09-30-2019, 10:17 AM
(09-27-2019, 06:57 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: Not really there is no Blocking, catching, throwing, or overall strategy involved in rugby. It
Football is violent Chess vs Rugby which is just pure violence.
I'm not sure what sport you watched but it wasn't rugby if it didn't involve catching, passing and strategy.
The big difference between football and rugby (other than the same players being on offense and defense) is that football offense is scripted whereas rugby offense is more improvised but the same strategizing goes on - it's just more player than coach led as it happens on the field. Like in the NFL you need to decide whether to pack the box, defend deep, when to punt etc rugby has all those same quandaries. The equivalent of a defense blitzing is probably how many men you commit to the ruck. If it works out you have a good chance of a turnover but if the attacking team gets the ball out quickly it leaves space to be exploited by a skilled opposition.
Whilst there's no blocking as such (and since when has O-line - your primary blockers, been considered a skill position?) there is scrummaging and mauling which is the equivalent of run-blocking when the forwards (the O-line) try to push the opposition backwards through power combined with technique. Like football, when you have a dominant O-line, having a dominant pack in rugby puts you on the front foot. If you don't, you need to come up with strategies to mitigate it and get the ball out early.
Rugby Union is traditionally seen as less violent than football and whilst that's changing (the NFL has obviously started clamping down on lots of the big hits and starting to feign an interest in player safety whilst rugby players are bulking up like NFL players - rugby union only became professional in the 90s - and in the last decade or so a lot more attacking play is based around the ball carrier running into rather than around the defender than use to be the case) rugby is probably still less violent than the NFL with far fewer injuries.
