Podein25 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I prefer to do away with it all and let teams play normal hockey, especially if we are discussing that abomination of a play mentioned in the links in my original comment. I've said this several times now.There's nothing normal about forcing teams to play with less than the normal amount of players if there are no penalties. It is a disruption to the natural course of events for the sake of a definitive outcome (which is meant to make the product more appealing to fans). It's the definition of a gimmick. You don't have to agree with me, but if you cannot comprehend what I am saying at this point....well I'll just say you're not going to.I get your ideal. But I'm trying to comprehend your preferences among a number of imperfect options. You prefer shootout to 4-4 OT, but not 5-5? Just answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I prefer to do away with it all and let teams play normal hockey, especially if we are discussing that abomination of a play mentioned in the links in my original comment. I've said this several times now.There's nothing normal about forcing teams to play with less than the normal amount of players if there are no penalties. It is a disruption to the natural course of events for the sake of a definitive outcome (which is meant to make the product more appealing to fans). It's the definition of a gimmick. You don't have to agree with me, but if you cannot comprehend what I am saying at this point....well I'll just say you're not going to.FWIW I think the objective of 4-4 OT is to open up the ice, thereby create more scoring chances and ipso facto lead to more goals, more wins and thus less gimmicky shootouts. In short, the objective is fewer gimmicks.You prefer gimmicks I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I don't hate the shootout, but I've long proposed a 2-1-0 system where after three shooters per side, the game ends in a tie. 2 points for a win (in regulation, OT, or shootout)1 point for a tie (can only occur if shootout yields no result)0 points for a loss (in regulation, OT, or shootout) PROS: SimpleFairKeeps game length predictable and manageableAll games worth same number of pointsSimplified standings (W-L-T-PTS)Prevents shootout from going on foreverRaises stakes in OT and shootoutKeeps tie games to a minimum CONS: People can't wrap their head around having a shootout and having tiesSome people hate the shootoutSome people hate ties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I am in favor of the new rules because it will decrease the possibility of the shootout. http://www.hockeyforums.net/index.php/topic/63255-new-ahl-overtime-rules/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 When teams are short one or two players, whether it is one or both teams that is penalized, that is hockey. What is being proposed would be like two boxers being forced to fight with one hand (their off hand no less) after a draw.Ever play pond hockey with fewer than 5 skaters per side? Was it hockey or not? It's still hockey. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but it's still hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The loser point is just idiotic. Do away with it and increase the incentive to win in regulation and you'd probably see a lot less shootouts. But the NHL won't. They'll just keep tweaking the OT. 4-on-4, 3-on-3, next thing it'll be 2-on-2 or some other ridiculous thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The loser point is just idiotic. Do away with it and increase the incentive to win in regulation and you'd probably see a lot less shootouts. But the NHL won't. They'll just keep tweaking the OT. 4-on-4, 3-on-3, next thing it'll be 2-on-2 or some other ridiculous thing.I will always hate the shootouts. Being a New Jersey Devils fan and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I will always hate the shootouts. Being a New Jersey Devils fan and all...The ironic thing is they used to be one of the best at shootouts. Now they can't win one to save their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 Ever play pond hockey with fewer than 5 skaters per side? Was it hockey or not? It's still hockey. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but it's still hockey. That's good because it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 That's good because it's not. So it's true, you've never even played pond hockey eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 The loser point is just idiotic. Do away with it and increase the incentive to win in regulation and you'd probably see a lot less shootouts. But the NHL won't. They'll just keep tweaking the OT. 4-on-4, 3-on-3, next thing it'll be 2-on-2 or some other ridiculous thing. I think everyone hates the loser point. I'm not sure I heard a single fan, commentator, writer, or anyone else argue in favor of it. I agree with you that the direction they are headed is the opposite of common sense. I'd rather stick with the current format than to go to 4-on-4 for seven minutes, followed by 3-on-3, and then a shootout. But ideally, I'd rather go back to ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The loser point is just idiotic. Do away with it and increase the incentive to win in regulation and you'd probably see a lot less shootouts. But the NHL won't. They'll just keep tweaking the OT. 4-on-4, 3-on-3, next thing it'll be 2-on-2 or some other ridiculous thing. I agree that the loser point is idiotic. If there's no points guaranteed in the game, you solve the problem in the easiest way possible. Put yourself inside the mind of a coach: Score is tied 2-2 going into the third, and the league is using my proposed 2-1-0 system with shootout capped at 3 shooters each: If you win in regulation, you get 2 points while the loser gets 0. If you try to hang on and force overtime, there's no advantage to doing so. If you win in OT, you get 2 points and the loser gets 0. If you lose in OT, the reverse is true. No safety net here. Feel like trying your hand at the shootout? Now it gets even worse. You win the shootout, you get 2 points and the loser gets 0. You lose the shootout and again, the reverse is true. 65 minutes of hockey played for nothing. I really want to win in regulation now don't you? If you happen to tie in the shootout (no result after 3 shooters each), both teams get 1 point. But who on earth wants to let it get to that point? To have their fate decided by a coin toss? Owch. If getting to OT provides no additional value, teams will not try to extend the game to get it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.