Not every sport is designed with contact in mind...I'm not sure why that qualifies it as "homo"..because of the rules of that particular game. Is golf "homo"? I don't understand the argument here....yes rugby requires extensive physical contact...it's in the rules...soccer typically has less contact...but that's the nature of those games.
I don believe I've ever seen a golfer rolling on the ground acting like he was shot with a 45 because someone accidentally touched him....or didn't touch him at all. At least when basketball players flop they don't pretend the worlds worst injury just happened. Really People - I never got into rugby due to it not being offered in school, it is never on cable, and it's not a major sport in the US. I understand the game though...And it's not so much my like for rugby, it's my dislike of soccer.
It could be the whole scrum thing. Looks a little gay....j/k Where is the furthest guy on the rights head?
I agree, it takes a lot of stamina, a soccer field is huge....I get winded running 90 ft.; and there is contact involved in soccer. Some of the internatioinal players like to flop around to draw the foul, but my Dad once explained that sometimes it's just the player wants to rest. Play stops while the guy flops around and the team can recuperate for a couple minutes.
Compared to what? Physically, it's not hard. It involves as level of skill, no different than any other sport.
It takes mild amount of stamina compared to many other sports. A professional soccer player on average will run 5.5 miles over a 90 minute game, which may sound tough for you, but in terms of athletics is nothing.
It's the World's most popular sport. No expensive equipment required, a soccer ball and a field of some sort. Maybe the shoes can get expensive. Because you personally dismiss it, doesn't invalidate the sport itself. A kid doesn't have to be big or tall to be good at it...it appeals to more kids and more kids play it than any other sport. Playing a sport while a kid makes for a fan of the sport while an adult. That's the appeal of soccer. Mom's don't have to worry as much about a child getting injured as they would in football... Contact sports are not for everybody...typically athletes in contact sports have shorter careers for one thing.
Exactly. It's a cheap sport to play, anyone can do it and for the most part stay healthy and injury free, and requires little overall physical prowess to compete.
Haha, my boss is a huge soccer fan, I break his balls all the time. One of the toughest, I can attest for that. In fact, out of American football, hockey, soccer, lacrosse, rugby was by far the most difficult. Cheers to that! I will disagree and say that is what makes the sport physically and mentally tough. Indeed it is odd, but extremely difficult.
Indeed, I can't name one person on my team in four years who wasn't badly injured at one point or another. The weak would get injured and we would never see them again. The strong would be back the next day (if injury allows it). Those are the guys we knew were in it for the long haul.
Not sure why they show all the fighting in Rugby. They don't need to show that to prove that the sport is tough. Just regular game play would be enough. In fact, fighting doesn't happen as often as you think. The referee's and [most] coaches will not tolerate any nonsense. Most of the fighting happens during play, you know, get taken down, throw a jab or two. There is a lot of dirty boxing involved. Don't get me wrong, I have been in my fair share of field brawls, but not too often.
In terms of 'athletics', it isn't the raw distance figure that requires the physical ability in soccer, but the agility, rapid pace changes, bursts of speed, and so on. Yes, almost anyone can play a bit of soccer for fun, but those who do it at the top level absolutely have to be top athelites, just like anyone competing in other teams sports. It's just that the shape of the muscles they need is different - it doesn't requite the upper body strength or raw power of rugby (particularly rugby forwards), but it does require an extremely high level of fitness and agility. Injuries can be particularly horrific in soccer, too, because of the nature of the high speed 'leg to leg' or 'studs to leg' which can occur (and some of the apparent 'rolling about when unhurt nonsense' is actually a result of that too - a high speed clash of shins is something that can hurt alot for a couple of minutes, even when there is no serious damage - the leg has virtually no protective flesh to cushion the blow there, and that is a form of contact that happens alot in soccer, but very little in any other sport). Unlike rugby (or american football, for that matter), because physical contact is not 'body to body' - very serious leg breaks (I don't mean a little fracture, I mean lower leg snapped and dangling about by the flesh kind of stuff) can and do occur in top level football. Is it as physically demanding as rugby? Depends on how you look at it - rugby players are certainly stronger and more prone to things like shoulder injuries and bleeding wounds, but then, because they don't need that muscle strength bulk and can work on other things, soccer players are more agile and prone to different injuries as a result. At the top level, both have to be fully fit athelites that spend years in the gym and on the training field tuning their body to the precise shape it needs to be to do the job. Of course, there are some who roll about on the floor because of broken eyelash to try to cheat their way into getting opponents sent of and so on, and top soccer players are undoubtably as a group a bunch of whining, overpaid, morons. I don't think anybody would dispute that, and that's one of the reasons why I will always be primarily a Rugby Union man (being Welsh is another reason, of course!).
