• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cusimano_brothers

Overtime modifications on table at GMs meeting.

Rate this topic

42 posts in this topic

From NHL:

TORONTO -- Ken Holland has long been one of the leading proponents of extending overtime to decide more games before going to a shootout, and the Detroit Red Wings general manager said Tuesday he thinks support for such an action is growing among his peers.

Overtime was one of the popular subjects at the GMs meeting in Toronto. Holland has proposed in the past to have five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime followed by five minutes of 3-on-3 before going to a shootout.

Reinventing the wheel? As stated above, this proposal of extending the length of the overtime period has been presented before. Is this s case of the General Managers souring on the idea of the shootout (a "gift" from Uncle Gary after Lockout One)? Overall, is the basic idea of a longer overtime period in the regular season good/bad/indifferent for the "greatest fans in the world", players and the game as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot outs make no sense. Baseball doesn't have a home run derby after one extra inning, you don't see a dunk contest in basketball deciding who wins. It isn't hockey, it's a skill competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the shootout altogether, no point for losing in overtime, problem solved. Not sure why they refuse to go that route. Teams will play to win if they don't get anything. There's no reason to treat a loss in overtime as a half win

So, you are suggesting going back to potentially ending with ties or extending overtime until someone wins? Your comment isn't clear. If it is the former, your suggestion that teams will play to win likely wrong. In that scenario, teams will play not to lose so they can keep that single point from a tie.

Nev likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minute 4-on-4 would be ideal, but I guess 3-on-3 could be interesting. As long as they extend OT I'm for it, shootouts are simply not a fun way to end a good hockey game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that they could regulate it this way at all but shootouts are an exciting way to end a high scoring tie game imo.. low scoring, not so much.

Anyway, I'm all for extending OT a little but continuous until someone wins would be a little excessive.

I'd like 10 min 4v4 then a shootout. Or, if they want to get rid of shootouts completely, a point shouldn't be rewarded for an OT loss but could be for a tie after the 10 min..

Edited by amato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about five minutes of 4-4, followed by five minutes of 3-3, and if it's still tied, each team gets one point?

Then have a shootout which wouldn't be worth any points, but the teams with the best shootout % get the first draft picks instead of using a lottery system. (All other teams that wouldn't be considered for lottery go in the order that they would go in anyway, so it would only count for bottom teams.)

No three-point games. Shootout fans get to see a shootout. Side bets can be settled with the shootout results, so there's always a winner and loser in case you and your buddy are deciding who has to buy beer for the next game, or something important like that. People who don't like shootouts can just shut off the tv after the tie is over.

Maybe, just to make sure that both teams put the effort into it, they can make a rule that the losing team has to buy the winning team cookies. Or something.

Sgt Sharpie likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are suggesting going back to potentially ending with ties or extending overtime until someone wins? Your comment isn't clear. If it is the former, your suggestion that teams will play to win likely wrong. In that scenario, teams will play not to lose so they can keep that single point from a tie.

I wouldn't give a point for a tie, either. This isn't a sport where you get trophies for participation. But I guess you'd have to keep the shootout to prevent endless OT games. But if shootout are kept, I think the stats should count. If you score a goal in a shootout, it should add to a player's stats. If a breakaway or a penalty shot counts, shootout should, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't give a point for a tie, either. This isn't a sport where you get trophies for participation. But I guess you'd have to keep the shootout to prevent endless OT games. But if shootout are kept, I think the stats should count. If you score a goal in a shootout, it should add to a player's stats. If a breakaway or a penalty shot counts, shootout should, too.

So, you'll end up with teams playing not to lose (defensive shells) and take their chances in the shootout as they will fear going pointless.

On your other point, there is no logical argument as to why shootout goals should be included in a player's stats. Thankfully, that will never be included as an agenda item with the NHL. You can try and equate it to a breakaway or a penatly shot during a game, but breakaways and penalty shots during a game are earned through playing the game.....shootout attempts are just handed to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howzabout this.

