NRL vs NFL debate

[Danish]

And don't give the jive about cricketers having more skill. It's pure BS because one of the hardst things to do in sports is to hit a home run with round ball with a round bat.

That's why it's much harder to get a hit in baseball than to whack a cricket ball with a bat bigger than a 2x4.

You know why they stop for a break? Because 2 players have been batting non-stop for the last 3 hours you idiot. What do you do in baseball? Whoops i missed that time, i'll go sit down till next innings then. Mind you i dont have to field or anything, and will probably only get a bat every 2nd or 3rd innings cause my job is to just step up when the pitcher is supposed to hit.

Americans think its the hardest thing in the world to hit a round ball with a round bat, but thats just americans.

Try hitting a ball travelling faster than any baseball pitcher can throw, coming straight at your head ON PURPOSE, with perfect timing 400 feet at a right angle to where it was bowled. Congratulations you've just hit a 6 in cricket.

Cricketers SOMETIMES wear helmets with a face cage (only when facing the fastest bowlers) as it is common place and an accepted tactic to pitch a ball up at your temple.

Where baseballers still wear helmets with a sizeable sheild over one side of their face even though it is outlawed to throw the ball at the batter's body. You tell me who needs it more.

But ah well theres no talking sense to you yanks is there? so i'll just drop the argument right now

 

[Bomber]

The 2nd link was a bit long - wasn't quite sure what I was supposed to be loking for and the 3rd link didn't seem to relate to the NRL, unless I missed it.

Ignoramus

The second link was the transcript of a radio program about the difference in drug policy in the NRL and AFL and the proposed WADA restrictions.

The third link, if you looked hard enough (it wasn't hard!) would have told you that a Queensland Cup player tested positive for steroids in 2004. Note: Queensland Cup is the third tier of rugby league on this planet.

The NRL, with the Australian Sports Drug Agency, tests for all drugs - recreational and performance-enhancing.

 

[camsmith]

You know why they stop for a break? Because 2 players have been batting non-stop for the last 3 hours you idiot. What do you do in baseball? Whoops i missed that time, i'll go sit down till next innings then. Mind you i dont have to field or anything, and will probably only get a bat every 2nd or 3rd innings cause my job is to just step up when the pitcher is supposed to hit.

Americans think its the hardest thing in the world to hit a round ball with a round bat, but thats just americans.

Try hitting a ball travelling faster than any baseball pitcher can throw, coming straight at your head ON PURPOSE, with perfect timing 400 feet at a right angle to where it was bowled. Congratulations you've just hit a 6 in cricket.

Cricketers SOMETIMES wear helmets with a face cage (only when facing the fastest bowlers) as it is common place and an accepted tactic to pitch a ball up at your temple.

Where baseballers still wear helmets with a sizeable sheild over one side of their face even though it is outlawed to throw the ball at the batter's body. You tell me who needs it more.

But ah well theres no talking sense to you yanks is there? so i'll just drop the argument right now

So obviously you have something against Americans and hate everything to do with them.

Which means everything you say is pointless as you only hate Gridiron and Baseball because its Americian. Bit ignorant dont you think?

 

[ozhawk66]

You know why they stop for a break? Because 2 players have been batting non-stop for the last 3 hours you idiot. What do you do in baseball?


Innings in baseball and cricket are very different, idiot. And not every cricket match is under 5 day test rules where they are batting 2-4 hours a time. That's part of my point right there, than can bat all day cause the ball IS easier to hit. In baseball, you get very little to hit at. Idjet.



Americans think its the hardest thing in the world to hit a round ball with a round bat, but thats just americans.


No, the stats back that up. Like I said, a hall of fame batting average is deemed complete failure in the cricket world.



Try hitting a ball travelling faster than any baseball pitcher can throw, coming straight at your head ON PURPOSE, with perfect timing 400 feet at a right angle to where it was bowled. Congratulations you've just hit a 6 in cricket.


