BluPuk Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I wanted to post a poll with just a like or not like choice, but I don't know how to (or if I can), anyway the NHL BOG's approved 3 on 3 OT in stead of 4 on 4 for the upcomoing season. You like, or not? Think it's better than 4 on 4? I would have voted not, but I don't think OT is necessary at all. I'm for going back to ties. I'm wondering if they'll go to 2 on 2 in the 2016/17 season, or 1 on 1 - why not? And why not make it the two goalies alone? Man! That would be exciting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'm okay with it. It's kind of gimmickie and I'd personally be fine with just having a tie. On the other hand, it could be fun. Ultimately, if it cuts down on the shootouts, I'm all for it! @BluPuk I added a poll for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I HATE SHOOTOUTS - anything we can do to avoid them is fine with me. I would be willing to try 3 on 3. It will certainly be entertaining and provide for more open ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 It's kind of gimmickie You're not alone in saying it - there's another thread around on this very topic - but for the life of me I cannot understand this comment about gimmicks. What specifically about 3-on-3 hockey is gimmicky? Or is it the 5-minute, time-limited overtime, that's the gimmick? Sudden death is the proper way to resolve a hockey game, but in our time-challenged world, we chose by practical necessity to limit it to 5 min. Maybe it should be 10? In any event, where's the gimmick? A shoot-out. Now, that's a gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 You're not alone in saying it - there's another thread around on this very topic - but for the life of me I cannot understand this comment about gimmicks. What specifically about 3-on-3 hockey is gimmicky? Or is it the 5-minute, time-limited overtime, that's the gimmick? Sudden death is the proper way to resolve a hockey game, but in our time-challenged world, we chose by practical necessity to limit it to 5 min. Maybe it should be 10? In any event, where's the gimmick? A shoot-out. Now, that's a gimmick.I would rather play a 5 minute overtime that ends in a tie, and we just go back to giving one point to each team. I always thought it was stupid that we reward teams who are better in the skills needed for a shootout, and we screw teams that don't have that ability. If I'm a player on the ice, I would be seriously po'd at the fact that my team played as great as the other team for 60 minutes and we get one less point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I would rather play a 5 minute overtime that ends in a tie, and we just go back to giving one point to each team I could live with that, but then I would even more aggressively support 3-on-3 to at least try reduce the number of ties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDFlyerFan Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I voted yes on this poll. Some years ago I remember a playoff game...might have been Edmonton vs. St. Louis... where a pair of coincidental minors had 3 on 3 in overtime. Pretty cool to watch. Not sure how good it would be as the norm. Like other posters; I prefer an OT period with a tie if nobody scores.The shootout, in my opinion, took away the pleasure of a penalty shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 You're not alone in saying it - there's another thread around on this very topic - but for the life of me I cannot understand this comment about gimmicks. What specifically about 3-on-3 hockey is gimmicky? Or is it the 5-minute, time-limited overtime, that's the gimmick? Sudden death is the proper way to resolve a hockey game, but in our time-challenged world, we chose by practical necessity to limit it to 5 min. Maybe it should be 10? In any event, where's the gimmick? A shoot-out. Now, that's a gimmick. Definitely on the shoot-out. I'm not going to insist on the word for the 3v3. I get that it's certainly different from the gimmick of the shoot-out. I guess *I* use it in the sense that game is typically played 5v5. They're making artificial alterations to the way the game is played to facilitate an easy end. I just think with the hard/fast 5 minutes that the 3v3 cuts down the bench. I argue against the shootout because you're cutting down a team game to a 1v1. i feel like I need to stay consistent when it's suddenly 3v3. So "gimmick." Yeah, it's probably not a completely accurate term. But I'm with you on the idea that overtime should be sudden death. I realize that's not an ideal policy given the long season, the ice quality, yadda yadda. So, ultimately, it's an attempt to solve a problem (the tie, not the shoot-out) that I don't perceive as a problem to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 The shootout, in my opinion, took away the pleasure of a penalty shot. Absolutely. It had the same effect for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I argue against the shootout because you're cutting down a team game to a 1v1. i feel like I need to stay consistent when it's suddenly 3v3. That's the strongest argument on your side I suppose, except I disagree that 3-on-3 is "artificial." It is, admittedly uncommon - rare even - to encounter it, but I'd argue that that's in large part because of the way the game is refereed. For example, if they called more interference on deliberate and accidentally-on-purpose picks during 4-on-3 play, you'd have some more 3-on-3. It is entirely contemplated in the rules of hockey that 3-on-3 is a possibility. By rule, it can never be 2-on-2 or, 1-on-1. But it can be 3-on-3. By rule. That's not artificial to the game. That's part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 ...it can be 3-on-3. By rule. That's not artificial to the game. That's part of the game. I'm going to compare it this way: The penalty shot exists in the game by rule. When done under the rule (naturally, due to a penalty), it's the most exciting play in hockey. Or it was. Then they decided, "what the hell, let's just end a game with several of them" -- artificially (in the absence of what would typically cause the situation). The