No points are awarded for a tie at the end of regulation. Instead, we go to an OT PP dealy.

Round 1

A two-minute 5-on-4 for each side. A PP goal would mean the end of the PP, just like in regulation. If one team scores on its PP and the other team doesn't score on its opportunity, that's two points for the former and zero for the latter, game over - unless the team that didn't score on its PP opportunity scores a shorthanded goal. (Shorthanded goals have the same value as PP goals, except they don't end the other team's PP, just like in regulation.) If both teams finish even, we go to a second round.

Round 2

Now it's a 5-on-3 for each side. Again, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. A tie would be the final result, with one point awarded to each team.

All goals would contribute to the final score. So, a game that's 3-3 after three periods could end up at 5-5, or as high as 7-7 (each side scores a PP goal and a shorthanded goal in Round 1 and Round 2).

I have to figure out what to do about penalties.

Edited by Dabura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Gary has many, many times said in the past, and will continue to say many, many times in the future, that his "creation" answers a solution to the need for the sports fan to leave whatever game they are attending seeing with the very same outcome: his League will see a winner and a loser at the end of every single game.

There is nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie; it worked for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you'll end up with teams playing not to lose (defensive shells) and take their chances in the shootout as they will fear going pointless.

On your other point, there is no logical argument as to why shootout goals should be included in a player's stats. Thankfully, that will never be included as an agenda item with the NHL. You can try and equate it to a breakaway or a penatly shot during a game, but breakaways and penalty shots during a game are earned through playing the game.....shootout attempts are just handed to you.

No logical argument? You made one argument against it, but it doesn't negate mine that a player still has to do everything the same as in a game. He has to beat the goalie, and the goalie has to stop it. Shootout attempts are earned in the sense that the coach thinks you have the skill to score. It's the same "earned" opportunity as when a coach gives a player ice time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Gary has many, many times said in the past, and will continue to say many, many times in the future, that his "creation" answers a solution to the need for the sports fan to leave whatever game they are attending seeing with the very same outcome: his League will see a winner and a loser at the end of every single game.

There is nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie; it worked for years.

I read this completely wrong and thought that you were saying that Gary was going to create a league in which every game ends in a tie. Talk about parity!

Next time I'll wake up my brain before I read. Or maybe not... it was kind of funny figuring it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howzabout this.

No points are awarded for a tie at the end of regulation. Instead, we go to an OT PP dealy.

Round 1

A two-minute 5-on-4 for each side. A PP goal would mean the end of the PP, just like in regulation. If one team scores on its PP and the other team doesn't score on its opportunity, that's two points for the former and zero for the latter, game over - unless the team that didn't score on its PP opportunity scores a shorthanded goal. (Shorthanded goals have the same value as PP goals, except they don't end the other team's PP, just like in regulation.) If both teams finish even, we go to a second round.

Round 2

Now it's a 5-on-3 for each side. Again, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. A tie would be the final result, with one point awarded to each team.

All goals would contribute to the final score. So, a game that's 3-3 after three periods could end up at 5-5, or as high as 7-7 (each side scores a PP goal and a shorthanded goal in Round 1 and Round 2).

I have to figure out what to do about penalties.

In retrospect, I made this sound way more complicated than it would really be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In retrospect, I made this sound way more complicated than it would really be.

Regardless, It's just a bad idea. lol You're turning it into a circus. Same with the thought of including SO goals in stats. Never ever going to happen.

Try and change the game too much and it turns into a joke. I would prefer 3 on 3 instead of SO but I can't ever see them swallowing their pride and eliminating it. Just attempting to make them less frequent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I hate shootouts. I've hated them ever since they where introduced after the lockout. Baseball doesn't decide extra inning games with a Home Run Derby and NHL games shouldn't be decided by a skills competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howzabout this.

No points are awarded for a tie at the end of regulation. Instead, we go to an OT PP dealy.

