Jump to content

Photo

Possible New OT rules


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#81 redruM

redruM

    Hockey God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,447 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:04 PM

I'm all for killing the shoot out, but why the gimick?  does Basket ball goto 4 v 4??  does baseball eliminate and fielder??

 

5 v 5 till there is a winner!


  • 0
Posted Image

2006 Pat Burns Award Winner(Most emotional Poster)
2006 JHL CHAMPION!!
2005 CHAMPION of the 1st Annual NJDevs Fantasy Wrestling League!!!
2005 Finalist 1st Annual NJDEVS Fantasy Baseball League
2005 Pat Burns Award Winner(Most emotional Poster)
2004 LockOut Trivia CHAMP!!!


Keeper of The original Welcome to Hell Forum, Jimmy Dowd, Brian Rolston, "Christmas Tree" Jersey's and the Original Trade Documents of the FREEZE man!!


BOM U11G Dynamite

Posted Image

#82 NewarkDevil5

NewarkDevil5

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,176 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 05:30 PM

If they're going to be adding another 5 minutes of OT anyway, it makes more sense to me to just make it a 10 minute 4on4. Obviously time isn't the issue so just do what makes the most sense. We've already adjusted at this point to the 4on4 OT, which was weird enough when they introduced it. If you go 4on4 for a full 10 minutes you have more time for penalties to occur and create 4on3 situations or even the 3on3 situations. Part of why OT doesn't settle anything is because no one has even gotten any kind of flow before the time runs out. Give it a half period and see how many fewer shootouts you'll wind up with.


  • 0

Newark: The City of New Jersey

gallery_45_180_172422.png


#83 LucifersDog

LucifersDog

    Broken Record

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,786 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 06:28 PM

I enjoyed the 3 on 3 last night. I hate the shoot out it is a player on player skill contest.


  • 0

#84 Devlin

Devlin

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 09:43 PM

Loving this! Like I said before...I'd rather have more hockey then a skills competition.
I would love the below.

- 10 min 4 on 4
- 5 min 3 on 3

Game play over "ScoreO" ;)

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2


  • 0

#85 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,547 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 01:41 AM

I still don't understand why people think 3 on 3 is gimmicky when it's something that does occur during games.
  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#86 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,178 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 09:14 AM

I still don't understand why people think 3 on 3 is gimmicky when it's something that does occur during games.

Because 4 on 4 is already not really hockey, 3 on 3 does not resemble actual hockey anymore. And when was the last time you saw 3 on 3 in regulation?


  • 0

#87 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,745 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 09:39 AM

I still don't understand why people think 3 on 3 is gimmicky when it's something that does occur during games.


I dont know if you played sports but most people who played a lot of 3 on 3 will tell you that its pretty hard cause most of the time its back and forth 2 vs 1 cause theres always a guy whos gonna try something and get stuck up on the ice, so it might be exciting for the fans but its hard to keep a structure and stay offensive with only 3 guys
  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#88 2ELIAS6

2ELIAS6

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 09:51 AM

I still don't understand why people think 3 on 3 is gimmicky when it's something that does occur during games.

i think a 4v4 OT would be good but an extended one..how extended i dont know if 10 minutes would be too long of an OT or not but if theres not going to be any ties and someone is going to have to come out a winner i could see there then being a shootout after a longer OT... maybe we all hate the shootout because we suck at it lol
  • 0
believe-devs.jpg1dun.jpg

*authentic Martin Brodeur autographed goalie stick with COA for sale pm me if interested*

#89 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,547 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:26 AM

Because 4 on 4 is already not really hockey, 3 on 3 does not resemble actual hockey anymore. And when was the last time you saw 3 on 3 in regulation?

 

It's something that still happens in an actual hockey game.  You can still see 3 on 3 in a playoff OT for example.  Yes it's rare, but so is diving penalties.

 

I dont know if you played sports but most people who played a lot of 3 on 3 will tell you that its pretty hard cause most of the time its back and forth 2 vs 1 cause theres always a guy whos gonna try something and get stuck up on the ice, so it might be exciting for the fans but its hard to keep a structure and stay offensive with only 3 guys

 

And?  Like I said, it's something that still actually happens in real games.  What if it does happen in the playoffs?  What if a team wins in OT in a 3 on 3 situation?  Would it not count as a real win?

 

i think a 4v4 OT would be good but an extended one..how extended i dont know if 10 minutes would be too long of an OT or not but if theres not going to be any ties and someone is going to have to come out a winner i could see there then being a shootout after a longer OT... maybe we all hate the shootout because we suck at it lol

 

As I've said before, 10 minute OT if done in an ideal situation would add only roughly a half hour to a game.  Are fans in that big of a hurry that they wouldn't be able to wait an additional 20 minutes or so?