reason I used artificial referencing 3v3 is because when 3v3 comes up in the actual play of the game (naturally, due to penalties, etc.) it's actually fairly exciting hockey. Well, interesting anyway. But then they decide "what the hell, let's end a game with it!" -- artificially (in the absence of what would typically cause the situation). For whatever reason, I prefer the 3v3 to the shootout. At least someone is still attempting to play defense, make passes, maybe a body check if you can catch a guy, etc. There is still hockey being played. But--for me, and obstinately using my definition--both are artificial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 By rule, it can never be 2-on-2 or, 1-on-1. But it can be 3-on-3. By rule. That's not artificial to the game. That's part of the game. I'm with @ruxpin. When either a penalty shot or 3 on 3 (or 4 on 4 for that matter) occur as a result of something (penalties) that happens in the normal course of the game, they're both a normal part of the game. When the league decides it needs to tart things up for the masses, it's a gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'm with @ruxpin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'm with @ruxpin. Sheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 [with] 3v3 at least someone is still attempting to play defense, make passes, maybe a body check if you can catch a guy, etc. There is still hockey being played. I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 SheepI'm not sure how I'd take this if I was Jack...Regarding the topic at hand, I'm not sure I like 3 on 3, but I think it beats the shootout. I'd prefer 4 on 4 and finishing in a tie after 5 minutes, but its clear to me that ties are never coming back.On a related note, how hard would it be to adopt the tourney scoring rules? 3 points for a regulation win, 2 in OT, and one for an OT loss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 On a related note, how hard would it be to adopt the tourney scoring rules? 3 points for a regulation win, 2 in OT, and one for an OT loss? Dunno. I guess I could live with that. It's preferable to two teams getting a point with no incentive to play for the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I will vote FOR the 3 vs 3 OT. One would think given the talent at the NHL level, that more open ice would surely lead to a definitive winner before the game has to go to a skills competition mini-game. AHL last season proved that 3 on 3 resulted in less games getting to a shoot out....NHL level talent is much better, so it should work just as well, if not better, in avoiding shoot outs.I'd be ok with ties coming back as many have already mentioned, however, good luck trying to get The Gnome to go back to that. He has repeatedly made it known the shoot out IS part of the game now. So, in light of that, since we must have SO's, then yea, I'd go with a method to try to keep them to a minimum, and 3 v 3 might do the trick.It STILL bothers the bejeezus out of me that losing teams are rewarded with a point though.... NHL kinda reminds me of kids intramural sports in that regard: Everyone gets a ribbon just for participating....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Sheep Hey, leave the rest of us out of your sick fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 On a related note, how hard would it be to adopt the tourney scoring rules? 3 points for a regulation win, 2 in OT, and one for an OT loss? 4 points for doing it left-handed, 2.75 if it's dark outside..... I really have a problem with all the extra points. I already hate that some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3. I completely get the idea of reward for winning in regulation and what this is attempting to do, but ultimately I don't like it. I'd rather just go back to two points for win, one point each for a tie, and loser goes home with no participation trophy. But since THAT isn't happening....2 points for win no matter when/how you accomplish it.No participation trophy for losing, no matter when you do it. You know what would make the shootout slightly more (I said slightly) interesting? Have each team pick the opposing shooters. I know it might be less entertaining for the fans to have less-talented players doing it, but it may actually level the playing field in the shootout. And, for the Flyers, it wouldn't really hurt them because they all suck in the shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 NHL kinda reminds me of kids intramural sports in that regard: Everyone gets a ribbon just for participating....... Be scared. You and I went in very similar directions with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 4 points for doing it left-handed, 2.75 if it's dark outside..... I really have a problem with all the extra points. I already hate that some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3. I completely get the idea of reward for winning in regulation and what this is attempting to do, but ultimately I don't like it. I'd rather just go back to two points for win, one point each for a tie, and loser goes home with no participation trophy. But since THAT isn't happening....2 points for win no matter when/how you accomplish it.No participation trophy for losing, no matter when you do it. You know what would make the shootout slightly more (I said slightly) interesting? Have each team pick the opposing shooters. I know it might be less entertaining for the fans to have less-talented players doing it, but it may actually level the playing field in the shootout. And, for the Flyers, it wouldn't really hurt them because they all suck in the shootout. I agree with going back to the 2 points for a winner and no points for a loser. But if they insist on making a loser in OT get one point, they might as well make all the games worth the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Have each team pick the opposing shooters. I know it might be less entertaining for the fans Don't take this the wrong way, but you're an idiot Nobody wants to see Hal Gill or Luke Schenn on a breakaway... What a cruel bastard you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.