Jump to content

Would this new rule give the Devils a chance?


Bonginator11
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the shootout is the equivalent of syphilis, then 3 mins of 4-on-4 and 4 mins of 3-on-3 followed by a shootout is more like crabs...still kind of ickey, but not as much. At least it could mean less shootouts, which I'm all for...never liked them and never will.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sick of the NHL letting the goddamn Red Wings make all the rules already :P

 

just do a 4 on 4 Overtime for ten minutes and play damned hockey!!

 

Not to mention ties never hurt anyone....ask the Bengals and Panthers!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd eliminate the shootout and just use the playoff format. Play until someone wins. If you want to do it 4 on 4, I'd be ok with that.

Or do like we used to do on NHL 94 back in the day, pull the goalies and whoever scores the most wins.

Edited to add, for our less than perceptive members, the NHL 94 part was a joke.

Edited by mfitz804
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd eliminate the shootout and just use the playoff format. Play until someone wins. If you want to do it 4 on 4, I'd be ok with that.

Or do like we used to do on NHL 94 back in the day, pull the goalies and whoever scores the most wins.

Edited to add, for our less than perceptive members, the NHL 94 part was a joke.

I am so happy to see that someone else played NHL 94 like that haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the shootout is the equivalent of syphilis, then 3 mins of 4-on-4 and 4 mins of 3-on-3 followed by a shootout is more like crabs...still kind of ickey, but not as much. At least it could mean less shootouts, which I'm all for...never liked them and never will.

This is basically how I feel. While 3 on 3 isn't really hockey, it much more closely resembles it than a shootout does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything except keeping the shootout. All it is, is a soccer-style gimmick for the casual fans who want a thrill. Outside of a true penalty shot, it's just not hockey-like to decide a close game based on who can beat a goalie one on one. I'll just be happy if one day, they come to their senses, get rid of the shootout, and if you still can't get a winner after dropping down to 3 on 3 then just call it a tie already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Continuous OT is impossible in a sport like hockey for the regular season. Too physical a game to do it for a sport where you can conceivably go multiple periods scoreless. Plus with the way the schedule is and 82 games a season no way the PA would allow it, TV would hate it, and I could live without watching a November game against the Jets or some other team I don't care about going multiple OTs.

 

2)Ties will never ever ever come back. There is a reason its compared to kissing your sister its really unsatisfying as a result. Many punchlines are made about how ties suck see Lisa on Ice episode of the Simpsons for example. With 1 in mind the only way to end a game is with the shootout. And don't give me the its not hockey crap. The penalty shot has been around for 80 years. Its hockey in its purest form.

 

3) Now this one is me speculating but I don't see 3 on 3 being this offensive Xanadu where coaches will not be defensive minded and play 2 forwards and one d-man and end to end rushes galore. It will be one player skating around not wanting to give up the puck but having no options to pass because there is one less forward out there. I'd be more in favor of 10 min 4 on 4 compared to splitting that 10 min between 4 on 4 and 3 on 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything except keeping the shootout. All it is, is a soccer-style gimmick for the casual fans who want a thrill. 

 

To soccer's credit, ending a game in a tie is actually the staple of soccer (and something that's proven to confuse/piss off the American viewership). Soccer penalty kicks/shootouts ironically only come in the Finals or as a result of other strange circumstances (aggregate ties, etc.). The shootout is more of a hockey staple than the penalty kick has ever been in soccer.

 

Accepting the concept of a tie game (even a scoreless tie game) would be truly emulating soccer.

Edited by DJ Eco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To soccer's credit, ending a game in a tie is actually the staple of soccer (and something that's proven to confuse/piss off the American viewership). Soccer penalty kicks/shootouts ironically only come in the Finals or as a result of other strange circumstances (aggregate ties, etc.). The shootout is more of a hockey staple than the penalty kick has ever been in soccer.

 

Accepting the concept of a tie game (even a scoreless tie game) would be truly emulating soccer.

 

And soccer is not popular in North America so why bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how continuous overtime over an 82 game season would be too exhausting. But shootouts are stupid, they decide the result of a hockey game by not playing hockey. Might as well wheel out a basketball hoop and play a quick game of HORSE to decide the winner. Letting a skills competition decide who gets the extra point is dumb.

And I thought that before we ever started sucking donkey balls in the shootout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always liked the idea of 3v3 OT before a SO, even when NJ was winning in the SO years back. It is the best mix between entertainment and keeping the team sport mentality. I simply don't like seeing one of the most team oriented games out there decided on individual talent. 3v3 and 4v4 forces players to still make plays. While talent helps, in the end, it's still hockey as opposed to just a 1 on 1 situation. Penalty shots should be brought back as the exciting rarity they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how continuous overtime over an 82 game season would be too exhausting. But shootouts are stupid, they decide the result of a hockey game by not playing hockey. Might as well wheel out a basketball hoop and play a quick game of HORSE to decide the winner. Letting a skills competition decide who gets the extra point is dumb.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shot_%28ice_hockey%29

 

Been around for 80 years so how much longer does it have to be before its considered hockey? 3 on 3 never happens in the course of a 5 on 5 game so why is it okay to go to that version of the game but a shootout is an afront to the hockey god

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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