Small rule change confirmed

[Nev 1,085]

In what sport, besides association football, do ties/draws occur frequently? The majority of sports have some sort of overtime system or an extra game to decide the outcome.

Cricket. Hell, in cricket you can play for 5 days and still end up with a draw And a tie and draw are also different things in that sport

Anyway, me personally, I'd love to see 10 minutes of 4on4 OT. Would significantly cut down on the number of shootouts.

And no way is the NHL getting rid of the loser point, it compresses the standings too much for them to want to do away with it.

[SweWings 45]

Last year's playoff seeding wouldn't change, and according to stats from every other year since the shootout has been implemented, neither would any other year. Which is confusing as to why they would come up with this now.

To prevent future bad blood. When the judges aren't trusted to make fair rulings then the rulebook must be made more detailed in an effort to predict and prevent future issues. Pure lawyering.

[Spinner 6]

I just saw the I hate shootouts thread and more appropriately moved my comment there. Mods - please delete this post...thanks

Edited August 22, 2010 by Spinner

[Ram 240]

Good rule change.

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Last year's playoff seeding wouldn't change, and according to stats from every other year since the shootout has been implemented, neither would any other year. Which is confusing as to why they would come up with this now.

Excellent point!

They just need to change something. Doesn't really matter what...just change something.

Allowing outside influences effect the game...yo, even the spirit of Hockey is blasphemous. *..It's such a violent game. can't we stop all this fighting? What is it teaching our kids and what does it say about us as a society?

*..What can we do to bring in new fans? No fighting is Pee Wee league...let's do some Pee Wee shootouts! (note: eventually we can water the game down so much that we won't need to produce losers. Everyone will be happy little winners with a warm fuzzy sense of entitlement because we're all equal in everything. We could even stop keeping that silly score!end rant

Seems that some folks just can't leave anything be. Even if it's working. Just gotta rearrange the living room. Even though we just did that 2 weeks ago. (wait...no, that's my wife, not the NHL....)

[T-Ruff 47]

It doesn't matter if it wouldn't have changed something in the past, it's a harmless change that improves the system and may have a positive effect if teams find themselves in that position in the future. It's not change for the sake of change, it's improvement.

[A.T.Hun 0]

Nobody needs ties ever. You can say you hate the shootout all you want and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you cannot deny that the shootout is exciting. It gets people on their feet. I, for one, do not want to go back to the "play not to lose" OT snoozefest that used to be so prevalent. A four-on-four OT (and if you want to add three-on-three as some have suggested, go ahead), keeps things exciting and theoretically favors the more skilled team. The shootout should do the same. If coaches hate shootouts, play all-out to win in regulation or OT then.

[mjlegend 155]

Replace the shootout with a punch-out.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

The who; from Toronto Sun :

...

The rule had been proposed by Columbus Blue Jackets GM Scott Howson at the general managers meetings back in March.

...

The why;

...

The change will give more weight to victories gained in some form of team play, rather than by shootout.

A plan might soon be in place, to be used to their advantage, in Columbus.

[eva unit zero 271]

Is this a good rule change?

It's basically following the philosophy that some wins and losses are "better" than others, which is what brought us the OTL.

[chrisdetroit 189]

No, because then teams will start breaking all kinds of records for wins and it's not good for the game in my opinion to keep shootouts, and on top of that, hand out more and more points.

win in regulation or OT = 2 points

tie after regulation/OT = 1 point

loss in regulation or OT = 0 points

Agreed. BUT, like it or not, the shootout is not going to go away. I wish it would too but fans like it (especially the bandwagon fans) and Buttman likes it. The best we can do is water it down.

[chrisdetroit 189]

In what sport, besides association football, do ties/draws occur frequently? The majority of sports have some sort of overtime system or an extra game to decide the outcome.

Hockey is a much different game though because there is relatively low scoring so there are naturally more ties. The only sport that is similar is soccer and they allow games to end in ties if they are "regular season" games.

And incidently, a regular season NFL game can end in a tie if neither team scores in the 1 OT period. It just doesn't happen very often. There have only been (17) ties since OT was instituted in 1974. (17) in 36 years. The last was in 2008.

We had ties before in hockey so what's the issue?

[55fan 5,133]

The problem with the shoot out is that it is an individual effort rather than a team effort- or so people say. I think that a hockey game is a culmination of individual efforts, and the shootout only adds individual efforts from four people (three shooters and a goalie) unless they go to extra shooters.

If we really want to make it a team effort, put every player from each team out on the ice with a puck, yell "GO!" and have them all shoot at the same time. The team with the most pucks in the net wins.

Yes, I'm kidding, but it would be fun to watch. You can bet the goalies would be making crucial saves throughout the game to avoid the tie at all costs.

I do think that SO wins should count as wins, but I also like them not counting as a tie-breaker. It gives them a bit more of the bastard status that they deserve.

[T-Ruff 47]

We had ties before in hockey so what's the issue?

They happened way too often and are boring.

What they need to do is expand OT to have an extra 3 on 3 period, this would significantly cut down on shootouts and therefore make the old purists happier.

Also make the shootouts 5 vs 5. How did they come up with the number 3? Soccer has always used 5 as well as international hockey....

Edited August 23, 2010 by T-Ruff

[titanium2 867]

The 3 on 3 OT is interesting. One forward and two dmen or two forwards and one dman?

I feel like I'd ice this trio right here to start:

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From TSN :

Shootouts will be a little less important in the NHL next season.

The league's board of governors approved a bylaw revision Tuesday for use when teams are tied in the standings at the end of the season.

Under the new wording of the bylaw (27.3c), a team's total number of victories in regulation time and overtime would be used for tiebreaker purposes. Shootout wins would not be included.

...

[ACallToArms 270]

Perhaps this rule change is a response to the general outrage hardcore hockey fans have towards shootouts. With this rules change, shootout wins are diluted a little bit, and perhaps given enough time the NHL will get rid of them all together. I've never understood the justification for having a shootout. Its like deciding a tied baseball game by having a home run derby: entertaining to watch, but no way to decide the game. I've sat at baseball games that have gone plenty of extra innings to decide a regular season game. I don't think most hockey fans would object to seeing an occasional extra period or two to decide a regular season game. Think of it as getting more value for your ticket dollar.

That gets me thinking... the reason Bettman wanted to implement the shootout is because he thought the fans wanted to see a skills contest between individual players. Why not have some kind of shootout event during the all star game, similar to the home run derby the MLB runs during their all star game?

[CenterIce 83]

The problem is no matter what type of system you have you are going to have some teams being conservative. They want to keep the game close and try and get the freebie points, either from ties or overtime loses. Some teams with only a few talented players will try and squeeze a game out to a shootout to try and win that way. The more times you change it, the more the teams adapt. Some teams try not to lose rather than try to win.

[edicius 3,269]

Bad news for the Penguins.

[Offsides 21]

I actually don't hate the shootouts in the regular season, although I wouldn't be necessarily sad to see them go. They are exciting enough, and ties are boring. On the other hand, you should never get a point for losing, in my opinion...even if you do get to OT. That's what makes me more angry than the shootout. Keep the shootout or get rid of it, but we should not reward losing in any form with a point...no thanks.

[Shady Ultima 40]

If we really want to make it a team effort, put every player from each team out on the ice with a puck, yell "GO!" and have them all shoot at the same time. The team with the most pucks in the net wins.

Yes, I'm kidding, but it would be fun to watch. You can bet the goalies would be making crucial saves throughout the game to avoid the tie at all costs.

That's brilliant. I actually can imagine the goalie just s***ting his pants as an entire team shoots pucks at him...