New name for american futbol

[Ryan Hughes]

You'd think the world could just do that as well and not have to worry about coming up with alternate names for things.

Calling football soccer in the UK is like punching someone's sainted grandmother in the tit. If you are american you will be excused but for a native its a massive social faux pas. I dont know why this is the case it just is

Read my prior post where I explain that.

Again, we come to the frayed remnants of colonialism, cultural hegemony, and their lasting effects: the British are desperate to keep their sense of superiority, and creating cultural shibboleths like this serve that end.

Edit: I'll define that word.
Shibboleth : In classical Hebrew, a measure of wheat or grain, much like a modern bushel. During the Hebrew golden age, a surge of immigration occurred, and the word Shibboleth, being very difficult to pronounce, was used as a way to tell whether someone was a natural-born Hebrew or an immigrant. Often people were asked to pronounce the word to prove their connection with natural-born society. During the Roman-classical and Middle Ages, Jews began to use the word to describe laws and actions taken to disparage them from mainstream society. This continued to the modern day, where it now has several definitions, including the wider:

A measure of the social distance between two groups of people, or the means by which one person or group of people is set apart from another, often with the intent of creating social disparity.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Unfortunately your friends are wrong (SNIP the rest)

Not according to a Rugby coach:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcuts/2013/jan/28/american-football-rugby-more-dangerous

And, for what it's worth, from another rugby player
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_football_more_dangerous_then_rugby

Much like in Boxing, the addition of pads can actually make it MORE dangerous, as it encourages the players to hit harder and aim with their head.

 

[Albino Boo]

Unfortunately your friends are wrong (SNIP the rest)

Not according to a Rugby coach:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcuts/2013/jan/28/american-football-rugby-more-dangerous

And, for what it's worth, from another rugby player
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_football_more_dangerous_then_rugby

Much like in Boxing, the addition of pads can actually make it MORE dangerous, as it encourages the players to hit harder and aim with their head.

from your article http://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcuts/2013/jan/28/american-football-rugby-more-dangerous

In rugby it is spinal injuries from scrums that are the most dangerous (110 rugby players in Britain have been paralysed by playing the game). Allyson Pollock, a professor of public health, says that she is very worried about amateur rugby players, and especially children. Coaches, she says, are not properly trained to look out for the signs of concussion or taught how to deal with it ? although it can have serious problems for children's learning and cognitive functions. She would like to see large-scale studies of the effects of such injuries, and says the sport establishment needs to think carefully about tackles. In 2010, she called for scrums to be banned after a study found that 190 rugby matches at Scottish schools resulted in 37 injuries. "Most children are not going to go professional, so why are their bodies being mauled and mashed and battered?"

Want more

Moody?s replacement in the opening game was Mike Tindall who, just a few years ago, suffered one of the worst injuries in recent international rugby history when he punctured his lung, tore his liver and spent five days in intensive care. Few thought he would play rugby again. But no sooner had he left hospital than he was jogging around the pitch and was soon running out at Twickenham, defying all medical predictions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/8752872/Tackling-rugby-safety-issues-head-on.html

 

[Souplex]

?
What are you talking about?
The sport with the tackling and touchdowns is called "Football".
The sport with the kicking and lack of arm-use is called "Communist Kickball".

thank you for making a horrible thread worthwhile lmao

No need to thank me, just doing my job.

Well I call one football and the other Superbowl because that's the only time anyone I know in real life cares about American Football.

By that logic shouldn't you call it "The world cup finals" and the "Superbowl"?

Nope, because I know and talk to plenty of people in real life that care about football the whole time, unlike it's American namesake.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...
Are you saying there's Communist Kickball outside the World Cup?
Because watching the World Cup once every four years is already too much Communist Kickball for any human being.

 

[Perverted_Pirate]

Thanks for the help guys, but a lot of you missed some points: 'soccer' may be correct for real football in the us/NA areas, but we're a groupd of people about 50 strong that met on various games and we often talk in parties of 3-15 online(vocie comms) and we try to comprimise, because we're all from different places.

So they won't use 'soccer' and I don't use 'handegg'. They've also went off 'american football'. So I was looking for a shorter substitue that made sense.

People also missed the fact I brought up the origins of the word 'soccer' but it's use is heavly exaggerated(I recall asking my great grandfather and he said it was only used by a smalls ection int he north of england).

I noticed 1 response in particular from spartan: "So, it's insulting call futbol soccer, even though it is a propper name for it, but it's not insulting to invent an entirely new name for football with no greater purpose than to make it more convenient for you? Do you realize how self-centered and even xenophobic that is?"

