Rumor has it... Shoot outs...

[Polaris922]

May go away in exchange for 3 vs 3 play. I missed this before so if someone already posted I apologize, but I don't recall seeing it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/death-shootout-support-3-3-overtime-increasing-nhl-195413310--nhl.html

[hf101]

@Polaris922

 

From what I've read there are several proposals on the table.  Lengthening the 4 on 4, and / or adding a few minutes of 3 on 3.  I do think they will still keep the shootout as the last option avoiding any ties.

 

As long as the ice conditions are acceptable I'd welcome a longer OT.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

Apparently there were several ideas discussed. In the end, they agreed on four mins of 4on 4, then four mins of 3 on 3, followed by a shoot out. There is no indication of when or if they will start this new format. They typically test it in the AHL before adopting it in the NHL.

[brelic]

Apparently there were several ideas discussed. In the end, they agreed on four mins of 4on 4, then four mins of 3 on 3, followed by a shoot out. There is no indication of when or if they will start this new format. They typically test it in the AHL before adopting it in the NHL.

Just imagine, for a second, that if a baseball game were tied after 9 innings, you take out two outfielders, and the short stop. If a tie persists, follow up with a home run derby.

Or imagine that if a football game were tied after regulation, they remove half the players on each side, followed by a field goal competition to resolve ties.

That's how ridiculous these proposals sound to hockey fans. I don't understand why they are so gung-ho on gimmicks, and I don't understand the aversion to ties. They're not ideal, BUT, I would take a tie any day over a shootout or a 3 on 3.

At what point is it no longer 'hockey' and it becomes a caricature of itself? I'm not coming at this from a purist point of view, either, because I think a lot of changes made over the years have helped the game.

I'm all for evolution and growth. And these ideas to avoid ties at all costs are neither of those.

Just my $0.02 CAD.

[hf101]

@brelic

 

 

Just imagine a Soccer game which is similar to hockey by having a goalie position having penalty kicks after a period of overtime.  

 

....oh wait

 

[brelic]

@brelic

 

 

Just imagine a Soccer game which is similar to hockey by having a goalie position having penalty kicks after a period of overtime.  

 

....oh wait

 

I don't know much about soccer, but I thought they could have a draw in league play. Then they have penalty kicks when it's tournament play or when a winner needs to be determined. Am I missing something?

Anyway, my point was that I'm sure American fans would not take kindly to adding all kinds of gimmicks to their cherished sports like baseball and football. Hockey has to endure that because the Commissioner is American, a lawyer, has no history with the game, and is trying to grow the sport in America. He's approaching it from a detached point of view, which is hard for those of us who are emotionally invested in the sport.

Sometimes change is required, resistors be damned.

Other times, change is not necessary.

Which one is this?

[idahophilly]

Id just go with a 10 min 5 on 5 Sudden death ot with one twist... If a team scores, then the other team has an additional 60 seconds to "retie" the game. Then it is a tie in the books. If two teams cant win in roughly 70 min then its a draw in my books. NO MORE 3 POINT GAMES....

[EDI-Flyer]

@brelic

 

 

Just imagine a Soccer game which is similar to hockey by having a goalie position having penalty kicks after a period of overtime.  

 

....oh wait

 

 

I don't think you'll find a huge number of football supporters that are enthusiastic about the penalty kicks deciding tournaments either...

 

I don't know much about soccer, but I thought they could have a draw in league play. Then they have penalty kicks when it's tournament play or when a winner needs to be determined.

 

Exactly right... 

 

Personally I'm all for making the shooutout disappear but 3 on 3 just seems a ridiculous way to decide a hockey game IMO. My first preference would be simply to allow tie games with each team getting a point. If you really must have OT then play 5 minutes and remove the loser point. 

[hf101]

 

Memo to the National Hockey League board of governors from the Winnipeg Jets:

Don't dare tinker with the overtime format, please and thank you. The Jets are absolutely, positively loving the shootout right now.

 

Winnipeg knocked off the Philadelphia Flyers 3-2 in a shootout Friday night at the MTS Centre, extending their win streak to four games, pushing them over .500 to 10-9-2 and deepening their love for the skills competition that decided the game.

