Funny Football v Rugby. Class war with Perry Groves and Austin Healey.

[JustAnotherDay777]

@tinnoo8 Doesn't stop the simple thing that rugbys just a better sport, it doesn't matter who gets hurt in what. As a sport rugbys better because it's continous gritty play rather than a load of stopping and starting.....

[JustAnotherDay777]

@xXxDeltronxXx To be fair the Brits beat you at rugby and play AF aswell.... Who's more sporting?

[epicshootout]

Guys. They are talking about rugby and football(soccer) not rugby and American football. Btw American football is a pussy sport.

[xXxDeltronxXx]

Wanna know how much America cares about rugby? We never knew we had a rugby team. NFL ftw.

[Richirida]

* Banter *

[ghosh123451]

good jjos i will se your others videos 

[DerNachtgarm]

Brilliant! Rugby outrules football without asking.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@plaebslayer It is when played at non-league level or in an African village somewhere as they don't have the money to fund using such technology. That's the beauty of football - the same game played at Wembley and Old Trafford is the same game played at Purfleet, is the same game played in Burkina Faso, is the same game played in Qatar - we're a global game and you're not!

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@plaebslayer The fact you come out with that comment shows you know little of Rugby's history. At the end of the nineteenth century it was a bigger sport in the South than Football was. The Rugby Football Union is only seven years younger than the Football Association. If it hasn't kept up with football's development into a global sport, it's quite obviously shite in comparison.

[hamia1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid jesus christ... what happened to you during your childhood for you to take such a dislike to rugby. you've got issues fella

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@hamia1 I'm like over half the world's population - I couldn't give a toss about Rugby

[jamesagcann]

@jackwilshiresfakeid being someone who played both football and rugby I can point out that in football you get pussies diving and screaming out in pain for a foul when someone just stood on their toe. In rugby you get a boot to the face or get sat on your ass by a massive lad running at you, but you don't see rugby players screaming out in pain trying to win a penalty. They normally just get up and get on with it. Plus, your point about them playing and not using the money from advertising to m

[xroxann]

That yellow shirt guy is so fine.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

The actual answer was the number of times your average Rugby player lost at soggy biscuit each term at Eton.

[jaryd12345]

Any football person who thinks rugby players are thick needs to take a look at Johnny Wilkinson, then shoot a glance over at Mr Beckham

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@jaryd12345 And then realise that neither have ever said anything remotely interesting in their whole life.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

BTW Austin Healy - Neavou Riche made their own money, they didn't live out of their mummy and daddies pockets

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

I don't know why people think Rugby players are more intelligent than Footballers, it was a sport invented by a public school div kid who couldn't get his head around the rule that you can't pick up the ball with your hands. They also played for free gettting their faces smashed in of around 100 years despite gate receipts, TV money and advertsing hoarding around the pitch - how stupid!

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid dont like to burst your bubble but at the time william webb ellis picked up the football, there was a rule in football that let you do that. have a look at your history of football laws before making a statement that might make you look a little stupid when trying to defend you beloved football and its intelligence.. just saying..

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 OK....though not contesting the fact that Rugby players took 100 years to work out they were getting their faces smashed in for free.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 And not contesting the assertion that the founder of Rugby was someone who was too dim to follow the rules of football?

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 And when you pull someone up for making themselves look a bit stupid you might want to replace the 'you' for 'your' between the words 'defend' and beloved'....just saying...

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid bit moody you got pulled up on something?? its ok i dont claim to be smart of have amazing english skills.. so being the spelling/punctuation police wont really phase me... to dim to follow the boring rules of football and as a result created a game not flooded with over paid actors and cheaters ? il let you decide who is dim there, specially when they get the greatest trophy in rugby named after them.. and rugby players dont care about getting smashed in for free....

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Game not flooded with overpaid actors and cheaters? - again two words, Blood Capsule. Having the greatest trophy in Rugby named after you? That's akin to having the world's tallest midget tattooing your name on his balls, it's an honour that doesn't actually mean anything.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid they got smashed in for free because they like the game, unlike footie players who claim to love the game and have passion for it, yet wil throw a paddy if they get under an insane amount of thousands a week..

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Yeah right, is that why they turned pro the very minute Murdoch threw cash at them (much less cash than football). Only reason why they can't command insane wages is because nobody cares less about Rugby and it will never get the same demand as football because in comparison it's a crap sport played by latent homosexual public schoolboys

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid playing into the typical stereotyping that everybody always goes back to because you have nothing else to rely on? Seriously, have a look around, sure its not as big as football in the UK, but which sport is more successful for the nation.1966 was so long ago people who saw it are either dead or dieing now, only the wage attracts people to football and thats the problem. at the end of it we wont agree difference is i understand football could be a good sport but

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Think you'll find streotypes have a grain of truth to them, otherwise people wouldn't recognise them in the first place. And isn't referring to 'overpaid soft diving prima donnas' also referring to a streotype? Blimey, don't they teach you the basics of logical thinking at Eton these days? No wonder the county is going down the shitter!

