SHOOTOUT ROTTEN FROM START

[Rock]

SHOOTOUT ROTTEN FROM START

by Larry Brooks

http://www.nypost.com/sports/53608.htm

September 18, 2005 -- THE pulled groin suffered by Phoenix goaltender Brian Boucher Friday night on the first shot of the opening exhibition's post-game exhibition shootout is a vivid reminder of why the players need a strong union looking out for their own interests.

Yes, there's risk in hockey, but a meaningless post-game skills display isn't hockey. It's distressing and depressing that the NHL hierarchy would choose to promote and feature a gimmick

[bruins4777]

he makes some good points, but nonetheless using the boucher to lead into the article is weak. He pulls his groin 9 out of 10 times its his own poor conditioning.

[Don]

If penalty shots are a likely cause of injury, then why do any team allow their goalies to go to all star games?

[Triumph]

Because the union is stupid there, too - they shouldn't let their players have fun at the All-Star game without cold, hard cash up front.

What a joke this article is. Larry Brooks should look at his haggard, awful face in the mirror and wonder why he's covering a sport he now hates - a sport where he talks more about union-management relations and its impact on everything else rather than anything else in the game. He really is a Marxist hockey writer.

Oddly enough, I do agree with him on shootouts - that the league should have waited a year or two to see how the offensive rules open up the game, before dropping the shootout in. Shootouts will be fun in October and November, but deciding key games in March and April will be a little different, I think.

[sundstrom]

i just keep thinking of the rant that DM posted several months ago that basically said that this sport really doesn't have a chance to succeed when the writers that cover it in the biggest market in the world hates the game.

the NHL should sanction him.

[CRASHER]

he's right about the shootout though.. and i'm even MORE against them now that I saw one last night with our BONUS VALUE PREVIEW they're garbage and an individual glorofied talent show should NEVER determine the outcome of a TEAM sport... period (it's funny cause as against shootouts I am, I am just as much for them calling farooqing penalty shots as should be... cause at least you EARN the shot in the context of the game)

I also think he's right about certain vets (Rheaume) never getting called up now cause of the cap

but as for the "a strong union would stop the shootout"... last I remember a lot of players were FOR the shootout... or am I wrong ?

[KarlovyVary]

I kind of like the CBA regarding waivers.

It's mentioned that players who get sent down from the minors won't get called back up, but teams are going to have to evaluate more closely what they do concerning the fringe players.

Montreal lost Chad Kilger at the trade deadline last season, and he helped out Toronto a lot.

I hate it when teams call a player up, gives him limited playing time, then sends him back down a game later.

[Don]

I think the NHLPA would be FOR, FOR, FOR the shootouts because while it irritates the hard-core fan, it may well draw in a few new fans. The hard-core ain't goin' no place, so that revenue already counts. They want to try stuff that will bring in more revenue.

Remember it was PA-friendly Shannahan that said go ahead with the shoot-outs....

[UnderDogX]

I agree, Don...and I know I'm gonna get strung up for this but I like the idea of the shoot out (regular season not EVERY exhibition though). I mean (with the exception of exhibition games) it's only going to be implimented after overtime anyway, not in place of it. Gimmicky? yes. But you have to think about the NHL realising two things after this lockout. 1.) The hardcore fans are coming back regardless because they are just that, hardcore fans. and 2.) Casual fans and people who don't care about hockey are going to stay just that unless something happens. So growing up in TX, where hockey is at least 8th on the list of popular sports behind bowling and fondling yourself (joke) then you have to understand that from a point where the NHL isn't even sure if it can survive after the lockout much less thrive then certain things are going to have to change. Evolution...you really think it was player safety they had in mind when they implemented visors or helmets...NO...it's protecting the safety of what's making the money and if you have a really fast player (most likely a good player if he's fast and skilled) who gets rammed into the boards after a breakaway with no helmet then you could easily lose that star for a very long time. And thus possibly turn a team into a losing team and losing fan base which equals $$$. I understand the hesitation behind it but in the end if it isn't making money and players are getting hurt then I'm sure it would be taken away. So, relax and watch hockey...because I just look as it as a way to see the skilled at their best. Of course this is just my opinion

Edited September 18, 2005 by UnderDogX

[SueNJ97]

But Underdog, the so-called casual fan would have to sit through an entire game on television that they still don't understand or really care about before GETTING to the shoot out. Yeah, right. How many of them are likely to do it??? Especially once the NBA starts?

If they DO manage to make it through an entire game when they didn't before, then they were pulled in by the new rule changes and there was no need for the farce of a shootout. Otherwise, they weren't going to make it all the way through.