Congrats, you have just described 450 foot HR and it ain't worth no 6 pts by itself. And in baseball, the distance from home plate to the mound is 60 feet 6 inches compared to 66 feet between the wicket stumps? And the fastest pitch ever thrown was just under 102 mph. And those sliders, fastballs and knucklers have a lot more movement than a cricket ball.



Cricketers SOMETIMES wear helmets with a face cage (only when facing the fastest bowlers) as it is common place and an accepted tactic to pitch a ball up at your temple.

Where baseballers still wear helmets with a sizeable sheild over one side of their face even though it is outlawed to throw the ball at the batter's body. You tell me who needs it more.


Plastic helmets only cover one ear and batters get hit more than cricketers do. And they don't wear all that hockey type padding. It may be outlawed to hit em but that doesn't stop it from happening.



But ah well theres no talking sense to you yanks is there? so i'll just drop the argument right now

If you started it then maybe you should end it cause this topic isn't part of this thread, is it.

 

[Danish]

I'm not even going to bother pointing out how little you obviously know about cricket considering some of the ridiculous points you just made then.

Now go back to your world of "superior" american "sports"

 

[ozhawk66]

Ignoramus

The second link was the transcript of a radio program about the difference in drug policy in the NRL and AFL and the proposed WADA restrictions.

The third link, if you looked hard enough (it wasn't hard!) would have told you that a Queensland Cup player tested positive for steroids in 2004. Note: Queensland Cup is the third tier of rugby league on this planet.

The NRL, with the Australian Sports Drug Agency, tests for all drugs - recreational and performance-enhancing.

Ignat, I don't care about the diff between the NRL and AFL. I asked for the NRL's roid policy. Not anything concerning the Queensland cup or diffs between the AFL. If you can't find anything on the NRL's roid policy, just say so. So far, I haven't seen anything on it, yet.

 

[ozhawk66]

I'm not even going to bother pointing out how little you obviously know about cricket considering some of the ridiculous points you just made then.

Now go back to your world of "superior" american "sports"

I'm not the one with the superiority complex. And considering you didn't know a basic of how fast they do throw in the majors, then maybe you should let it go.

 

[Bomber]

Ignat, I don't care about the diff between the NRL and AFL. I asked for the NRL's roid policy. Not anything concerning the Queensland cup or diffs between the AFL. If you can't find anything on the NRL's roid policy, just say so. So far, I haven't seen anything on it, yet.

Nincompoop

The drug policy for the NRL is the same as the NSWRL is the same as the QRL.....there is one drug policy for the entire sport in Australia.

Here's a bit of background reading for you, about the drugs policies in 1998 and how they related to two Newcastle Knights. They are far more stringent now. I don't have a link so you'll have to suffer through my typing:

Michael [Hill] told me that Robbie wasn't the only Knight to have returned a positive test. It took a couple of days for the media to reveal the identity of the second player, but Michael told me then and there that it was our second-rower Wayne Richards.

Wayne had use stanozolol, the same anabolic steroid which resulted in Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson being stipped of his 100-metre gold medal at the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games. It was difficult enough to accept that one of my team-mates had tested positive, let alone two...

...Robbie [O'Davis] kept a low profile for a couple of days...Robbie did what he was told my his legal team. The rush job in setting up the NRL's articles and by-laws because of the ARL and Super League reunion left a loophole which Robbie's legal counsel spotted. Rather than have him walk in, argue his case and risk a possible two-year ban, they convinced him that the loophole was the quickest route out of there. The tribunal found that the NRL did not have the jurisdiction to hear his case...the NRL palyed hard ball and made Robbie, and every other player in the competition, sign a new registration form before being allowed to play the following weekend.

After a series of meetings, Robbie and the league reached an agreement whereby he would reappear before the tribunal but would do so under the jurisdiction of the Australian Rugby League. That meant he only faced a maximum 22-match suspsension instead of the mandatory two years spelled out in the NRL's doping policy and procedure document.

Robbie's second apperance was scheduled for June 29 but he was doomed from the moment he signed the new registration form. After a marathon hearing of more than six hours, during which time Wayne Richards' case was also heard, the tribunal imposed the maximum penalty. They were both suspended for twenty-two games."