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 1966 was a long time ago, but how many countries play football compared to Rugby? In 1966 we beat the whole world at Football, in 2003 we beat a few white settler colonies of the commonwealth, the French, a few tiny Pacific Islands and a bunch of anglophiles in South America and Eastern Europe - that's not the world is it?

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid lmao in 1966 did england play every single country that plays football ?? no. you make out liek they did simply because ore countries play football, but at the end of the day you played the normal groups and then the quater finals, semi, and the final, by there being more countries, it means you play less to be crowned would champs, if there is less that play rugby, it means the world champs are closer to truth because it means playing more who play rugby.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 All 208 National associations that are members of FIFA play in the qualifying rounds of the World Cup. There are 203 internationally recognised Nation States in the world, hence when you win the World Cup you truly are 'World' Champions, as England were in 1966. In contrast 81 sides entered the 2003 Rugby World Cup - that's not even half the world is it?

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid exactly, and did england play the other202 internationally recognised states ?? no.. so the play far less teams to be crowned world champs. Rugby having less teams means the team crowned champs is more realistic, and closer to the truth, as you have to play your qualifying rounds and your groups quater and semis and final. in terms of intelligence your maths/stats skill are lacking here.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Did England play all 81 sides in 2003? No again your argument is piss weak - a) as pointed out you play the same number of games in a championship to win either world cup. In fact overall, to win the Football World Cup you play more games - in Rugby 9 out of 20 sides qualify automatically. In football only the host nation qualify automatically. Every other side has to enter a qualification round where they play 5 other sides home and away. It's a 2 year process in football, in Rugby 5wks

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid your really not understanding basic stats are you if less teams are in something it means the that its a closer result, if you have a total of 10 teams and only have to play 4 to be crowned champs, thats a closer result to the truth to if you have 100 teams and only have to play 4, i cannot see how you fail to understand that with you 'much higher intelligence' you football people seem to have. an no rugby isnt 5wks, nations are and have been playing qual matches the last yr

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 As qualifying matches since last year - over half of the sides in the Rugby World Cup don't play in qualifying rounds, England are one of them. Therefore their world cup campaign from start to finish last 5 weeks. The only side in the Football World Cup out of 207 sides that qualifies automatically are the host nation. It is therefore harder to qualify.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 A country like Fiji or Tonga that has never won the Rugby World Cup and has bugger all chance of winning still automatically qualifies. A Football equivalent like South Korea, Ghana or Ireland (who unlike Fiji and Tonga has a population of millions not thousands) have to spend 15 months qualifying. Last year's Runner up Holland has failed to qualify in 3 of the last 8 world cups, such is the level of competition. If you're not able to grasp this, you are clearly embarrasing yourself.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid Fail here as fiji and tonga are stronger sides than you make out.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Their equivalent in the Football world cup has to do a heck of a lot more just to qualify for the competition. Also you have two nations in the top ten of World Rugby with a population of under 1 million. The highest ranked football nation with a population of under 1 million is Qatar, ranked number 90. I think that's proof enough for anyone with a double digit IQ that the football world cup is more competitive and harder to win. Though it clearly isn't for a bottom feeder like yourself.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 I'm sorry the spelling in that sentence was fucking terrible and it doesn't make sense. Play less to be crowned World Champs? The overall winners of the tournament would play the exact same number of games in the Football and Rugby World Cups. You are single handedly proving Austin Healy wrong when it comes to his assumption of Rugby's superiority complex in the intelligence department

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Only the wage attracts people to football - you're not doing very well at this history and logical thinking thing are you? Football was bigger than Rugby even in its 19th century amateur days and even more so in the 1961 Maximum wage days. Admit it, your average butt ugly Rugby player isn't fit to lace the pink boots of your average overpaid prima donna footballer.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid its littered with issues, you dont even have video to argue fairness over goals or not, wanting to keep a game as close to grass roots as you can doesnt work at pro level, and when you iron out the issues, football could become a good sport again, but while players are diving around trying to get freekicks or pens, spitting over eachother and throwing their toys out the pram and having no respect for the officials, it will never come close to what rugby is..agree to disagree

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 lol, come close to what Rugby is? And what would that be exactly? A sport where players fake blood injuries to cheat the officials, oh how very manly and respectable! I so wish we had that in Football too!

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid and as a result the player was suspended and the club fined a huge some of money, see in rugby if you cheat actions are taken against you, in football cheating happens all the time, so you do have it in football too dont worry, difference is, they let players get away with it which just makes a problem snowball. but like i say, i dont expect you to understand anything involving sportsmanship and fair play. Your a footie supporter, those words dont mean anything to you.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 I think you'll find diving is a bookable offence in Football which results in suspension and fines also. Sportsmanship and fair play? Yeah Rugby's penchant for eye gouging is the very essence of sporting fair play isn't it?