[Triumph]

I have gotten strung up for this numerous times, and I don't care -

Every other team sport has a way of settling the game within the confines of the game - most baseball games end after 9 innings, most football games end after sixty minutes, most basketball games end after 48 minutes. Hockey does not have this. Due to the limitations of playing on a surface that deteriorates as the game is played, and due to the fact that teams very often have to leave the arena and get on a flight to some other city, it is impossible to have sudden death overtime in regular season hockey.

Ties, to me, are rarely a good way of settling a game. This leads to teams 'playing for the tie', something completely anathema to ANY COMPETITIVE SPORT. The NHL introduced the gimmick of 4 on 4 because there was no other way to prevent coaches from playing for a tie. In my opinion, only 20% of ties are justified, where two teams have played an even game - the other 80%, there just wasn't enough time to decide the winner.

Shootouts are therefore an entertaining way to end the game - not the best solution, but to me a slightly better solution than ties. It will give a conclusive winner to every game, rarely will teams play for the shootout (there's so much luck involved that no one team can truly say they have an advantage over another), and most importantly, get hockey back on SportsCenter with exciting breakaway goals. Sue says the casual fan won't stick around for it - fine, especially with the fact that hockey has two intermissions, the greatest barrier to its widespread approval - but the casual fan watches SportsCenter and will see the highlights - perhaps enough to have them check out some games from time to time.

Edited September 18, 2005 by Triumph

[UnderDogX]

I agree with the above post. Shootouts are not a perfect solution but it is a good solution to one of the big problems with drawing in fans which is ties. But, SueNJ, I should have corrected myself, the rule changes would bring them in but the shootout would add some finality to the situation. What I meant was that I like the idea of a shoot out and the NHL added that (along with the new rules) as a money marketing scheme to bring in casual fans. I kind of derailed myself when talking about why I feel the NHL put in the shoot out but overall I meant the new rules as well as the shootout and my main statement was just the fact that I do like the idea of a shootout. I just think that is it too often in the past NHL that I've sat through a game only to be dissapointed with a tie (especially if I'm actually at the game). It is just beyond my comprehension, i guess, that even a hardcore fan can walk away from a tied game and say, " oh man, that was a great game!" Again that's just me.

Two hockey fans walking to their car after a Devils/Rangers game (final score Devils 0 Rangers 0)

Guy 1: oh man that was awesome, don't you think?

Guy 2: yeah dude, that was great. I loved when Gomez almost scored.

Guy 1: oh i know, but I got a little worried when Jagr almost scored.

Guy 2: yeah yeah, but when Mogilny almost scored, that was awesome.

Guy 1: ooooh yeah, great game.

Guy 2: yeah great game.

I just don't see that

Edited September 18, 2005 by UnderDogX

[KarlovyVary]

^ While I agree with most of what you said, that situation doesn't go for all teams.

I know that whenever the Senators tie, it's always 2-2 or 3-3, 4-4 or whatever. This means that the other teams exploited our defense very well, and usually it seems fitting that the game would end in a tie.

Now, if the Sens screw up and tie in a game, instead of a wake up call, they get the pleasure of creaming the other team in the shootout.

(This is assuming of course that Spezza and Havlat can put their skills to good use.)

[bruins4777]

(This is assuming of course that Spezza and Havlat can put their skills to good use.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

havlat may be to busy with alfredsson slashing away the opposition like they worked in a butcher's shop

[StarDew]

In these pre-season game shootouts, are they going pass the 3 allowed? Doesn't this crappy rull say something about if no score after 3 player shootout then they start with the rest of the team and the 1st 3 cannot participate?? If there is no score in shootout and it comes to the goalie that he must participate in the shootout? I agree that this gimmick is just that, a gimmick, however I still think the 4 0n 4 OT is another gimmick. Anyway...did they have a chance to go further than 3 players on each team?

[NJD Jester]

I have gotten strung up for this numerous times, and I don't care -

Every other team sport has a way of settling the game within the confines of the game - most baseball games end after 9 innings, most football games end after sixty minutes, most basketball games end after 48 minutes.  Hockey does not have this.  Due to the limitations of playing on a surface that deteriorates as the game is played, and due to the fact that teams very often have to leave the arena and get on a flight to some other city, it is impossible to have sudden death overtime in regular season hockey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullsh!t. Bullsh!t, bullsh!t, bullsh!t, and one more time, bullsh!t.

They never even attempted to find a solution. When did the NHL roll out 4-on-4 for 20 minutes? 15 minutes? 12 minutes? Three-on-three for 10 minutes? Because in 5 minutes of 4-on-4, we've seen end to end action and, more often than not, a goal scored to end the game. It isn't impossible to have sudden death overtime in the regular season -- not by a longshot. It's just that the NHL wanted to have its SportsCenter friendly gimmick instead of actually trying something that might fairly end a team sporting event. The fact that they aren't going to have the same format for the regular season and the postseason not only makes the shootout a joke, but the entire NHL regular season as well.