From Paul Harrogan's autobiography.

When the drug scandal broke in 1998, the offenders were given mandatory 22 week suspensions. I'll demonstrate it another way for you:

NFL First Time Offense: XXXX
NRL First time Offense*: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
* - 1998

This has since been increased to a two year ban - for the FIRST TIME infringment. So let's do the comparison again:

NFL First Time Offense: XXXX
NRL First Time Offense: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Which sport is soft on steroid use now?

 

[ozhawk66]

Nincompoop

The drug policy for the NRL is the same as the NSWRL is the same as the QRL.....there is one drug policy for the entire sport in Australia.


From Paul Harrogan's autobiography.

When the drug scandal broke in 1998, the offenders were given mandatory 22 week suspensions. I'll demonstrate it another way for you:

NFL First Time Offense: XXXX
NRL First time Offense*: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
* - 1998

This has since been increased to a two year ban - for the FIRST TIME infringment. So let's do the comparison again:

Which sport is soft on steroid use now?

First off, the roid part in this thread was supposed to be an explanation on how the NFL player was bigger, faster and stronger, because of roids. Such is not the case.

How many roids does the NRL test for? What types? Do they test for masking agents? How many times do they test throughout the season? I can answer all of this concerning the NFL.

You need to demonstrate some fact before you demonstrate anything for me. So, lets dissect the important parts you offered.....



Wayne had use stanozolol, the same anabolic steroid which resulted in Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson being stipped of his 100-metre gold medal at the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games.


The tribunal found that the NRL did not have the jurisdiction to hear his case...the NRL palyed hard ball and made Robbie, and every other player in the competition, sign a new registration form before being allowed to play the following weekend.


That meant he only faced a maximum 22-match suspsension instead of the mandatory two years spelled out in the NRL's doping policy and procedure document.



Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from the NRL in getting players to sign a new registration form before being allowed to play because the NRL was found to NOT to have jurisdiction?

The NFL has had jurisdiction for 15 years in this area and is in the process of increasing their testing in many ways and areas. And the NFL's players union will have very little to stand on in the public arena and by the fact the players want more stringent testing themselves when the new policy concerning roids is implimented.


I want to know what the NRL's roid policy is as of 2005, not some example from '98.

 

[ozhawk66]

NFL First Time Offense: XXXX
NRL First Time Offense: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Which sport is soft on steroid use now?

Deterrence:

"Tagliabue also said the league's steroid policy, in effect since 1987, already acts as a significant deterrent: Of the 54 players caught as first-time offenders, only two failed a second test, and Tagliabue said both retired and never played again."

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050520/SPT/505200322/1013

 

[Bomber]

Deterrence:

"Tagliabue also said the league's steroid policy, in effect since 1987, already acts as a significant deterrent: Of the 54 players caught as first-time offenders, only two failed a second test, and Tagliabue said both retired and never played again."

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050520/SPT/505200322/1013

Homuncle,

I provided accurate information from a credible source, including government agencies, and you still have the audacity to say You need to demonstrate some fact before you demonstrate anything for me. So, lets dissect the important parts you offered.....

Well, here we go, knucklehead:

The fact is that the suspensions given to the NRL drug cheats of 1998 was significantly higher than to any other first-time offender in the NFL before or since that year.

The fact is that the NRL's penalties for first-time drug offenders (two years) is more appropriate than the NFL's current penalty for the same offense.

The fact is that the NRL sets the standard in Australian drug testing. The AFL doesn't even suspend players for first and second time offenses!

The fact is that a two year suspension is a far bigger deterrant than four weeks. You don't need me typing a row of XXXXXXX's to realise that.

The fact that the NFL only awards a four week suspension for first-time steroid abusers is absolutely appaling. It borders on insanity.

The fact is that NFL players have, do and will continue to use steroids. A current head coach has even come out to say that steroids were being passed around like party pies at a barbeque when he was a player.