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid diving is a bookable offence in football yes, so when will the officials actually book players for it ? when was the last time there was an eye gouging incident? and how often do you see them in games??

again, agree to disagree, because other wise your just proving that footie people cannot see 2 sides to things. both sports have bad points both have good.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Firstly, players do get booked for diving. It happens on numerous occasions, anyone who regularly watches football can testify that. If you want me to name an instance off the top of my head - Gio Van Bronkhorst got a second bookable offence in 2002 for supposedly diving and was sent off. England international Martin Corry in 2009 while playing for Leicester was found guilty of eye gouging. BTW I can see your side of the argument, it sadly lacks no credibility.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid so let me get this right, to support your arguement that players get booked for diving, you have to go back 9 years to find one ?? and to support you 'penchant for eye gouging' you still have to go back 2 years. Penchant, means strong in terms of liking/needing to do something, and yet you have to go back 2 years for something your so sure is so strong in rugby.. it seems your glad wiki is there for you.. all your 'arguements' lack credibility

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Firstly 'arguement' is supposed to be spelt 'argument'. Secondly I just mentioned one off the top of my head involving my own side. The instances of players booked for diving are too numerous and, like yourself, too tedious to note. Put 'booked for diving' in the YouTube search engine and I think you'll find plenty of instances. Similarly if you enter 'rugby eye gouge' you will do too, including a player losing an eye. Not something which occurs when a player dives in Football.

[HighestRank]

@jackwilshiresfakeid Firstly 'spelt' is supposed to be spelled 'SPELLED'

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Also 'your glad' is supposed to be spelt 'you're glad' - and funny you mention the wiki page because from it there are 17 banning instances in 4 years. I suppose the Football eqivalent is a two footed leg braking challenge and I can't recall 17 of those over the last four years.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid being a grammar Nazi doesnt bother me.. its the internet deal with it. your defences are becomming even more out there.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid and as a result, i will just let you continue to embarrass your self even more with no reply. lol and all this came from me giving you a basic bit of history into your own sport, some people dont like a bit of extra knowledge do they lol.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Only person embarrassing themselves is you, proving to all and sundry that you really are the runt of the etonian litter seemingly unable to comprehend that the more nations that actually play a sport, the more competitive its World Cup is. As for 'knowldge of the history of my own sport' - here's one fact that stands out - our World Cup started in 1930, yours fifty seven years later - at least we have a history as a world sport.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid and again, by stating how long ago the footie world cup started, it makes your knowledge above even more stupid. but as you ahve shown time and time again, you lack the capacity to understand basic maths.. its like talking to a 4 year old..

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 My Maths puts your spelling to shame. Being as you are the Eton Rifle that has consistently fired an intellectual blank with every post.

[wo0dy1]

@jackwilshiresfakeid manly and respectable, ok Brasil, in one of the world cups, i cant recall who they were playing, but it was a corner to Brasil, the other teams player kicked the ball to the Brasil player, it hit him in th leg, the then fell to the floor clutching his head, i see how that is very manly and respectable LOL..

might as well agree to disagree, because its a no winner at the end of it all for either.

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@wo0dy1 Become a good sport again? I think when you add up how many people watch the Football World Cup final in comparison to Rugby's equivalent, as well as the fact that the whole world plays football compared to barely half of the world with Rugby, what exactly has Rugby got for football to be envious of? Talkabout typical condescending attitudes from what is in essence an inbred public schoolboy game.

[vaughanwilliam]

@jackwilshiresfakeid modern rules of football come from public schools

[jackwilshiresfakeid]

@vaughanwilliam May well be, but it's a folk game that goes back centuries and banned by Kings and 'Nobelmen'

[jaimesy27]

Groves talks like a girl

[azucar6791]

Healey not exactly posh. Went to a normal school in Merseyside. Great player, cocky motherf***er

[z0mgrugbyreturns]

Everyone will disagree depending on which sport they like, but alot of English football fans really need to realise that England is not the world.

Only in England and Scotland is rugby really a middle-upper class game. Players in the NRL(realise its different to Union) are far superior athletes to those in any football comp.

[tdavies456]

to be fair perry groves doesn't do much to disprove the stereotype of footballers being dim-witted, inarticulate, and just generally a bit thick in this exchange with austin

[nicky4austin69]

Rugby kicked Football's backside on that one...love you Austin!!! :P

[tuscan4thwallcity]

Funny stuff! The "finished school" gag by Healey nailed the lid on the coffin for Groves!!!!!

[F10ert]

I'd say rugby won that

[FighterMan135]

rugby so much better than foootball!!!

[westlifefan123]

Austin is so gorgeous and he's smart, witty and intelligent!!!!!! I supported him completely in this debate!!!

[ftphelcam]

Gold....