67 replies to this topic

[T-Ruff]

On HNIC's Hotstove intermission feature last night, Pierre Lebrun mentioned that the GMs are meeting next month and will discuss a new overtime format for next year.

OT would be 8 minutes in total, 4 minutes of 4 on 4 followed by 4 minutes of 3 on 3, followed by a shootout if necessary. This would significantly reduce the number of shootouts, and Lebrun claims that most GMs favour the idea and it will most likely be implemented.

I love it, there's no downside, IMO. After reading about the experimental camp in August, I believed it was inevitable.

Edited by T-Ruff, 17 October 2010 - 09:06 PM.

[ShanahanMan]

Awesome! I've always said OT should be extended by another five minutes, but 4 extra minutes of of 3 on 3 sounds wicked.

[miller76]

So is it 3 on 2 then, if a team takes a penalty? No minimum players on ice per team.

[Octopus's Garden]

So is it 3 on 2 then, if a team takes a penalty? No minimum players on ice per team.

Probably would then go to 4-on-3. Like it does if a team takes 2 penalties in 4-on-4, it doesn't go to 4-on-2, it goes to 5-on-3. That was a lot of numbers.

[hooon]

Probably would then go to 4-on-3. Like it does if a team takes 2 penalties in 4-on-4, it doesn't go to 4-on-2, it goes to 5-on-3. That was a lot of numbers.

So they have to blow the whistle after 4 minutes? The only part I don't like about it is the fact that they have to stop OT only to restart it again moments later. What if a team is about to score?

[Third Man In]

Shootout wins don't count to break ties this year, and then they want to expand overtime to further reduce shootouts next year. The proposed changes sound even more absurd than the current system. We can't the league just admit the shootout was a gimmick whose time has past and get rid of it all together?

[atodaso]

they should change it to one minute of 5-on-5 followed by one minute of 4-on-4, then 3-on-3, 2-on-2, 1-on-1... then if no one scores the players have to use their wrong shooting hand for 3 minutes of 3-on-3.... then, if still tied, the winner would be decided by making the goalies wrestle and seeing who pins who first.

bring back the W-L-T system already!!!

[MacK_Attack]

So they have to blow the whistle after 4 minutes? The only part I don't like about it is the fact that they have to stop OT only to restart it again moments later. What if a team is about to score?

I would assume it would be 4:00 on the clock, then another 4:00 if still tied.

[T-Ruff]

Shootout wins don't count to break ties this year, and then they want to expand overtime to further reduce shootouts next year. The proposed changes sound even more absurd than the current system. We can't the league just admit the shootout was a gimmick whose time has past and get rid of it all together?

No because that would be taking a step backwards by bringing ties back into the game. They're slowly finding the balance, once they make all games worth 3 points and increase the shootout shooters to 5 (less important), it will be quite satisfactory.

I'm surprised people can complain about this and would even prefer to go back to the pre-lockout system, I for one can't wait to watch me some 3 on 3 OT.

[Barrie]

I got an idea, how 'bout we just go regular 5 on 5 for 5 minutes for OT, and if no one scores in the 5 minutes it's a tie and each team gets a point? Also, shootouts sucks! They're such a letdown after a great game.

Seriously I HATE 4 on 4. There's a number of times each overtime a puck leaves the zone when it's 4 on 4, when if there was a fifth guy on the ice, the puck would have been stopped at the blue line and fired back on net, dumped behind the net for a fore-check, or passed to a teammate. Personally I don't think 4 on 4 creates any more offense than 5 on 5, in fact I think it takes it away when the puck goes out of the zone more often, and teams need to get back onside.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[dat's sick]

I think I'd rather have 4 minutes of 5-on-5 and then 4 minutes of 4-on-4. 3-on-3 is a bit extreme, but on the other hand could be fun simply to see what players like Datsyuk would do with all that ice.

[Barrie]

So they have to blow the whistle after 4 minutes? The only part I don't like about it is the fact that they have to stop OT only to restart it again moments later. What if a team is about to score?

Yea I don't like the sound of that either.

[crotty99]

Anything that reduces the chances for a shootout is a win in my book

[Barrie]

I think all 3 on 3 will do is create more line changes and shorter shifts because guys will tire out fast. Also just like 4 on 4, the puck will be leaving the zone more often, and teams will have to get back on side more.

[Heaten]

Why not just have 20 minutes 5 on 5 and if nobody continue on 5 on 5 for 20 minutes and keep doing that until someone scores. But no intermission and no TV time outs!!!

Why not? Screw regular TV. I'm all for the hockey factor

[Datsyerberger]

So they have to blow the whistle after 4 minutes? The only part I don't like about it is the fact that they have to stop OT only to restart it again moments later. What if a team is about to score?

I think a good addendum to that would be that after the 4 minutes, it changes to 3 on 3 after the next stoppage in play.

[egroen]

4 minutes of 5 on 5 then 4 minutes of 4 on 4 is about perfect, without a shootout. It still works to decrease the chance of a tie (but also making ties more meaningful in a hard fought game - there is no question the intensity in over-time is what it was, as now they know it's not -really- over yet.), and more importantly does not resort to some all-star skills competition gimmick to decide games (3 on 3 and the shootout).

The problem before was that there were *too many* ties prior to the lockout, not the ties itself. It seems you could at least come up with a way to make a dent in them, without completely eradicating them from the season and decide close games with the equivalent of a slam dunk competition.

Edited by egroen, 18 October 2010 - 12:33 AM.

[55fan]

Not sure if this has been suggested (probably has) but I was thinking the other night.

How about 5 on 5 for 5 minutes, followed by 4 on 4 for 5 minutes. The winner gets 2 points, the loser gets 0. Just like a regular game.

Then take it to the shootout. Winner gets one point; loser gets 0.

There's plenty of time to win the thing for real, but if not, then the winner doesn't get full credit for winning in a skill show.

The game is only worth one point, but I'd rather see that than the 3 point games going on now.

Instead of saying "hey! You made it out of regulation! Everyone's a winner!" we are now saying, "hey! You had over an hour to make it happen and you didn't. Someone's a loser and someone else is a bigger loser."

[Third Man In]

No because that would be taking a step backwards by bringing ties back into the game. They're slowly finding the balance, once they make all games worth 3 points and increase the shootout shooters to 5 (less important), it will be quite satisfactory.

I'm surprised people can complain about this and would even prefer to go back to the pre-lockout system, I for one can't wait to watch me some 3 on 3 OT.

I've never understood how introducing increasingly arbitrary ways to decide games was a step forward from calling games a tie. 4-on-4 and especially 3-on-3 overtimes try to decide games in scenarios that are uncommon during regulation play, and a shootout makes about as much sense as deciding a game by having players shoot from center ice through a hole in a cardboard cutout in front of the net. Do we really need 8 minutes of overtime and then scrape the ice and have a shootout? The current system already adds half an hour to the end of games.

[Echolalia]

I think a good addendum to that would be that after the 4 minutes, it changes to 3 on 3 after the next stoppage in play.

This is what i came in to say.

I do like the new format for OT they're considering, though. I expect it'll greatly reduce the amount of shootouts that occur and thus the amount of games that are won and lost on individual talent and not team play. It'll also make what shootouts that do occur that much more exciting because there won't be five of them every night.
My biggest concern is that once it gets to 3v3, teams will play very passive and not take any chances in the other team's zone due to the severity that a turnover will cause. It may end up being four minutes of one pressuring and two at the blue line, which I don't suspect will generate a whole lot of opportunities. Sustained pressure might go out the window, because it'd be so difficult to keep the puck in with only three guys to patrol the zone and blue line.