In the sports world, debates are nothing new. Whether it is about the best wide receiver of all time or the worst baseball team of all time, these verbal contests are frequent and embraced. However, one debate has remained prevalent in the sports world: Which is more physically demanding, football or rugby?
With the 2015 release of “Concussion,” a film detailing brain injuries in NFL players, the debate over which sport is more demanding has only regained momentum. It’s frequently claimed that “Rugby is more ‘dangerous’ because it’s football without pads.” However, the answer is not that simple.
First, it’s critical to acknowledge key differences between the two sports: Football teams usually field 11 players; while rugby teams consist of 15 players each. The objective of football is to progress to the opponent’s end zone, advancing at least 10 yards within four down, while rugby emphasizes forward progress to the opponents “touch line,” maintaining possession of the ball is of far greater emphasis.
Though similar at first glance, the rule books of the two sports present a divergence. In football, “heads up” tackling is legal. Players can fling themselves at opponents without the use of arms in the tackle. On the other hand, rugby rules prevent such tackling and require players to attempt to wrap their arms around opponents and lunge at areas below the armpit.
“The general principles are the same,” Martin Johnson, a former England captain and rugby World Cup Champion, told The Telegraph UK. “You bring the guy to the ground as quickly as possible … but I got more head knocks playing football than I did in rugby. The first thing you learn in rugby is head protection: getting your head to the near side and then wrapping the arms.”
Furthermore, obstruction of unsuspecting players who do not have the ball is permitted in football. These screens and blocks on players without the ball is prohibited in rugby. In addition, forward passes and progress is key in football; while only lateral passes are permitted in rugby. As football receivers frequently turn around or look backwards to catch forward passes, this leads to more players being exposed to unsuspected hits.
“I would say American football is more dangerous,” Martyn Williams, a former Wales rugby international player, told The Telegraph UK. “There are far more ‘hits’ put on players who are not expecting it.”
While these large differences may appear subtle to some, they are tremendous in the context of injuries suffered in each sport. Due to the disparity in tackling rules, football players are more vulnerable to head injuries. The style of lunging at opponents without any emphasis on head protection, leaves players more susceptible to head-related injuries.
A 2013 Boston University brain injury study of various athletes revealed a startling image: Out of the 35 former professional football players studied, 34 showed signs of significant brain damage.
To the contrary, rugby players suffer more spinal and neck injuries. These most often occur during scrums where eight players from each team pack together in an effort to restart play and gain possession of the ball.
To gauge the gravity and severity of both injury types, it’s crucial to examine the frequency of which players are permanently removed from their respective games due to injury. During the 2015 Rugby World Cup, there were 48 matches. Out of these 48 contests, 24 injuries occurred in which players were removed from the game.
After the first 224 games of the 2015 NFL season, nearly 300 players were removed from the game due to injury. These statistics break down to an average of 0.5 significant injuries per rugby match, compared with over 1.34 per NFL game.
Moreover, it’s important to take into account the play-through-injury culture of the NFL. In the NFC title game between the Green Bay Packers and Atlanta Falcons Jan. 22, Packers wide receiver, Jordy Nelson, competed with fractured ribs. At last year’s Super Bowl matchup between the Denver Broncos and Carolina Panthers, linebacker Thomas Davis competed despite breaking his arm two weeks earlier.
Further debunking the “no pads theory” is the average size of football players. On average, NFL players are far larger than rugby players: two inches taller and 80 to 100 lbs. heavier to be exact. Combine this with the strength and speed of NFL players, and the average sack alone can produce 2,000 lbs. of force.
In a study conducted by Boston University and ESPN that evaluated the force generated by both football and rugby hits, it was determined that an NFL hit can produce up to 4,600 lbs. of force, whereas rugby consistently recorded a force of 1,600 lbs. In addition, the pads utilized in football often create more vicious NFL hits by providing players with a false sense of protection.
However, one area that rugby is more demanding than football in is the stamina necessary to compete. Rugby players must endure two 40-minute halves with little to no breaks during these sessions of play. To the contrary, NFL players complete four 15-minute quarters with frequent timeouts. According to a study released by NBC Sports, rugby players cover an average of 4.35 miles per match. For NFL players, this distance is a much shorter 1.2 miles.
In the end, determining which sport is more rigorous depends on your definition of rigor. In terms of heavy hits that leave players physically debilitated, football has the edge. If rigor is defined in terms of stamina and endurance, rugby is more physically demanding.
