Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
redruM

Possible New OT rules

106 posts in this topic

I looked for a thread on this and could not find it. If this has been discussed, I apologize.

 

Sounds like the NHL is looking to extend OT and make it 3 v 3, 4 v 4 is 1 thing but 3 v 3? if you donot want to goto penalty shots how about just playing no goalies??

 

honestly I hate this idea!

 

But I also hate that games that goto OT ar worth 3 pts and regulation wins are only worth 2.

 

I would LOVE to see regulation wins worth 3 pts. IMHO winning in regulation should be worht more than winning a 4v4 or 3v3 5  or 10 minute game....

 

Just 1 man's opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very surprised that the NHL would consider this but hey the shoot out is a gimmick and 3v3 would be even more of a gimmick.

Personally I'm fine if they keep it the way it is and just change the point structure to 3 for regulation win 2 for ot win and 1 for ot/so loss.

The problem now is too many teams play for the tie in the 3rd and changing the point system will help mitigate that.

Edit: just want to add that unfortunately I dont think the 3 point system will ever be used... The current point system is perfect for the NHL to keep the standings as close as possible to keep fans interested more.

Edited by dmann422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very surprised that the NHL would consider this but hey the shoot out is a gimmick and 3v3 would be even more of a gimmick.

Personally I'm fine if they keep it the way it is and just change the point structure to 3 for regulation win 2 for ot win and 1 for ot/so loss.

The problem now is too many teams play for the tie in the 3rd and changing the point system will help mitigate that.

Edit: just want to add that unfortunately I dont think the 3 point system will ever be used... The current point system is perfect for the NHL to keep the standings as close as possible to keep fans interested more.

 

It's been brought up many times, but the fact that there are three points total up for grabs in some games and two in others is silly.  The system that makes the most sense:

 

3 points for a regulation win.

2 points for an OT win, OT wins count towards tiebreakers.

2 points for a SO win, SO wins do not count towards tiebreakers.

1 point for an OT or SO loss.

0 points for a regulation loss. 

 

Gotta make regulation wins more of an achievement than OT/SO wins, but the NHL simply doesn't seem to want to break the "tradition" of wins being worth two points.  But they'll happily mess with everything else...like implementing the friggin' shootout in the first place, have overtime played under different rules, etc.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3v3 is okay AS LONG AS WE DON'T GET THE NHL RECORD 22 GAMES BACK TO BACK... Then yeah, going into a 10 minute OT or playing 3v3 after 60 minutes of play isn't that big a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 points for a regulation win.

2 points for an OT win, OT wins count towards tiebreakers.

2 points for a SO win, SO wins do not count towards tiebreakers.

1 point for an OT or SO loss.

0 points for a regulation loss. 

 

This makes FAR too much sense - the NHL would never implement such a logical idea.

 

.....

 

 

But yeah, let's push for a 10 minute OT and 3v3, why not get some old fashioned pond hockey going here.  It's not like this is a professional league or anything..sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 on 3 OT sounds like such a bad idea.  I understand there are too many shootouts, but I hate 3 on 3.  And they won't likely get this implemented without giving something to the NHLPA because they are asking the PA to work more for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a longer 4v4 OT before shootouts?

 

This. I've always felt that 5 minutes was too short of a period for any meaningful play flow to develop. 10 minutes of OT wouldn't be out of line especially if it was 4on4. Baseball games can go into extra innings that take far longer than an extra 10 minutes and they play those nigh on ever day and sometimes twice a day it seems like.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that NHL games seem too short and would like to see OT be more than 5 minutes, but then you gotta think about the players' fatigue in these games too. 

To make up for this maybe extend the breaks between periods by about 5 minutes, gives the players some more rest but not too long to make the crowds restless. 

I been to a few hockey and football games recently, and I feel like the hockey games are over before you even know it. While a football game goes on for about an hour+ more. 