 

I honestly just want 10 minutes of OT.  I don't care if its 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or 5 on 5.  IDC if it's one 10 minute period, or two 5 minute periods.  The shootout shouldn't be happening as often as it does.  That's the problem.  Teams should be only having 5 or 6 shootouts a year.  We've already been in 4 in a quarter of the season.  I don't hate the shootout itself.  I just hate how it's being implemented in the standings.  A shootout win shouldn't be worth as much as a regulation or OT win since every team's goal should be to win in regulation or OT.  ROW's or SOW's still count as 2 points regardless.  So here's my ideal format.

 

3 points for ROW's.  Teams should have an incentive to win in regulation or OT.

2 points for SOW's.  Shootout wins ideally shouldn't be worth as much as ROW's.

1 point for SOL's.  Shootout losses ideally shouldn't be as damaging as ROW's.

0 points for ROL's.  To me ROL's are real losses.

 

I'd also be ok with this format.

 

3 points for ROW

2 points for SOW

1 point for OT / SO loss

0 points for RL


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#90 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 01:10 PM

3vs3 isn't any less of a gimmick than the shootout. Both formats are changing the way the game is decided.

After 5 seasons we'll probably have people complaining that 3 on 3 is getting stale and clamoring for the shootout again.
  • 0

#91 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 03:54 PM

I dont know if you played sports but most people who played a lot of 3 on 3 will tell you that its pretty hard cause most of the time its back and forth 2 vs 1 cause theres always a guy whos gonna try something and get stuck up on the ice, so it might be exciting for the fans but its hard to keep a structure and stay offensive with only 3 guys

Have you watched any high level roller hockey?  I know it's not the same sport, but it's four on four and there's no offsides, yet there aren't many odd-man rushes because with so few guys on the rink, puck possession is key, so the game  is very slow and deliberate.  One team could possess the puck for over a minute without generating a shot or scoring chance.  That isn't exciting and I think 3 on 3 overtime would more closely resemble that than a wide open back and forth free-for-all, especially if a shootout follows because teams would rather play conservatively in overtime, avoid making any mistakes, and take their chances in the shootout because even if they don't take any risks in overtime they could still come out with two points.

 

It's something that still happens in an actual hockey game.  You can still see 3 on 3 in a playoff OT for example.  Yes it's rare, but so is diving penalties.

I think the shootout is horrendous and 3 on 3 is also bad but still better than a shootout, but what you're saying isn't a convincing argument for me.  3 on 3 happens during regular play because of the players' actions, not because the most fundamental rules change depending on what part of the game it is.  Also, penalty shots happen during actual hockey games too, much more often than 3 on 3 does.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#92 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,547 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 06:01 PM

3vs3 isn't any less of a gimmick than the shootout. Both formats are changing the way the game is decided.

After 5 seasons we'll probably have people complaining that 3 on 3 is getting stale and clamoring for the shootout again.

 

I don't think this will get the same reaction.

 

BTW, I'm not necessarily for 3 on 3, I just want 10 minute OT more than anything.

 

I think the shootout is horrendous and 3 on 3 is also bad but still better than a shootout, but what you're saying isn't a convincing argument for me.  3 on 3 happens during regular play because of the players' actions, not because the most fundamental rules change depending on what part of the game it is.  Also, penalty shots happen during actual hockey games too, much more often than 3 on 3 does.

 

Penalty shots and shootouts aren't the same thing.

 

1. You can't simply choose any player to take the PS.  Shootouts allow you pick your 3 best skilled players, and that's it.

2. It still counts as a real goal.

3. There's no guarantee it is what actually determines the outcome of a game.  Only way this can happen is if it happens in OT.

 

As for 3 on 3 situations, it's a far better option than shootouts.  Simply put, a 3 on 3 situation can happen during a playoff game, therefore it's not gimmicky at all imo.  It is still real hockey.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#93 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 06:45 PM

I don't think this will get the same reaction.

BTW, I'm not necessarily for 3 on 3, I just want 10 minute OT more than anything.


Penalty shots and shootouts aren't the same thing.

1. You can't simply choose any player to take the PS. Shootouts allow you pick your 3 best skilled players, and that's it.
2. It still counts as a real goal.
3. There's no guarantee it is what actually determines the outcome of a game. Only way this can happen is if it happens in OT.

