever, to each his own ...

Can't view youtube...but if they're wearing helmets...then what's so spectacular? It's like comparing walking over red-hot coals wearing protective shoes vs. walking over same hot-coals barefoot. Which is the true feat? (pun intended )
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:Can't view youtube...but if they're wearing helmets...then what's so spectacular? It's like comparing walking over red-hot coals wearing protective shoes vs. walking over same hot-coals barefoot. Which is the true feat? (pun intended ).

Too bad you can't see that, try this one.

But you're still missing the point entirely. While the helmet protects the wearer from certain head and neck injury (not always) due to the head-on collision, which neverhappens in rugby, what does it say about the player absorbing the hit in his unprotected chest? There are 2 sides to a tackle you know.

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Can't view youtube...but if they're wearing helmets...then what's so spectacular? It's like comparing walking over red-hot coals wearing protective shoes vs. walking over same hot-coals barefoot. Which is the true feat? (pun intended ).

Too bad you can't see that, try this one.

But you're still missing the point entirely. While the helmet protects the wearer from certain head and neck injury (not always) due to the head-on collision, which neverhappens in rugby, what does it say about the player absorbing the hit in his unprotected chest? There are 2 sides to a tackle you know.

No doubt football can have some spectacular hits. But to say there is no chest protection is silly. There is a chest pad that is connected to the shoulder pads.

There would hardly ever be blind hits in rugby like the ones shown in that clip. The games are different. There isn't any ONE person being protected whilst they decide whom to throw it too. In rugby the ball is in almost constant motion. Tackles are happening every few seconds...not one every 10 minutes. Am. football players are good for a few minutes...a few hits...and then they need to be replaced by one of their other 70 teammates to carry on.

We could argue all day long back and forth about this. Fact remains that 12 minutes game play is hardly reason to promote high intesity action and hits. Those great tackles/hits are few and far between. Those fat boys couldn't keep up their own game for 5 unending minutes of hard play.
.
.