The fact is that at least three 'dynasties' in NFL history have suspicious connections to systematic steroid use.

The fact is that steroid users are cheats. 54 players detected since 1987 is 54 players too many. There should be zero tolerance shown.

The fact is that unless steroid users are rubbed out longer for first time offences, the NFL will continue to look as though it is protecting and tolerating drug cheats. Drug cheats - in any sport - do not deserve clemency or tolerance; they should be drawn and quartered. A four game suspension, even in the context of a 16-game NFL season, is a pitiful suspension considering the henious crime.

Do you want more facts?

The fact is that you've come in here, a rugby league forum, specifically to stir the pot.

The fact is that every time someone has delivered a credible argument against your cause, you've shifted the goalposts.

The fact is that more often than not you've dismissed one person's reasoning, links or logic as insufficient or meaningless - and then proceed to resort to guttersniping tactics yourself.

The fact is that it doesn't matter which sport produces the better athletes. Believe it or not, there are people out there who are quite capable of appreciating the unique qualities and skills required in a range of sports.

The fact is that instead of wanting a debate, you delivered a lecture

The fact is that I have no more facts.

So, unless you want to discuss rugby league in this rugby league forum, then bugger off to the NFL section, where I look forward to kicking your arse in Fantasy Football ;-)

Cheers
Bomber

 

[aqua_duck]

Look in terms of sheer size, power and speed NFL players are superior, look at someone like Daunte Culpepper, a quaterback the size of Willie Mason, and damn quick as well, can you imagine someone like that as a playmaker in league?
Then you got the wide receivers, guys like Terrell Owens, 6'3, 100kg, can jump and would probably out sprint most NRL wingers.
NFL wide recievers are some of the quickest athletes in the world, guys like Maurice Greene use to play WR in HS. Americans (African Americans in particular) are just better athletes. When's the last time an Australian sprinter made the final of the 100m?
NRL players might be fitter but not faster.

 

[juneauquan]

I was born, bred and lived in Australia for 23 years. I then moved to the USA in 1998 and have lived here ever since. I knew nothing about American sports before I got here, but since I love sports (no matter what it is) I came to appreciate every sport this country has to offer (including Ice Hockey, Pro Football, College Football, Pro and college basketball, and even Lacrosse).

Still Rugby League remains my favorite sport (I did play for 10 odd years)

Some points I would like to mention:

* NBA players (as a group) are the best athletes in the world (bar none). Many Americans believe Lance Armstrong belongs in this category, but I digress. Although NBA remains my least favorite American sport, I can only but appreciate the athleticism of these athletes. Lebron James is a freak of nature and then you have Dwayne Wade, Amare Stoudamire etc etc

* There is nothing better than a college football game (I prefer this to the NFL - mainly because I attend a major college with a 85,000 seat stadium outside my window that fills to capacity every game with major tailgating before and after each game - its an experience unlike any other in the world)

* Rugby League players pale athletically in comparison to NFL players (as a group). NFL offensive lineman would only be able to play a couple of minutes of a Rugby League game, but very few Rugby League players could make major plays in the NFL. They are completely different games. Put it this way, Ray Lewis is 6 foot and weighs 245 pounds but still has explosive speed. One of the most important attributes of the prototypical NFL player is the explosive speed. Many NFL players were short distant track stars in high school. Adrian Peterson, a running back at my University (who is going to be #1 NFL draft pick in two years) was a track star in high school - he runs 40 yards in less than 4.4 seconds, is 6 foot 2 inches, and weighs 220 pounds. Just think of that for one second. Just think what he could do if he played Rugby League his whole life. And he is not even in the NFL yet.
There is a reason why the NFL/NBA has a disproportionate amount of African-American in their leagues.

*Yet I still prefer Rugby League as a game (but I can appreciate the strategy of NFL and now understand everything about the game) and shall be getting up at 5am tomorrow morning to watch State of Origin 2

 

[Hoops]

The fact is that the NRL sets the standard in Australian drug testing. The AFL doesn't even suspend players for first and second time offenses!