<JESTER>

[Derek21]

Injuries happen. But this is what they wanted. So, if a goalie gets hurt, they have no one else to blame.

[Satans Hockey]

I agree that this gimmick is just that, a gimmick, however I still think the 4 0n 4 OT is another gimmick.

Edited September 18, 2005 by Satans Child

[Triumph]

I have gotten strung up for this numerous times, and I don't care -

Every other team sport has a way of settling the game within the confines of the game - most baseball games end after 9 innings, most football games end after sixty minutes, most basketball games end after 48 minutes.

Edited September 18, 2005 by Triumph

[Satans Hockey]

It still should go back to how it used to be, 2 points for a win and 0 points for a loss, teams shouldnt get a point for just making it to overtime. I wish they never changed that rule.

[NJD Jester]

The only thing that's a joke here is your unwillingness to see your own hypocrisy - fans like yourself despised the 4 on 4 and called it a gimmick - but now, it's apparently the way to go?  Let's not forget the ONLY reason the 4 on 4 works is because of the 'gimmick' extra point included - otherwise there's no way coaches roll out there with 3 forwards and 1 D, and there's no way they attack as much as they do.

With 4-on-4, in regulation or overtime, there's naturally going to be more attacking because of the open ice and the fact that teams that play a system can't play the same defense. The flow of 4-on-4 hockey has nothing to do with a bonus point -- it's just the natural flow of the game.

As for hypocrisy, I hardly think someone who might have had doubts about 4-on-4 calling the shootout a pathetic gimmick is hypocritical because there's no basis of comparison between the formats. If I endorsed 3-on-3, then you'd have a beef. But the shootout has nothing to do with 3-on-3, 4-on-4, or certainly 5-on-5.

Bad ice surfaces are part of the reason, IMO.  While Derek is waxing self-righteous as usual, longer overtimes with no fresh ice means more injuries than a shootout would incur - ice gets bad enough in some places by the end of the third period, now you want to skate out there for 10 more minutes? 15?

Bad ice surfaces also mean bad bounces, which in 4-on-4 hockey mean game-ending offensive chances.

It is not impossible to have sudden death overtime, just a very difficult logistical proposition.

Ah, I see. I guess that's why you wrote: "it is impossible to have sudden death overtime in regular season hockey."

But since you're smarter than the players owners and general managers, I ask:  why did they drop from the 10 minute overtime format to 5 minutes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did a little research and couldn't find any reason for it. Anyone know?

<JESTER>

[Triumph]

With 4-on-4, in regulation or overtime, there's naturally going to be more attacking because of the open ice and the fact that teams that play a system can't play the same defense. The flow of 4-on-4 hockey has nothing to do with a bonus point -- it's just the natural flow of the game.

*sigh* - that's wrong, or else there wouldn't be a bonus point. The reason for the bonus point is so that teams attack. While you are right to say that there is more room, without the bonus point, teams are going to forecheck one guy and hold back three - and that second defender will *never* pinch. Again, do you really think Robinson sends out Elias, Arnott, Sykora, Niedermayer if he doesn't get a point for losing?

Bad ice surfaces also mean bad bounces, which in 4-on-4 hockey mean game-ending offensive chances.

Works both ways. Bad ice surfaces make passes difficult, which makes offense difficult. Bottom line is that hockey played on bad ice is usually bad hockey.

Ah, I see. I guess that's why you wrote: "it is impossible to have sudden death overtime in regular season hockey."

I only backtracked because it is possible, just like Communism is possible and the sun not rising tomorrow is possible. There is a difference between unfeasible and impossible - so if you like, now it's 'unfeasible'.

Did a little research and couldn't find any reason for it. Anyone know?

Doc and Chico have always said it is because it fatigued the players. Obviously that's from memory, but hopefully Sue or some of the fans who've been around a long time can remember.

[devlman]

If penalty shots are a likely cause of injury, then why do any team allow their goalies to go to all star games?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the all star game is one game for about 6 goalies, not hundreds of games with hundreds of goalies.

each day makes me less enthused about the season with these assinine rules

[Don]

each day makes me less enthused about the season with these assinine rules

With all this complaining and whining, I yearn for another lockout. You know, I hope they throw Saskin out and bring back Goodenow.

[Derek21]

I'm self-righteous because I gave my view Tri? Ha.

The majority of players wanted shootouts. They didn't think everything out though, like goalies being at risk to injuries. So I have no sorrow whatsoever.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Derek21