The Jets are now 5-1 in shootouts this season after Devin Setoguchi and Bryan Little scored against Flyers netminder Steve Mason while Ondrej Pavelec stopped four of the five shooters he faced.

So, about that idea tossed around at the GM meetings of dumping the shootout and extending the OT...

"I've said before, when things are going well in the shootout you tend to love them and then when you're not so successful you're not too much in favour of them," said Jets' captain Andrew Ladd. "We'll take shootouts right now. Obviously you'd like to win it in regulation, but I like the way we battled back and found a way to win."

source

 

[Polaris922]

I actually like shoot outs. I think they give teams' top performers a chance to shine. Rarely is the spotlight bigger. On skaters and goalies alike. And not just because my team excels at them, but because it gives me opportunities to see some amazing skill on the ice from players I may not get to see too often. I just like them. And as for complaints about three point nights, it's made the regular season races tight right to the end. I don't remember so many battles for positioning coming down to the wire as there have been in recent years. Not just for fourth or fifth place, either. From first to eighth in any given year. It's helped make the end of the regular season much more exciting to me.

[blocker]

Whenever the rules are changed, coaches devise strategies to deal with those changes. Sometimes those strategies produce a change to the game which is opposite to the intention behind the rule.

We've all seen games in which a team with good shooters goes into a cautious shell in the third period. Not a whole lot of fun to watch.

Hockey games should be played and decided by the whole team playing hockey. It's wrong to sit the grinder who kept the team in the game in overtime or shootouts, while the so-called stars, who failed to produce points during the game get chances to shine.

Edited November 17, 2013 by blocker

[pilldoc]

I actually like shoot outs. I think they give teams' top performers a chance to shine. Rarely is the spotlight bigger. On skaters and goalies alike. And not just because my team excels at them, but because it gives me opportunities to see some amazing skill on the ice from players I may not get to see too often. I just like them. And as for complaints about three point nights, it's made the regular season races tight right to the end. I don't remember so many battles for positioning coming down to the wire as there have been in recent years. Not just for fourth or fifth place, either. From first to eighth in any given year. It's helped make the end of the regular season much more exciting to me.

I see your point.  I personally don't like them and not just because tradionally the Flyers have never been really good at them.  I just don't feel that a "Team" sport gets decided by 2 individuals (the shooter and the goalie).  It might be a poor analogy, but would you want a tied MLB baseball game being decided by a HR derby?? I will agree with you, it is nice to see some of todays top scorers score some incredible goals during the shootout.  I'm just not in favor of the shootout.  Why not just extend OT to 10 minutes and if no score call it a tie and go home.

 

PS - i will add that the Flyers did take advantage that one OT game.  If they don't win in OT against the Rangers then they don't gon on that cup run a few years ago.  No OT and the Flyers don't make the playoffs.  With that one exception, I really don't like the shootout.

[Polaris922]

Whenever the rules are changed, coaches devise strategies to deal with those changes. Sometimes those strategies produce a change to the game which is opposite to the intention behind the rule.

We've all seen games in which a team with good shooters goes into a cautious shell in the third period. Not a whole lot of fun to watch.

Hockey games should be played and decided by the whole team playing hockey. It's wrong to sit the grinder who kept the team in the game in overtime or shootouts, while the so-called stars, who failed to produce points during the game get chances to shine.

That "cautious shell" happened in the third BEFORE there were shoot outs because 1 point beats 0 points. The difference is you don't see teams playing that way in the overtime. They've already got their point so now they're pressing to score and get the second point.

Lets face it... Opposing the shoot out or any form of resolving a winner is purely preference. It's been nothing but good for the game, drawing young fans to the excitement if it and showcasing some of the true talents in the league. It doesn't hurt the "losing" team. In fact I don't see any negative out of it at all, other than some people think its "not fair" to the lesser skilled players who fought for the win. Do you really think the Dan Cleary's of the world get upset that the Datsyuk's of the world won that extra point for them?? They don't give a damn, they just want the win.

[sarsippius]

If I were the grand poobah of North America, I would declare shootouts a crime against the State. And I would try Bettman for treason. It's bush league.

[brelic]

It's been nothing but good for the game, drawing young fans to the excitement if it and showcasing some of the true talents in the league.