Bullcrap. The AFL have a zero tolerence when it comes to performance enhancing drugs, which is what the discussion is about.

 

[ozhawk66]

Homuncle,

I provided accurate information from a credible source, including government agencies, and you still have the audacity to say You need to demonstrate some fact before you demonstrate anything for me. So, lets dissect the important parts you offered.....




You keep comparing 1st time offenses when you can't tell me what the NRL policy on roids is as of 2005. You can't tell me what types of roids they test for and or if they test for masking agents. In short, if the NRL had an official roid policy you'd be able to show me.

Youre acting like this '98 example is somehow better that the NFL's when the NFL started testing way before league did in Australia. Well, I've shown you the stats that no one even came close to a 3rd positive in the NFL since testing began. So, this renders the point mute of roids as the explanation for the bigger, faster NFL athlete.

If you can show me the roid policy of 2005 is the same as what they got players to sign in a knee-jerk reaction back in '98, then so be it.




Well, here we go, knucklehead:
The fact is that a two year suspension is a far bigger deterrant than four weeks. You don't need me typing a row of XXXXXXX's to realise that.

50 some positive, 1st time offenders ONLY, amongst 25,000 players tested since the NFL started testing. That's a pretty good freakin ratio if you ask me.




The fact is that NFL players have, do and will continue to use steroids. A current head coach has even come out to say that steroids were being passed around like party pies at a barbeque when he was a player.


Better back up that one, cause I know who your talking about and it was nothing like what he was saying - and that was before testing began.



The fact is that at least three 'dynasties' in NFL history have suspicious connections to systematic steroid use.

??? Never heard that one before. But it's fact to you?



The fact is that steroid users are cheats. 54 players detected since 1987 is 54 players too many. There should be zero tolerance shown.


54 out of 25,000 is better than most team sports anywhere in the world in recent history. The NFL will get closer to a zero tolerance policy here shortly. The fact is that this is an outdated policy from 1987! I don't think league had a roid policy back then, did they.



The fact is that unless steroid users are rubbed out longer for first time offences, the NFL will continue to look as though it is protecting and tolerating drug cheats. Drug cheats - in any sport - do not deserve clemency or tolerance; they should be drawn and quartered. A four game suspension, even in the context of a 16-game NFL season, is a pitiful suspension considering the henious crime.


The NFL is in the process of upping their standards in roid testing. And I bet it's at a higher level than the NRL's - that's if you could show me so.



Do you want more facts?

The fact is that you've come in here, a rugby league forum, specifically to stir the pot.

I never fired the 1st shot. I gave as good as what was thrown in my direction. Good attitude or a bad one.



The fact is that every time someone has delivered a credible argument against your cause, you've shifted the goalposts.

I've never shifted someones argument in anyway. I've met everyone's head on, including the stupid cricket/baseball diversion.


The fact is that more often than not you've dismissed one person's reasoning, links or logic as insufficient or meaningless - and then proceed to resort to guttersniping tactics yourself.

A lot of "reasoning" has been the need for debate. Can't dismiss it till it's debated and shown to be otherwise.


The fact is that it doesn't matter which sport produces the better athletes. Believe it or not, there are people out there who are quite capable of appreciating the unique qualities and skills required in a range of sports.

That wasn't my point of contention. The idea of debate was the comparable differences between the two sports.



The fact is that instead of wanting a debate, you delivered a lecture

Some mythical views of Amwerican football required a lecture. Hence the roid debate. That is a great exampl of how you tried to turn the tables on that one from the original debate. Talk about guttering tactics.


The fact is that I have no more facts.

So, unless you want to discuss rugby league in this rugby league forum, then bugger off to the NFL section, where I look forward to kicking your arse in Fantasy Football ;-)

Cheers
Bomber

Nah, I do well all the time in fantasy football....

 

[ozhawk66]

Look in terms of sheer size, power and speed NFL players are superior, look at someone like Daunte Culpepper, a quaterback the size of Willie Mason, and damn quick as well, can you imagine someone like that as a playmaker in league?.

