SHOOTOUT ROTTEN FROM START

[Derek21]

Also, while we're on topic, most people here were against shootouts.

So why couldn't an extra 2:00 of OT be tacked on first before using the shootout as a last resort?

[devlman]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

me too.maybe they can do it over and get it right this time...and any terrible ideas they come up with we should just accept blindly and profess our great love for them.

Edited September 19, 2005 by devlman

[Triumph]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See, this is what I don't understand. Players are at risk for injuries when they get out on the ice surface, regardless of what they're doing. I don't understand this love of protecting players - I hear it from Michael Kay all the time on Yankees broadcasts and it makes me absolutely sick, like players are frail eighty year old women who need protection. They are men in the prime of their life playing a sport that requires serious strain - some of them are going to get hurt, whether it's on shootouts, or during regular play, or in practice, or walking to the practice facility. To blame it on the shootout is just ridiculous - more players will be hurt because defensemen cannot hold up forwards at the blueline anymore, yet no one is complaining about that.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Triumph

[Triumph]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. If the sport isn't exactly the way I demand it to be, they shouldn't play it. Cancel all the games, refund all the money - it's MY sport, and they didn't even consult me! By the way, all my ideas for changing the sport are accepted by absolutely everyone - except the people who make the rules.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Triumph

[Derek21]

Tri, the shootout is a radical concept. It has no place deciding the outcome of points. The rule you're talking about might open up the game more at even strength in regulation and lead to more goals. It also might lead to more icings. That won't be known until the games.

But at least it's not like deciding a baseball game via a HR derby or an NBA game via a dunk contest.

They wanted shootouts. They said that fans wanted it too. They claim to have statistics that back it up. It's garbage.

Shootouts put more stress on goalies. So if Brodeur does the splits and say tears an ACL after making a big save on a meaningless penalty shot, how are you going to feel?

[brylin18]

yeah you got a point there derek.......what if jaromir jagr sprains his fallopian tube trying to score on a shootout when it wont matter since the rangers wont make the playoffs anyways? it could happen.

[Derek21]

Good stuff bry. At least I won't have anything to be disappointed about.

[ice dog]

shoot outs are cool. brooks is nutz.

[NJDevs4978]

To blame it on the shootout is just ridiculous - more players will be hurt because defensemen cannot hold up forwards at the blueline anymore, yet no one is complaining about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nor does anyone talk about the fact that not allowing goaltenders to play the puck in the corners will get more defensemen hurt.

I agree it's ridiculous to say shootouts are going to cause so many injuries. There are more than enough legitimate issues with shootouts anyway without trying to invent new ones, and besides there are going to be more than the usual amount of injuries anyway because of the long layoff (which is probably the real reason why Boucher got hurt, I'm not sure he really played anywhere during the lockout).

It's just really nitpicking to worry about the shootout being the cause of injuries. Goaltenders should be able to handle an average of, oh 30 or so meaningful shots a year on the shootout. I'm of the school that if someone's gonna get hurt they'll get hurt, goalies can more easily get hurt with Leaf goons crashing into the net as they can in a shootout

Edited September 19, 2005 by Hasan4978

[NJDevs4978]

Shootouts put more stress on goalies. So if Brodeur does the splits and say tears an ACL after making a big save on a meaningless penalty shot, how are you going to feel?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No worse than I'd feel if it happened on a penalty shot, if it happened in a scrum in front of the net, or in practice or preseason. Where do you draw the line? Should we abolish practice and preseason games too, since it's not right for goalies to get hurt anywhere but on the ice?

[NJD Jester]

That's a fair point, Hasan, about goalie injuries.

<JESTER>

[Darwindog]

Just another little part of Tri's why hockey needs a shoot out more than any other sport -- Is it just me or doesn't baseball have as tough a travel schedule as hockey? Why don't they have hit offs? In the event of a tie they have a hit/pitch off -- whoever hits the first homerun wins the game seems as reasonable right? And everyone knows we only watch baseball for the homeruns right?

I think you both are right depending on how you want to look at the situation.

[BlueSkirt]

As a fan for more than 25 years, I too was against the shootout & for all the reasons listed (team game etc) but after initially seeing the value of a tie (prior to the 4-on-4 solution) I came to realize that ties just have to go. And go completely.

I would've preferred a 10-minute OT before the shootout, but we can't have everything.

Please take a look at the last set of standings with the 4-on-4:

2003-2004 Standings

Nearly all teams have double-digit ties ! And Minnesota had 20.