For this fan, it has decreased the enjoyment level.

And I'm not alone.

Players don't like it. A few years ago there was a poll in the Calgary Herald, and over 300 players responded. 97% were against the shootout (and 99.4% were in favour of keeping fighting).

GMs don't like it. They feel too many games are being decided by them.

http://www.csnphilly.com/hockey-philadelphia-flyers/too-many-shootouts-nhl-gms-may-extend-ot

Coaches don't like them.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20131114/sports/711149652/

I have yet to meet a single fan who likes them.

[J0e Th0rnton]

I hate shootouts. Getting rid of them would be a good thing

[Polaris922]

What I tend to see is a division amongst fans. Younger fans love them. Kids in particular love them. It draws new fans to the game. Very Bettman-ish I know. But for every seasoned fan you find that hates them you can find a relatively new fan that doesn't.

I'm still waiting for an argument that is based on reason and not just preference. I think it ultimately comes down to what is good for the game in the big picture vs. personal preferences, albeit for a large number if the long time fan base.

Personally I don't like ties. It's a contest. Play till someone wins. Or have ties worth ZERO points. You don't win you get nothing. THAT could prove interesting.

[sarsippius]

 

I'm still waiting for an argument that is based on reason and not just preference. I think it ultimately comes down to what is good for the game in the big picture vs. personal preferences, albeit for a large number if the long time fan base.
 

 

I think a very rational argument has been made here over and over again. It's a team game. You don't change the nature of it at the end to have a breakaway contest with 3 snipers and a goalie to decide the winner. The entire game goes out the window - no checking, no defense, no passing, no offensive or defensive philosophy, no team. I understand and accept that you like shootouts, no problem. But I feel you are blinding yourself to an actual point, just as you say shootout haters are doing.

 

 

 

Personally I don't like ties. It's a contest. Play till someone wins. Or have ties worth ZERO points. You don't win you get nothing. THAT could prove interesting.

 

In a stunning of events, I couldn't agree more.  

 

EDIT: Sorry about the underlines, I'm not THAT self-important, I just couldn't get rid of them.on this post after refreshing copying pasting....

Edited November 22, 2013 by sarsippius

[Polaris922]

I think a very rational argument has been made here over and over again. It's a team game. You don't change the nature of it at the end to have a breakaway contest with 3 snipers and a goalie to decide the winner. The entire game goes out the window - no checking, no defense, no passing, no offensive or defensive philosophy, no team. I understand and accept that you like shootouts, no problem. But I feel you are blinding yourself to an actual point, just as you say shootout haters are doing.

In a stunning of events, I couldn't agree more.

EDIT: Sorry about the underlines, I'm not THAT self-important, I just couldn't get rid of them.on this post after refreshing copying pasting....

There got rid of them for you. Lol. I also understand the "team game" concept, but in every team sport there are moments for individuals to shine... Hockey has breakaways and penalty shots, football has kick/punt returns and field goals, baseball each player bats... Sometimes these moments are defined by a group effort (I.e. blocking, stretch passes, or infield play) but often they come down to a singular effort offensively vs a singular effort defensively.

Shoot outs require no less than three men to perform to win, two shooters and a goalie is the minimum. Not much different than an odd man rush or power play score. They only give out two assists on any goal.

I DO get the team sport argument, but commonly in history some of the greatest games in sports are decided by great individual efforts.

Guess its just a different perspective. Maybe I hit my head too much?

[sarsippius]

Guess its just a different perspective.

 

That's all I needed to hear haha

 

And young guys vs oldhead point is right on. Heck my dad is still pissed that they got rid of the bench-clearing brawls!

[blocker]

I think it ultimately comes down to what is good for the game in the big picture vs. personal preferences, albeit for a large number if the long time fan base.

Pretty good point.

I hate shootouts.

But, that's a pretty good point.

[Polaris922]

Pretty good point.

I hate shootouts.

But, that's a pretty good point.

Thanks. I'm in the middle I guess. Older fan but hate ties. Lol

[Polaris922]

Pretty good point.

I hate shootouts.

But, that's a pretty good point.

Thanks. I'm in the middle I guess. Older fan but hate ties. Lol