Admittedly, Daunte is an extreme example, but Daunte is 120+ kg and Mason is 115. And Daunte would still be one of the faster players on the rugby league field as Daunte runs a 4.7 40 yd dash. Imagagine that sort of player wearing the #7 jersey in tonights match :shock:

 

[ozhawk66]

I was born, bred and lived in Australia for 23 years. I then moved to the USA in 1998 and have lived here ever since. I knew nothing about American sports before I got here, but since I love sports (no matter what it is) I came to appreciate every sport this country has to offer (including Ice Hockey, Pro Football, College Football, Pro and college basketball, and even Lacrosse).

Still Rugby League remains my favorite sport (I did play for 10 odd years)

Some points I would like to mention:


* There is nothing better than a college football game (I prefer this to the NFL - mainly because I attend a major college with a 85,000 seat stadium outside my window that fills to capacity every game with major tailgating before and after each game - its an experience unlike any other in the world)


I've never had the chance to tailgate - but I've been to the Rose Bowl a couple of times.



* Rugby League players pale athletically in comparison to NFL players (as a group). NFL offensive lineman would only be able to play a couple of minutes of a Rugby League game, but very few Rugby League players could make major plays in the NFL. They are completely different games. Put it this way, Ray Lewis is 6 foot and weighs 245 pounds but still has explosive speed. One of the most important attributes of the prototypical NFL player is the explosive speed. Many NFL players were short distant track stars in high school. Adrian Peterson, a running back at my University (who is going to be #1 NFL draft pick in two years) was a track star in high school - he runs 40 yards in less than 4.4 seconds, is 6 foot 2 inches, and weighs 220 pounds. Just think of that for one second. Just think what he could do if he played Rugby League his whole life. And he is not even in the NFL yet.
There is a reason why the NFL/NBA has a disproportionate amount of African-American in their leagues.

I think Peterson is listed at 210. Doesn't matter, at least the Hawkeyes have a better QB than the Sooners this year

 

[ozhawk66]

1. Adrian Peterson, Oklahoma (Soph.) — Peterson is ready for the NFL today, but the NFL won't be ready for him for another two years. Last year's Heisman runner-up nearly eclipsed the 2,000-yard barrier, making him the best thing in a true freshman since Herschel Walker landed in Athens. At 6-2, 210, Peterson runs like a gazelle and sheds tacklers better than any young back in recent history. Hit him low, and he keeps his balance. Hit him high, and he'll leave tread marks. The best defense is to gang tackle Peterson, and that's a heck of a burden on a defense. It's way early, but barring injuries, he has the physical characteristics and personal makeup of an all-time great.

 

[juneauquan]

I think Peterson is listed at 210. Doesn't matter, at least the Hawkeyes have a better QB than the Sooners this year

Don't count on it. I don't even know who the QB will be, but Rhett Bomar was arguably the number one HS QB recruit two years ago and he has the potential to be the best Sooner QB in a long time.

Iowa Hawkeyes...hmmm...trying to think if there are any other Hawkeyes...nope. You will have a good team this year. Drew Tate may be the best QB in the Big 10, although that Michigan kid...Henne...has potential.

Yeah Peterson is listed at 210 but that is from last year and I saw him a couple of weeks ago and he definitely put on some muscle. He is a freak.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Admittedly, Daunte is an extreme example, but Daunte is 120+ kg and Mason is 115. And Daunte would still be one of the faster players on the rugby league field as Daunte runs a 4.7 40 yd dash. Imagagine that sort of player wearing the #7 jersey in tonights match :shock:

He would be crap at half back because he's been throwing pies through the air, not League passes. He'd be better in a three stooges film than in a Rugby League match.

And how many tackles would he make tonight?

Probably the same amout he makes in an NFL season, 0.

Just what Queensland need, a Seppo with a "great arm" and no tackling ability at half. Get Wayne Bennett on the line, time to drag another halfback from overseas...

Jesus you're a nong.