football vs yank handball

You really should watch the documentary series "The real football factories". It is very interesting and informative, it only provides information about hooligans in the UK, though.

Try and go in to a scouse pub in with a manc or a gooner shirt...dont think you will be having a pint in peace. go walking down a street in the east end with a chelsea shirt...would you?

there is violence in all countries, the "real" hooligans are not in the stands anymore, but they are still around.

I'm an American, born and raised in Seattle, WA. Now, I can't speak for "middle America" - AKA the festering wound of one-horse-towns running a Baptist Bible Belt down the middle of this land 'o' free - but here in Coastal Urban America, we are what are known as "fair-weather fans". We don't give half a *beep* about our teams ("Seattle Seagulls? Seahawks? Sea somethings, I think") until they start winning ("THE QUARTERBACK LOOKED AT ME! I'M GONNA FAINT!").

When the Seahawks lost the Superbowl, Seattle went crazy!

...


People left all the bars, clubs, pubs, and wateringholes all at once. It made traffic really bad. The busses ran late.

And that was it.

One guy whose face was painted half blue, half green, and white down the middle called a guy a bad name.

And that was all of the hooliganism.

So maybe you're right about Philly (but I'm pretty sure it's just so much rapper *beep* but America is much larger than the UK, so it's much more diverse. You got Seattle (coffee drinking hippies in business suits), New York (the *beep* state), Miami (more rich old evil people than the retirement housing in Hell), Las Vegas, Kansas City, Tallahasee, New Orleans.... some states don't even have a sports team. So if you're seeking some kind of unanimity from American sports fans, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

soccer sucks ass. not much else to say about that. well when girls play it is okay cuz their tits bounce n *beep* and seriously "yank handball" wtf is that...more like the NFL. and wtf have you been reading? looting after world series and superbowl? wtf are you retarded? you prolly read some stupid ass UK magazine. STFU and watch a real sport. let girls play soccer. NFL > Soccer

and have you got any idea the size of NFL players? Larry Allen would own a whole team of douche bag girlie soccer players.

Im from Philly and while im not a big sports fan when the Eagles play you watch and pray for a win. Most people ive talked to from out of state(hell from the sourding citys even), think that we are some of the meanest fans, well duh we almost get there just to lose try suffering that year after year after year it make a saint grumpy. This year my family didn’t even watch the superbowl, a blasphemy in our family there just wasn’t any point. When we lostd the superblow people were pissed for weeks. Really were only the city of brotherly love when were winning if were losing just stay away for your own sakes.




It's amusing, to me, to torture a cop. You can say anything you want cause I've heard it all before. All you can do is pray for a quick death, which you ain't gonna get...You ever listen to K-Billy's "Super Sounds of the Seventies" weekend? It's my personal favorite.

Violence doesn't happen often at football games, and it's certainly not coordinated like some of the English hooligans. But on the rare occasions it does, it is extreme.
I remember of few years ago, the Cleveland Browns played the Steelers in Pittsburgh. After the game, a man wearing a Browns jersey was struck by not one, but two cars, neither stopping to check on him. And not too long ago, a man was beaten to death in a diner for talking ill of the Steelers.
There were no riots when the Steelers won Superbowl XL, but the city did go into a lock-down. I'd never seen anything like it. All major roadways were closed and guarded by police, who patrolled everywhere. Even the state cops were brought in. The only laws that were broken were public drunkeness and fireworks ordinances.

I think the old Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia had its own jail. Someone verify that for me. If that's true, that should be an indication of the rowdiness of the fans there.

I remember a few years ago, Mexico played Argentina down in Argentina. I remember reading that the Mexican side took their own food, water, etc. with them. They didn't want to take a chance of getting sabotaged by the locals.

I have friends that live in Glasgow, Scotland. They would shut themselves in their houses on the days that Rangers and Celtic had matches. I asked them why they would do that. They said, it was just a bad idea to go out.

I think a guy in San diego got shanked a few years ago for wearing an Oakland Raider jersey in the stadium during a game in San Diego. That's a bit harsh don't you think?

There's a reason die hard sport followers are called "fans". It is short for fanatic.

Let's face the facts. It all boils down for the most part which sports you grew up watching. Having grown up in the Detroit area, I'm obviously going to prefer football, hockey, and baseball[never been much of a basketball fan] to rugby or soccer. Just the way it is. I guess my question is why are we even having this discussion? I have to say, what you Brits don't know about or understand about football could fill an entire volume of encylopedias, and I'm sure you could justifiably say the same about us Americans with soccer or rugby. I'm not going to touch the football/soccer argument because I don't feel the sports have a close enough relation anymore to draw real comparisons. However, I will say of ocurse soccer is more popular worldwide then football, but I would argue that is strictly due to the cost. All you need for soccer is a ball. You can create your own boundaries and goals and get your friends to play at no cost. Football, you have to shell out the money for pads, a practice field, tackling and blocking dummies, you name it. Poor kids around the world aren't going to be able to afford the equipment and the facilities, so why bother? Not saying that if it was made more available that it would overtake soccer's popularity, just that it's got some built in disadvantages going against it on a world popularity front.

Now, where I feel the need to step in and argue is the negative comparisons between rugby and football. A few years ago my work transferred me to Australia for a year. I was very excited to take in a lot of rugby, as I'd heard what a great tough sport it is. Well, I'll come away saying this: football players are required to wear pads because they are needed, rugby players do not need them. Not saying it's not a tough game, but I can tell you right now, rugby players do not hit anywhere near as hard as football players do. The players in football are much bigger, stronger, quicker and a lot more often then not, faster then the rugby guys. On top of it, there's no blocking whatsoever, tackles above the shoulders aren't allowed and you have to wrap up, which takes some off of a hit. The scrums in rugby do not even come close to the offensive and defensive lines in football smashing into one another off the snap trying to knock each other off the ball. And you simply don't have guys flying in from 20 yards down field and pasting the ball carrier trying to knock the ball loose, a common thing in football. I played in high school football games that had harder hitting and tackling And just a little history lesson, football players in the sports early days at the turn of the 19th to 20th century didn't wear pads, either. Pads only became mandatory after several fatalities on the field. I'll give rugby it's props, it is a great sport, but to say it's tougher and more physically taxing then football is nothing short of asinine.