And some refs have a real talent for 'not tolerating any nonsense' in style! [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhhd36fxPw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhhd36fxPw[/ame]
Perhaps when you look at a still image, but consider the forces that are involved in 16 big, powerful blokes pushing against each other, particularly on the upper bodies of the front rows: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIyQTGbSfEc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIyQTGbSfEc[/ame] That's alot of pushing force concentrated in on the neck and shoulder areas of the front row players where they meet, and the reason why those players have to be 'registered' specialists, who know the necessary techniques, and are able to take those forces safely.
I bet. It was similar wrestling through school. Usually after the first week of the season at least half of the new kids would quit. I always figured rugby would be a brutal sport. Getting the wind knocked out of you seems like it would be the least of your concerns.
Indeed, but that kind of rapid burst, side to side is not native to soccer only. In fact, random explosiveness is extremly important in rugby, football, lacrosse, hockey, basketball and MMA. I thought our coach was going to make us do sprints until we died more than a few times. Don't forget also, most Rugby players are just as agile and physically able but also weigh much more than your average soccer player. That is not including some backs, of course. Rolling can occur in any sport that requires running. The only thing that stands out in soccer is the constant tripping, which can be brutal on the ankles and knees. I will assume that you have never played American football if you think your legs don't take a beating... you are simply wrong. When you tackle, it is low and hard. I have a hard time believing that legs snapping off is a common occurrence in soccer. Rugby is most certainly more physically demanding, by a landslide. I have never left a soccer game feeling like someone just took a baseball bat to my whole body. I think there are more than 'some' unfortunately. LOL! My team has had "the talk" by a ref. many times. You feel as though you are being lashed by your parents.
Twas a joke. Not a huge fan of either but obviously rugby is not a homo sport,especially when held up against soccer. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsg6Bb02L4"]Soccer player hits himself with his Opponent's hand MUST SEE!!! - YouTube[/ame]
Indeed, many of my friends in high school (they went to a different school than I) were wrestlers. That is one sport I wish my high school had. I get to taste a little bit of it in MMA though. I feel wrestling is becoming a natural part of any MMA school.
Wrestling and football were the only 2 sports I ever played that I was any good at, mostly because I started wrestling at a very young age. It was actually the "major" sport at my highschool, at least in terms of success from the program. A pure MMA school has to be a blast. I attended the Gracie Academy that Relson opened up in Columbus for a while, but with a job, kid, hobbies etc it just ended up taking a back seat to other things.
Yup - what I am saying is that soccer players are no different in that. The precise details are specific to the sport, as with any other, but they are every bit as fit and athletic as other sportsmen. 'Common' would be an overstatement in terms of leg snapping, but it does happen (I won't post pictures/videos here, but here is a page of them), and injuries that happen in similar ways but are less catastrphically serious are very common. Obviously legs get broken in other sports, but there's a specific issue with the nature of soccer that creates a very regular danger of a particular type of impact which doesn't occur very often in most other sports, for the simple reason that other sports don't tend to involve so much physically challenging for the ball using only the feet! It's not physically demanding in terms of 'putting your whole body on the line', of course. You shouldn't get quite so many bruises to your upper body, hopefully! That doesn't mean that it isn't physically demanding in different ways, though. There's actually alot more of the game time spent with the ball directly 'in play' (not to mention more actual play time!) with all of the players moving in soccer than their is in rugby, for example, and less natural stops to the game - play usually moves up and down the field more rapidly and constantly than it is able to do in rugby (play is always effectively 'broken play', if you see what I mean). It doesn't involve as much actual bodily contact and so on, obviously, but any suggestion that top soccer players somehow aren't 'top athelites' like other sportsmen is just nonsense - they are, because they have to be.
