American football is not for pussies at all lol.
Within certain situations in AF, players are effectively clotheslining each other whilst this would be an automatic penalty in Rugby (aka the "high tackle").
The reason they have to wear all that padding is the fact that tackles in the american version are more stronger than Rugby (in general).
It's also a common misconception that padding in AF is magical and will neutralise all hits. When there is a small space between players & you get tackled, you will feel the brunt of the tackle.
Power = Work done / time taken.
(We can do further rearranging to arrive at Power= Force x Velocity)
We can look to basic physics/mechanics for our answer... AF is often characterised by big tackles within small confines.
Therefore the numerator in the equation is big whilst the denominator is small.
Players tend to gather more momentum whilst running, if they were unprotected it would be akin to being hit by a freight train.
Furthermore, the statement that Rugby is more dangerous doesn't actually have that much support, here is a basic explanation of the issue:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcuts/2013/jan/28/american-football-rugby-more-dangerous.
Basically:
AF & body padding = much harder hits --> more risk of head injury.
Rugby & no full padding --> hits are less hard --> less prone to "serious" injury but incidences of spinal injury
still occur in the minor leagues.
Both sports are theoretically equal on the "danger" front (I'd still go with AF as being more dangerous though).
This is not to take away from Rugby, but Rugby has more regulations regarding tackling due to the fact that players don't wear full padding (so you aren't allowed to hit as hard as in American Football).
I've tried both, I'd personally take my chances with Rugby... American footballers are much stronger imo.
People often conflate the stamina aspect of Rugby with its physicality. It is true that Rugby players need a lot of stamina ,but that is not evidence for it being "harder" than American Football as it is demonstrable that hits in AF do more work than their rugby counterparts.
Anyways, comparing the two in a dick measuring contest style is quite useless as they have diverged substantially over the years.
Neither sport is for pussies, whoever suggests that they are should go out and try them.
Topic: World Cup 2014 - Brazil