It's a proper name in your area, yes. However we are not all in your area and it is very incorrect in other areas(to the point of being insulting). It's called a comprimise and is what mature people come up with. We'll all call our own things however we like around others from that area, but when together we try to be kind ro all of us. I'll ignore your insults, because you didn't understand.

I'm surprised they never brought up gridiron, I might use that.

Anyway thanks for the help. Disappointed at some of the anger in here though.

 

[Rylot]

No arguments here. The only unfortunate aspect of ice hockey for me is that there are fewer rinks in all Britain than there are in the greater Toronto area, so opportunities to play are limited.

Shit, I know that feeling. Moved from a town of 200K people with three ice rinks in Washington State to a city with 800K with two ice rinks (one of which is a 3/4 sheet of ice) in Texas.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

SNIP

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not saying Rugby isn't a dangerous game, I'm simply pointing out that Football, despite the addition of pads, is actually more dangerous and leads to more injuries, which is apparently agreed upon by Rugby players and coaches. All you've done is provide examples of Rugby being violent and causing injuries. Well of course, everyone knows that. Also, from what you posted:
"In 2010, she called for scrums to be banned after a study found that 190 rugby matches at Scottish schools resulted in 37 injuries."
In Football (especially when you get to pro and college level) you're lucky if you have a single game where someone doesn't get badly injured, let alone 37 out of 190.

 

[shootthebandit]

SNIP

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not saying Rugby isn't a dangerous game, I'm simply pointing out that Football, despite the addition of pads, is actually more dangerous and leads to more injuries, which is apparently agreed upon by Rugby players and coaches. All you've done is provide examples of Rugby being violent and causing injuries. Well of course, everyone knows that. Also, from what you posted:
"In 2010, she called for scrums to be banned after a study found that 190 rugby mgatches at Scottish schools resulted in 37 injuries."
In Football (especially when you get to pro and college level) you're lucky if you have a single game where someone doesn't get badly injured, let alone 37 out of 190.

I went to school in scotland and a guy a few years above me in my school broke his neck in a scrum. Hes now paralysed from the neck down. Id still say american football seems more dangerous. All those high tackles on someone who doesnt even have the ball.

I cant believe people are proud of how dangerous it is. Its like bragging out being an F1 driver in the Senna days when a driver was dying pretty much every race. The sign of a bad sport or a sport not being played properly if its too dangerous

Yes brag about how tough it is and how hard it is but dont brag about how dangerous it is when people have lost the use of their entire body because of it

 

[Albino Boo]

SNIP

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not saying Rugby isn't a dangerous game, I'm simply pointing out that Football, despite the addition of pads, is actually more dangerous and leads to more injuries, which is apparently agreed upon by Rugby players and coaches. All you've done is provide examples of Rugby being violent and causing injuries. Well of course, everyone knows that. Also, from what you posted:
"In 2010, she called for scrums to be banned after a study found that 190 rugby matches at Scottish schools resulted in 37 injuries."
In Football (especially when you get to pro and college level) you're lucky if you have a single game where someone doesn't get badly injured, let alone 37 out of 190.

What I'm giving is specific examples of extreme injuries that have taken place to top flight players in the last 5 years. You have given in return subjective opinion from a few people. 27 out of 190 means there a 20% chance of injury per game. Where is your data to say that American football is higher? Where are your examples of extreme injuries that have happened to professional players in the last 5 years?

All I'm seeing is the seat belts make people take more risk argument. The energy of impact remains the same, in one case a person has padding and in the other its does not. You need to stop and think logically for a second, which is more dangerous being hit by 220 lb weight while wearing padding or being hit by the same weight while not wearing padding.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Football" will be largely referred to as "soccer" in this post. Sorry, it's for convenience, especially since I was reading off articles that call it "soccer."

I assume that you're being facetious,

I'm not.

but I have to run with the "but other sports have risks" angle.

But it's not "other sports have risks," it's "other sports have the same serious risk we're vilifying here because pop culture has latched on to this one." It's "isn't the other sport in question as bad?"

And since I didn't get the answer here, I looked it up. Articles on Google Scholar list substantial numbers, and the one I found that compared American Football and the other kind didn't exactly paint either favourably. It listed 70.4% of respondents demonstrating signs of concussion in football players and 62.7 of "soccer" players in the previous year.

It seems absolutely, utterly absurd to single out one sport as a concussion problem, especially in a thread discussing a sport that appears to be better by a handful of points.

The severity and occurance of soccer injuries absolutely pale in comparison to that football injuries.

I thought we were talking about concussions specifically. You said "concussionball," not "injuryball." I don't know the numbers on other forms of injury, can you give me some real-world comparison figures?

