If life gives you melons, you may be a nigger

Yea with body armor because if they didn't have it they would die.

...Rugby players deliver the same kind of tackles without the body armour.

Your argument isn't valid.

No they in fact do not. They hit way harder in football.

I play rugby, and believe me some very punishing hits are delivered. I've seen countless people be taken off because they've broken something playing. I'm lucky enough to have only fractured my wrist.

In American handegg, they might be delivering harder hits because.. you know.. they're wearing armour that is the equivalent of a fucking mattress?

My point stands, rugby has just as much violence as American football, minus the oversized padding.

Equivalent to a mattress. That hilarious.

So is your thumbing down a decent argument.

If you knew anything about football you'd know that a healthy majority of players only wear shoulder pads and their helmets. Nothing else. Maybe a rib protector so they don't break their ribs. Until you've taken a football hit you have never taken a real hit. Also, hockey players where helmets too. Are you saying that is a sissy sport too?

They have a valid reason to use helmets, since they have a risk of getting their face sliced if they fall over, in fact a lot of goalkeepers in hockey get their throats cut when they fall down.

We've played a lot of American football at our School over the last several years, including against rival schools which specialize in the sport and I have to say the hits delivered were not at all different to the ones in rugby.

Now end this shit, you were complaining about football (soccer, as you call it) at first, and now you've started criticizing a sport which consists of just as much organized violence as the other. Also, don't try to bring a completely different sport into the equation. I'm speaking locally, not about every sport ever made.

**zachariahh rolls 13**

..and i'm all done.

It isn't OVER YET

<---- Everyone at the beginning

No. Football is the actual man sport that requires you to run full force into a 300 pound man.

That is rugby.

1. with bodyarmour 2. us (the english) invented it so we called dibs on the name

Yea with body armor because if they didn't have it they would die.

...Rugby players deliver the same kind of tackles without the body armour.

Your argument isn't valid.

No they in fact do not. They hit way harder in football.

I play rugby, and believe me some very punishing hits are delivered. I've seen countless people be taken off because they've broken something playing. I'm lucky enough to have only fractured my wrist.

In American handegg, they might be delivering harder hits because.. you know.. they're wearing armour that is the equivalent of a fucking mattress?

My point stands, rugby has just as much violence as American football, minus the oversized padding.

Equivalent to a mattress. That hilarious.

So is your thumbing down a decent argument.

If you knew anything about football you'd know that a healthy majority of players only wear shoulder pads and their helmets. Nothing else. Maybe a rib protector so they don't break their ribs. Until you've taken a football hit you have never taken a real hit. Also, hockey players where helmets too. Are you saying that is a sissy sport too?

They have a valid reason to use helmets, since they have a risk of getting their face sliced if they fall over, in fact a lot of goalkeepers in hockey get their throats cut when they fall down.

We've played a lot of American football at our School over the last several years, including against rival schools which specialize in the sport and I have to say the hits delivered were not at all different to the ones in rugby.

Now end this shit, you were complaining about football (soccer, as you call it) at first, and now you've started criticizing a sport which consists of just as much organized violence as the other. Also, don't try to bring a completely different sport into the equation. I'm speaking locally, not about every sport ever made.

Use a meme right for once.