Some things I just don't get.

[Pumpkinstew]

Originally Posted by DRZ

Gridiron v's rugby

This could easily fill a thread in the sports section so I'll stay brief to avoid a derailment. I've played both (all three if you consider Rugby league too)
Your argument about the padding used in AF is flawed. The tackles are harder because they use the padding - it encourages enthusiasm over good technique (players are actually trained to use the helmet to make contact with vulnerable areas such as the knee when tackling).

Some players take part in defence and offence. Defensive teams rarely run set plays but react to the offensive play (although they can be set in variations like nickel, dime and blitz). Playing both sides of the coin would still only require memorising where you were meant to be for offensive plays.
I think the different teams are mainly about some players being able to catch and some players being able to tackle.

The skill levels in AF are astonishingly high, but it is less demanding on endurance and stamina due to the stop start nature and rotaing subs.
Rugby requires both extreme endurance and the ability to make split second decisions, an ability which is proven to be impaired by physical tiredness.

I seem to recall a variant of AF which used softer padding and the same players on the pitch at all times. Don't know what happened to it. I'd have loved to have a bash at it.