Round 1

A two-minute 5-on-4 for each side. A PP goal would mean the end of the PP, just like in regulation. If one team scores on its PP and the other team doesn't score on its opportunity, that's two points for the former and zero for the latter, game over - unless the team that didn't score on its PP opportunity scores a shorthanded goal. (Shorthanded goals have the same value as PP goals, except they don't end the other team's PP, just like in regulation.) If both teams finish even, we go to a second round.

Round 2

Now it's a 5-on-3 for each side. Again, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. A tie would be the final result, with one point awarded to each team.

All goals would contribute to the final score. So, a game that's 3-3 after three periods could end up at 5-5, or as high as 7-7 (each side scores a PP goal and a shorthanded goal in Round 1 and Round 2).

I have to figure out what to do about penalties.

This gave me an idea... what if the OT was a 3min PP for one team with a coin flip determining who has it. If the PP team scores its over and if it is killed off the PK team wins it. At least it is more team oriented way of settling games. Still in favour of the good ol tie though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gave me an idea... what if the OT was a 3min PP for one team with a coin flip determining who has it. If the PP team scores its over and if it is killed off the PK team wins it. At least it is more team oriented way of settling games. Still in favour of the good ol tie though.

If anything, I think it should be more like football. Each team gets the opportunity to score, but if the PK team gets a shorty, they should win. I have no clue what to do if both teams score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy convoluted and unnecessary, Batman!

Howzabout this.

No points are awarded for a tie at the end of regulation. Instead, we go to an OT PP dealy.

Round 1

A two-minute 5-on-4 for each side. A PP goal would mean the end of the PP, just like in regulation. If one team scores on its PP and the other team doesn't score on its opportunity, that's two points for the former and zero for the latter, game over - unless the team that didn't score on its PP opportunity scores a shorthanded goal. (Shorthanded goals have the same value as PP goals, except they don't end the other team's PP, just like in regulation.) If both teams finish even, we go to a second round.

Round 2

Now it's a 5-on-3 for each side. Again, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. A tie would be the final result, with one point awarded to each team.

All goals would contribute to the final score. So, a game that's 3-3 after three periods could end up at 5-5, or as high as 7-7 (each side scores a PP goal and a shorthanded goal in Round 1 and Round 2).

I have to figure out what to do about penalties.

Son of a Wing likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes of 4 on 4 overtime. If it's still tied, the game is a draw. If you want both points, earn them and earn them in the allotted time.

10 minutes of OT seems a bit much. Not that I would complain, but to the more casual fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to the pre-1999 system. I have no problem with ties, if neither team deserves to win.

Also, 3 on 3 is not real hockey. You hardly ever see that, let alone to reward teams extra points for winning such a spectacle.


10 minute 4-on-4 would be ideal, but I guess 3-on-3 could be interesting. As long as they extend OT I'm for it, shootouts are simply not a fun way to end a good hockey game.

Interesting, but not legitimate or realistic. How often do you see a 3 on 3?

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the shootout altogether, no point for losing in overtime, problem solved. Not sure why they refuse to go that route. Teams will play to win if they don't get anything. There's no reason to treat a loss in overtime as a half win

While I agree that the shootout should go away and the 1 pt for a loss is just plain stupid I dont think the elimination of them will make teams play to win. It will back back to pre shootout days where teams played "not to lose" (especially in inter-conference games) as most teams are more afraid to make a mistake and give the other team an extra point than to go for the extra point themselves. The best thing that needs to happen is a win should be worth 3 points not 2. That will put more emphasis on winning in regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess I really like 4on4 OT, and because both teams are certain of a point, it means they both go for it. It leads to fast-paced, open hockey with chances at both ends, so I'm all for extending it to 10 mins. 3on3 I'm not so keen on, seems even more gimmicky than the shoot-out.

Failing that, no OT, both teams get a point. I don't understand the North American obsession with the idea that sporting contests must end with one side winning, and one side losing. But then again, I follow cricket, a game that can last 5 days and still end in a draw :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0