Rugby injuries vs American football injuries...ANY scientific proof gear prevents injuries? For sure...h?

The nature of the contact is different between the two codes. In particularly, the rules of tackling are very different - high tackles are impermissible, and one may not shoulder-charge or (of course) lead with the head (as is taught in gridiron, to its shame). There also is no "blocking" (it would be interference), and most contact except at the tackle (and even then) comes with limited run-up: no wide receiver running at speed into open space and being taken in the air by a strong safety with a 15 yard running start. A head slap or a clip would be a red-card dismissal, with your team playing a man down the rest of the way.

Helmets were added to gridiron as a matter of law, during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt if memory serves, to stave off having the game banned entirely because of the number and severity of injuries. The evolution and detailed design of the American gear is driven by actual physical testing (in engineering labs and research kinesiology departments) and vetted by the loss-control departments of the insurance companies, without which the games would not be played at all (because clubs,m schools, Unis and professional teams could not play without liability insurance. So although the equipment does not *prevent* injuries (which happen all the time,of course), they certainly mitigate the risks.

A very important source of danger to American"football" players that is not at all well addressed by their gear is heat stroke. I daresay this is the largest single source of fatalities in American football. This is rarely a problem in rugby, although active steps to avoid dehydration are of course needed.

Mark L

Rugby Vs Football Injuries

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

Rugby injuries vs American football injuries...ANY scientific proof gear prevents injuries? For sure...h?

Watched rugby on Youtube and LOOKS more inherently dangerous. Like soccer, these guys do not wear helmets. No surprise there...BUT I was stunned that rugby players wear shorts like basketballers and high socks aooarently without the ankle guards.

Do they get injuried MORE frequently OR more...

There are lots of scientific studies which confirms (as Mark L.) points out that rugby has fewer serious injuries (although more cuts and bruises), because the nature of the contact is fundamentally different. See for example: http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/7/595 from the British Journal of Sports Medicine. There are lots of others you can find (the abstracts at least) if you do a google search using the appropriate key words.

And though the socks do provide some protection, some players also wear shin guards under them. And it is an interesting point Mark L. made about helmets and gear causing heat stroke -- I hadn`t considered that angle. Heat stroke is a heck of a lot more serious than anything short of a concussion -- which also don`t tend to happen in rugby. Nobody is hitting anything with their head.

They get more minor injuries, broke noses and broken fingers sure.

But football players are the ones with torn ACLs, Broken necks, major damages.

Rugby, you're going at the guy with everything, and he you. You aren't going to try and put him in the hospital b/c it might backlash on you.

ANBU Black Ops Captian B S Rugby i play under 13 and last game a kid broke his neck i broke a kids nose last game and another kid broke his for arm

Mind you, the coach crash that got the Sea Eagles....helmets and half long pants didn't save many