Jump to content

Possible New OT rules


redruM

Recommended Posts

I must have been watching an entirely different game than you people. It was really conservative breakouts because they knew if they lost the puck, you're not getting it back until a save is made or a shot is missed.

You were. There were 2-3 good breaks for both teams and that was just for 2 minutes. It would be a lot more exciting over a 5 minute span, and especially once teams got used to it and designed up some plays. 3v3 was great, way better then a shootout. I agree 7, if it cant be settled after 2 rounds of that, bring back ties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were. There were 2-3 good breaks for both teams and that was just for 2 minutes. It would be a lot more exciting over a 5 minute span, and especially once teams got used to it and designed up some plays. 3v3 was great, way better then a shootout. I agree 7, if it cant be settled after 2 rounds of that, bring back ties. 

I'd much rather 10 mins of 4 on 4. I'd actually just prefer a tie or 10 mins of more 5 on 5 as the OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have been watching an entirely different game than you people. It was really conservative breakouts because they knew if they lost the puck, you're not getting it back until a save is made or a shot is missed.

 

That's the first 3 on 3 I enjoyed, because usually it is like this.  The breakouts were conservative, but still people managed to get open on both teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.