As for 3 on 3 situations, it's a far better option than shootouts. Simply put, a 3 on 3 situation can happen during a playoff game, therefore it's not gimmicky at all imo. It is still real hockey.

the logic you are using to determine what makes a "gimmick" is faulty. Using the same logic you could say that we should have a 6vs6 overtime with both goalies pulled since conceivably that could happen in a game.
  • 0

#94 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,547 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 06:50 PM

the logic you are using to determine what makes a "gimmick" is faulty. Using the same logic you could say that we should have a 6vs6 overtime with both goalies pulled since conceivably that could happen in a game.

 

I wouldn't consider 6 on 6 gimmicky for that reason.  But you also need to remember that as rare as a 3 on 3 situation is, a 6 on 6 situation is pretty much non-existent.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#95 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:17 AM

I don't think this will get the same reaction.

 

BTW, I'm not necessarily for 3 on 3, I just want 10 minute OT more than anything.

 

 

Penalty shots and shootouts aren't the same thing.

 

1. You can't simply choose any player to take the PS.  Shootouts allow you pick your 3 best skilled players, and that's it.

2. It still counts as a real goal.

3. There's no guarantee it is what actually determines the outcome of a game.  Only way this can happen is if it happens in OT.

 

As for 3 on 3 situations, it's a far better option than shootouts.  Simply put, a 3 on 3 situation can happen during a playoff game, therefore it's not gimmicky at all imo.  It is still real hockey.

Just because it is possible for it to happen in a playoff game doesn't mean it is not a gimmick.  It is possible for teams to exchange 5 on 3 powerplays two minutes at a time until somebody scores, so based on your logic why don't they just do that for regular season overtime?  We would have even less shootouts that way than if we did 3 on 3. 

 

To me 3 on 3 overtime is not "real hockey" because it involves changing the fundamental rules of the sport based on what part of the game is taking place at the time.  Hockey teams practice for 5 on 5 play, it is what all their forechecks and breakouts etc are designed for.  Then they work on the powerplay and penalty kill because those are integral parts of every hockey game.  No team really prepares for 3 on 3 because it almost never happens, and the rarity of it demonstrates how vastly different it is from the norm.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#96 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:45 AM

the problem with 3 on 3 is that 4 defensemen are on the ice and defensemen do not tend to be good offensive players.   that and since it's 3 1 vs 1 matchups, it's going to be alot of first shots and not much follow up.   Even in that sequence, there was alot of excitement but not alot that would have resulted in a goal, other than Gelinas gambling and beating his man.


  • 0

#97 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,547 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 02:54 PM

Just because it is possible for it to happen in a playoff game doesn't mean it is not a gimmick.  It is possible for teams to exchange 5 on 3 powerplays two minutes at a time until somebody scores, so based on your logic why don't they just do that for regular season overtime?  We would have even less shootouts that way than if we did 3 on 3. 

 

To me 3 on 3 overtime is not "real hockey" because it involves changing the fundamental rules of the sport based on what part of the game is taking place at the time.  Hockey teams practice for 5 on 5 play, it is what all their forechecks and breakouts etc are designed for.  Then they work on the powerplay and penalty kill because those are integral parts of every hockey game.  No team really prepares for 3 on 3 because it almost never happens, and the rarity of it demonstrates how vastly different it is from the norm.

 

They do have 5 on 3 PP's in OT.  I've seen it done before.

 

To me anything that happens in playoff games is real hockey.  To me it's that simple.  So you can disagree with me all you want, but it's just the way I feel.

 

Regardless, I am not for 3 on 3 hockey.  What I am for is 10 minute OT.  I won't have any issues if they do go to a 3 on 3 format though.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#98 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,178 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:09 PM

They do have 5 on 3 PP's in OT.  I've seen it done before.

 

To me anything that happens in playoff games is real hockey.  To me it's that simple.  So you can disagree with me all you want, but it's just the way I feel.

 

Regardless, I am not for 3 on 3 hockey.  What I am for is 10 minute OT.  I won't have any issues if they do go to a 3 on 3 format though.

Yes, you saw it once a couple years ago when we played Ottawa. I have NEVER heard or seen of it before and literally half the arena was thinking aloud, "Why is there 5 people on the ice?". You are also saying the shootout is normal then because penalty shots exist in the playoffs.


  • 0

#99 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,547 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:20 PM

Yes, you saw it once a couple years ago when we played Ottawa. I have NEVER heard or seen of it before and literally half the arena was thinking aloud, "Why is there 5 people on the ice?". You are also saying the shootout is normal then because penalty shots exist in the playoffs.


It happened earlier this year I think.

And I already explained why shootouts and penalty shots aren't the same thing
  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#100 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,178 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:26 PM

It happened earlier this year I think.

And I already explained why shootouts and penalty shots aren't the same thing

It was a lame explanation. They're the exact same thing. The choice of who goes is not important at all.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users