Despite the common root and some cosmetic similarities, these are fundamentally different sports. Downs-for-distance verses a contested breakdown, frequent stops verses continuous play, planned blocking patterns verses a "no obstruction" law, unlimited substitutions verses seven for the entire match. The games are entirely different. There's just no reasonable standard for comparison. You might just as well ask us to compare field lacrosse to water polo, because they have about as much in common.
Why not just look up the previous questions and answers for this topic. It gets asked nearly every day!
rugby because there's less stoppages which slow it down
I've played both. Rugby is a faster , more 'fluid' game, with more running &passing. American Football is much more brutal (even with the pads). It has shorter 'plays' with harder tackles.
@Daniel: But with rugby they don't use pads so you actually have to take a hit, rather than being a wuss and being padded up.
I don't care about American football, I don't think about American football. If American didn't exist I would lose no sleep whosoever. I'm sure many NFL fans feel exactly the same way about rugby and I'm fine with that. I'm so tired of this question being posted every 2 days!
Don't listen to the idiots who say the hits are harder in american football there is no difference in the hits apart from rugby players don't cover themselves in padding, but that aside they are completely different games. Sorry about the shite music
Both games are good and I respect them....but it's hard to beat the popularity, professionalism and power of the NFL!
American football because they actually hit each other