Almost a quarter of their season went undecided, as far as a Win or Loss.

Then add in the OT Losses and you'll see just how many of each teams games were not decided in 60 mintues.

Before 4-on-4, 2/3 games that went into OT did not have a goal scored.

So it was like why play the OT at all?

Then the 4-on-4 came along and reduced that to about 1 of 2 games that don't get a goal.

So perhaps it can be said that 5 more minutes may reduce the percentage more, but would never eliminate a tie, and as stated bad ice means bad hockey.

Finally I've come around to saying that Yes, a game should be decided because after all it is a game. Ties are completely against the grain of why the contest was played in the first place. For all the logistical reasons (ice, time etc) the NHL had to accept ties as part of the business - but we were the only sport to continue to do so.

Yes, shootouts may suck for lots of old school fans, but the bottom line is the game gets decided. I too would've liked to see how the rules work before implementing the SO, but ya know what? -- I think it would've been inevitable.

So here it is, and it is here to stay.

There's alot of "new" in the new NHL, some of it good and some not so good.

But in 16 days we all get to enjoy it again.

[BlueSkirt]

Just another little part of Tri's why hockey needs a shoot out more than any other sport -- Is it just me or doesn't baseball have as tough a travel schedule as hockey?  Why don't they have hit offs? In the event of a tie they have a hit/pitch off -- whoever hits the first homerun wins the game   seems as reasonable right?  And everyone knows we only watch baseball for the homeruns right?

I think you both are right depending on how you want to look at the situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because Baseball games rarely go into more than 1-2 or maybe 3 extra innings.

If games were routinely tied, and the tied game took until the 14th or 15th inning to be decided you can bet baseball would be doing something about it.

See table 2 to see when Baseball extra-inning games are decided.

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/ScoringPattern.pdf

Edited September 19, 2005 by BlueSkirt

['7']

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

agreed, just think of this as purely an experimental season. They're going to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Hopefully the shootout and commander gary's trapezoid of stupidity go the way of cooperalls.

['7']

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See, this is what I don't understand. Players are at risk for injuries when they get out on the ice surface, regardless of what they're doing. I don't understand this love of protecting players - I hear it from Michael Kay all the time on Yankees broadcasts and it makes me absolutely sick, like players are frail eighty year old women who need protection. They are men in the prime of their life playing a sport that requires serious strain - some of them are going to get hurt, whether it's on shootouts, or during regular play, or in practice, or walking to the practice facility. To blame it on the shootout is just ridiculous - more players will be hurt because defensemen cannot hold up forwards at the blueline anymore, yet no one is complaining about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

holding up forwards at the blue line was never legal to begin with.

[StarDew]

OK 1 more try...did any of the pre-season games that had shootouts as a result of a tie after OT go pass 3 players on each team? What happens in reg games when the shoot out goes past 3 on each team? Go down the roster and if it reached the goalie then he has to try a shootout on the opposing goalie? If no one can answer this then I understand fully. Thnx if any one can or will

[BlueSkirt]

Dew, yew got it right. After the first 3 miss, then the coach has to go threw the rest of his roster before any of those 3 again.

And the day I see a 20+ round shootout....well, anything's possible.

Like Tri said elsewhere, possible but not feasible.

[bruins4777]

Dew, yew got it right. After the first 3 miss, then the coach has to go threw the rest of his roster before any of those 3 again.

And the day I see a 20+ round shootout....well, anything's possible.

Like Tri said elsewhere, possible but not feasible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there was one like that in the AHL this past season. everybody stood hte entire time. hershey vs. leafs(now the marlies)

Edited September 20, 2005 by bruins4777

[Triumph]

holding up forwards at the blue line was never legal to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither is cross-checking players in front of the net. Boy, you don't hear a lot of complaining about that, do you?

The NHL rulebook is unenforcable as it is written.

['7']

holding up forwards at the blue line was never legal to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither is cross-checking players in front of the net. Boy, you don't hear a lot of complaining about that, do you?

The NHL rulebook is unenforcable as it is written.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but players clearing the crease is not that vital to the entertainment value of the game, and that should be the NHL's #1 priority. You can't enforce everything, but make sure you're on top of the calls that keep the sport fun.

[StarDew]

Thank you Blue Skirt

[Darwindog]

Neither is cross-checking players in front of the net.  Boy, you don't hear a lot of complaining about that, do you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only because I never wanted to speak ill of my hero... but I still can't hold that one in! DRIVES ME NUTS because it's so irritating!