"you just don't get that kind of rush from rugby"
I agree with this for a number of reasons, some of which i can't put into words yet. i'll add them when and if i can, but unfounded wumming is not my goal.
1) Because football is far and away a more skillfull game than rugby, of this there can be no question. It's about controlling and moving a ball in limited space to create space, without using your arms. Football is a low scoring game for this reason. Therefore, when your team scores the rush is much stronger , cos it's far more difficult thing to do than running with a ball in your hands over a line or phunting a dead-ball over a crossbar. As the post above says, Rugby applauds throw ins. pfffft i say.
2) Because if any game can be called truly international then it is Football. Football is a universal language and people all around the world have realised its promise. It can be played against a wall, it can be played with 3 or 4 people, it can be played with a tin-can/ball of rolled up socks. It is an inclusive rather than an exclusive game. Rugby, for the most part, is played by former British colonies and British subjects (4 or 5 exceptions).
*As a side-note, Rugby Union is the less skillfull, more pussy version of the game. League has flow to it, is far more vicious (something which jocks pull out as their game's trump card on here all the time, men of munster, blood and sweat and tears, etc) than Union. League is played by tougher motherfuckers who take far more individual hits than Union players. Please refer to Southern Hemisphere people here. Those who can't hack League there play Union. This is a fact.
imagine spending 80 minutes watch 15 fat lads run into 15 other fat lads and cheer when someone kicks a ball out over the sideline