Hell, so much so that there's basically four sports I'm not permitting my future children to play until they're old enough to consent: Football, cheerleading (lots of severe injuries), wrestling, and gymnastics (these last two due to the expectation that competitors starve themselves).

At that point, it seems less fact-based than fear-based. Soccer does have a high instance of concussion at the least. Even this one [http://www.reactcanada.org/FR/resources/articles/youth/Am_J_Sports_Med-2011-Lincoln-0363546510392326%5B1%5D.pdf] puts the risk as majorly substantial, with a third of all youth sport concussions being (girls') soccer, and that's looking more and more conservative as I go on (which may be due to the fact that it's looking at reported concussions). This one [http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/2001/10000/Concussions_Among_University_Football_and_Soccer.5.aspx] suggests there ay be a greater risk of concussion amongst soccer players than football, though it doesn't look at school level.

At this point, I'm really curious as to why this is still on the table for you when those others are not, because it doesn't seem to be particularly good either. At what rate does the risk of one or more concussions become an issue to you and your kids? I would certainly count those as serious injuries.

 

[Gorrath]

All I'm seeing is the seat belts make people take more risk argument. The energy of impact remains the same, in one case a person has padding and in the other its does not. You need to stop and think logically for a second, which is more dangerous being hit by 220 lb weight while wearing padding or being hit by the same weight while not wearing padding.

Your logical summation is based on a false premise, that the way impacts occur and the force and speed of said impacts are the same in football and rugby. I played both games in my youth and can tell you that the way you approach and tackle and the way you block and finish in each sport is different. But I do not expect you to take my word or my anecdotal evidence into account, so here's a research paper done for the NFL Player's Association that covers six years of injury metrics.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/data/Dangers-of-the-Game-Draft-Esquire.pdf

From the paper: Teams averaged 3.2 injuries per week (games are played once a week). 59% of players suffer some injury each year. Nearly 40% of injuries are severe enough that the player misses at least one game. 10% are severe enough that the player is placed on IR (Injured Reserve, this essentially means the player misses the entire rest of the season). A direct comparison of this information to that in the article about rugby that was linked would not be sensible, but a 20% chance per game of there being an injury is nothing compared to the 6.4 injuries expected per game (3.2 per team) in Gridiron.

Edit - A significant addition of information here regarding England Rugby Premiership injury data, which should be much more comparable to that in the NFLPA study.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/?documentid=75

The ERP study's metrics are significantly different, so it's hard to make direct comparisons but the one that jumps out is that there were 1.9 injuries per match for the EPR compared to 3.2 for the NFL. So about a 40% increase in injuries per match/game in the NFL over the ERP.

 

[zombiejoe]

What's wrong with Futbol and Football?

 

[Jacco]

People say rugby is "better" than football because they don't have pads/protection so therefore it is more "brutal." I don't think it's brutal at all. I think it is smart to give people protection. It's not more or less brutal because of it. At least we are making an attempt to protect our athletic idols.

 

[Ratty]

Oh, for those people who want to compare Football to Rugby and mock the players for wearing protective gear, keep in mind that even with that gear many players get injured pretty badly. Some of them even have long term issues as I stated above. There's a reason for the equipment and rules. And that's to keep players safe, but even then, it only works so well. Especially when players are expected to "walk it off" and get back on the field.

I have a sneaking suspicion that that gear is responsible for many of the brain injuries though. Why? Because people are more reckless and aggressive when wearing it. It's like the difference between gloved and bare knuckle boxing. Someone won't hit you as hard if they have to worry about their own injury as much, and the equipment adds a lot of weight to the impact.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

You'd think the world could just do that as well and not have to worry about coming up with alternate names for things.

Calling football soccer in the UK is like punching someone's sainted grandmother in the tit. If you are american you will be excused but for a native its a massive social faux pas. I dont know why this is the case it just is

I think soccer is a better name for the sport to be honest. I mean calling soccer "futbol" is like calling a toaster a "bread burner" or a car a "Place taker"

I also think that considering (according to quite a few resources) the etiology of "soccer" coming from well to do British folk, maybe we can just stop caring about who calls what what.

 

[Rylot]

A quick thought I had on gridiron football and concussions: I think part of the reason there are so many is that most players are starting from a crouched position where their head is the most forward part of their body when they make contact with other players on the line of scrimmage. Where as rugby, hockey and a lot of the other sports players are making contact from a more upright position. I don't have any hard research but it seems somewhat logical to me.

 

[penguindude42]

Armored Rugby. That is essentially what it is.