(I know the NFL players have much longer breaks between their shifts compared to NHL players)

 

But I also don't think 3v3 would be good either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that NHL games seem too short and would like to see OT be more than 5 minutes, but then you gotta think about the players' fatigue in these games too. 

To make up for this maybe extend the breaks between periods by about 5 minutes, gives the players some more rest but not too long to make the crowds restless. 

I been to a few hockey and football games recently, and I feel like the hockey games are over before you even know it. While a football game goes on for about an hour+ more. 

(I know the NFL players have much longer breaks between their shifts compared to NHL players)

 

But I also don't think 3v3 would be good either.

 

You now have a lot of reviews in the NFL too, which is adding time onto a lot of their games. 

 

I'd be fine with 3-5 minutes extra of 4-on-4 OT, and a little extra time of rest in between the 3rd and OT period.  And I agree, having a 4-on-4 OT period, then a 3-on-3 OT period, then a SO...basically three different ways to try to decide a regulation tie...it just looks ridiculous and amateur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they implemented 3-2-1-0 points, they'd see shootouts go down some.  Problem is people like Lou see the advantage of having the present point system and don't want to give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they implemented 3-2-1-0 points, they'd see shootouts go down some. Problem is people like Lou see the advantage of having the present point system and don't want to give it up.

Plus, the way the system is now it keeps more teams in the race longer. When everyone is jumbled up the owners are happy because that means relevancy and more butts in seats. Those fringe teams become more and more distant.

Not to mention, it's a disaster for the casual fan. The old adage of "a wins a win" is lost really as there are all different kinds of wins then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minute OT

3 ROW

2 SOW

1 SOL

0 ROL

That's what I want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they implemented 3-2-1-0 points, they'd see shootouts go down some.  Problem is people like Lou see the advantage of having the present point system and don't want to give it up.

 

I wish they'd see the disadvantages (like teams hanging around that probably shouldn't be), and the fact that a lot fans themselves can see how goofy the current system is.  Not mention it'd be great for everyone if teams that were desperate to try to get into the playoffs were trying that much harder to get that extra point. 

 

 

10 minute OT

3 ROW

2 SOW

1 SOL

0 ROL

That's what I want to see.

 

Interesting...extend the regulation point breakdown into OT.  Teams that need that third point would still be motivated to try to get it during the OT as well (more incentive to try to win in OT once the game ends tied in regulation).  A SO win could have a double whammy of being worth only two points and not counting towards tiebreaker win totals...meaning teams would rather avoid them if possible.  Only problem is that teams that know they're good in SOs might not be willing to take any chances in OT, as they could be saying "there's a good chance we can get two points here if we can get this thing to a shootout...2 is better than none".   

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 on 3 OT sounds like such a bad idea.  I understand there are too many shootouts, but I hate 3 on 3.  And they won't likely get this implemented without giving something to the NHLPA because they are asking the PA to work more for free.

 

4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. It's still not real hockey...but it's closer to real hockey than shootouts, which are just plain boring and occur far too often. I'm for it if it makes the shootout a last resort

 

The fair system is this....2 points for an regulation win. If the games goes into OT it's 10 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey, the winner gets 2 points, the loser gets 0. If the game is still tied after 10 minutes of OT it ends in a tie. 2 points are still distributed, none of this magic 3 point nonsense. 10 minutes is plenty of 5 on 5 time to score a goal

 

 

4 on 4 or 3 on 3 is not consistent with the sport that's played in regulation. Does anybody see NBA or NFL take players off the field and play a completely different sport to decide ties

 

Why should a team in a 0-0 game, outshot 40-18 in regulation, 6-1 in OT...get 2 points because somebody scored in a non hockey penalty shot derby after the game was over? Teams have come away with 2 points without even scoring goals in the damn game!? A tie is better than that.

Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. It's still not real hockey...but it's closer to real hockey than shootouts, which are just plain boring and occur far too often. I'm for it if it makes the shootout a last resort

 

The fair system is this....2 points for an regulation win. If the games goes into OT it's 10 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey, the winner gets 2 points, the loser gets 0. If the game is still tied after 10 minutes of OT it ends in a tie. 2 points are still distributed, none of this magic 3 point nonsense. 10 minutes is plenty of 5 on 5 time to score a goal

 

 

4 on 4 or 3 on 3 is not consistent with the sport that's played in regulation. Does anybody see NBA or NFL take players off the field and play a completely different sport to decide ties

I agree with this, although if we must have shootouts, the 3-2-1-0 system is fairer and more sensible than what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best idea i've heard that makes "everyone" happy - 4 on 4 for 10 minutes followed by a shootout, but you defend your opposite side so there's the longer line change. I would expect shootouts to decrease significantly if that were the case. that's Lou's idea and I support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this, although if we must have shootouts, the 3-2-1-0 system is fairer and more sensible than what we have now.

 

yep, much. Though I guarantee if the NHL took away the shootout it wouldn't result in any negative backlash. There would be no dip in attendance or fan interest. There was never a clamoring for the shootout. Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. It's still not real hockey...but it's closer to real hockey than shootouts, which are just plain boring and occur far too often. I'm for it if it makes the shootout a last resort

The fair system is this....2 points for an regulation win. If the games goes into OT it's 10 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey, the winner gets 2 points, the loser gets 0. If the game is still tied after 10 minutes of OT it ends in a tie. 2 points are still distributed, none of this magic 3 point nonsense. 10 minutes is plenty of 5 on 5 time to score a goal

4 on 4 or 3 on 3 is not consistent with the sport that's played in regulation. Does anybody see NBA or NFL take players off the field and play a completely different sport to decide ties

could not agree more. One of the clear reasons to me that the nhl is way behind NBA MLB and heck maybe even mls in the USA is that they have these crazy rules and quirky systems. It's seems like they don't take themselves seriously so why should prospective fans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. It's still not real hockey...but it's closer to real hockey than shootouts, which are just plain boring and occur far too often. I'm for it if it makes the shootout a last resort

 

The fair system is this....2 points for an regulation win. If the games goes into OT it's 10 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey, the winner gets 2 points, the loser gets 0. If the game is still tied after 10 minutes of OT it ends in a tie. 2 points are still distributed, none of this magic 3 point nonsense. 10 minutes is plenty of 5 on 5 time to score a goal

 

 

4 on 4 or 3 on 3 is not consistent with the sport that's played in regulation. Does anybody see NBA or NFL take players off the field and play a completely different sport to decide ties

 

I never had a problem with ties either, but the problem was teams were playing for them to a fault at the end, when there were no charity points given...no one wanted to take any chances on coming away with nothing, and that conservatism was starting at the end of regulation to boot. 

 

 

best idea i've heard that makes "everyone" happy - 4 on 4 for 10 minutes followed by a shootout, but you defend your opposite side so there's the longer line change. I would expect shootouts to decrease significantly if that were the case. that's Lou's idea and I support it.

 

They used to do that at one point, but then goalies would chew up their creases just before the OT period would kick in.  That's why teams stopped switching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shootout needs to be phased out and OT extended to 10mins. I am intrigued by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shootout needs to be phased out and OT extended to 10mins. I am intrigued by this.

 

I hate SOs and always have, but I doubt this ever gets phased out...I think it's a permanent part of the NHL game now.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best idea i've heard that makes "everyone" happy - 4 on 4 for 10 minutes followed by a shootout, but you defend your opposite side so there's the longer line change. I would expect shootouts to decrease significantly if that were the case. that's Lou's idea and I support it.

Any source to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with longer OT is the ice doesn't get cut after the 3rd.

It wouldn't be the end of the world if they cut the ice before OT. It takes like what <10 mins? Doesn't have to be a full intermission, there isn't really food/drink served in arenas at this point, so no one cares to leave their seats except to use the bathroom. Then the guys have a nice clean sheet of ice to play on.

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