I know the fans like the darn thing. But Randy and I both hate the thing. Go 10 minute ot and call it a day.
Five Minute Major
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 11:55am
This fan doesn't like shootouts at all! I can't watch the other guys shoot, I have to let the crowd reactions tell me what happened...
GameMisconduct
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 4:05pm
I'm not a big fan of a shootout but it's a LOT better than a tie IMO
Blake Sebring
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 5:45pm
I'd much rather have a shootout than guys playing defensive and not to lose.
RobC
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:06pm
I'm with Blake and GM on this... shootouts are a wildly imperfect way to settle a game, but I'd rather have it settled than have things end in a tie and watch teams playing not-to-lose.
Steve
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:24pm
Dump the shoot out. Five minute 5 on 5 sudden death or tie (OK, I'll settle for the 4 on 4). It's a team sport, not one shooter vs the goalie. We don't see basketball ties settled by a free throw contest (or a game of horse), football by a field goal competition, or baseball with a home run derby kind of ending, why hockey?
How about 5 minute sudden death OT, home team starts five and visitors get four for the first minute, maybe two? Call it home ice advantage. Or toss a coin to see who starts out short handed. Might address the issue of playing defensive not to lose, especially in the first scenario if you're the visiting team.
GameMisconduct
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 8:11pm
No way do teams allow themselves to start OT at a disadvantage. I think they should do OT just like they do in the playoffs...Regular rules, 20 mins sudden death, play until you have a winner
BlueLineBaby
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 8:46pm
I agree with GM on even-strength teams. No coach in his right mind would agree to less! But not a 20 minute OT period. After 3- 20 minute periods, these guys are just exhausted. Try 5 minute OT periods. That's more realistic. And sudden death has never made sense to me, either....seems like they should just set the clock for 5 minutes, play till it's done, then go from there. Could you have a double OT? Sure. You could have the same if no one scores, too.
Hoss
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:03pm
One of the rule changes that the NHL was trying out at their "hockey school" was playing a ten min OT starting with a 5 on 5 and after every 2 mins. it drops to a 4 on 4, then 3 on 3 for the rest of the time. I think it would be pretty fun, rather than a shoot out. It would really open the ice and would cost a team not on top of their game. One bad change and it's a 2-1 break easy.
BlueLineBaby
Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:13pm
Hoss, we do that in our house league scrimmages....it's pretty fun for the kids, and yeah, it works pretty well. It's a little hard to get used to at first, but it's cool. The only thing hard would be scoring (I mean for the scorekeepers and coaches, like who's on first, what's on second, especially if there's a penalty!)....but I'm sure we'd all get used to that too.
Comments
I know the fans like the darn thing. But Randy and I both hate the thing. Go 10 minute ot and call it a day.
This fan doesn't like shootouts at all! I can't watch the other guys shoot, I have to let the crowd reactions tell me what happened...
I'm not a big fan of a shootout but it's a LOT better than a tie IMO
I'd much rather have a shootout than guys playing defensive and not to lose.
I'm with Blake and GM on this... shootouts are a wildly imperfect way to settle a game, but I'd rather have it settled than have things end in a tie and watch teams playing not-to-lose.
Dump the shoot out. Five minute 5 on 5 sudden death or tie (OK, I'll settle for the 4 on 4). It's a team sport, not one shooter vs the goalie. We don't see basketball ties settled by a free throw contest (or a game of horse), football by a field goal competition, or baseball with a home run derby kind of ending, why hockey?
How about 5 minute sudden death OT, home team starts five and visitors get four for the first minute, maybe two? Call it home ice advantage. Or toss a coin to see who starts out short handed. Might address the issue of playing defensive not to lose, especially in the first scenario if you're the visiting team.
No way do teams allow themselves to start OT at a disadvantage. I think they should do OT just like they do in the playoffs...Regular rules, 20 mins sudden death, play until you have a winner
I agree with GM on even-strength teams. No coach in his right mind would agree to less! But not a 20 minute OT period. After 3- 20 minute periods, these guys are just exhausted. Try 5 minute OT periods. That's more realistic. And sudden death has never made sense to me, either....seems like they should just set the clock for 5 minutes, play till it's done, then go from there. Could you have a double OT? Sure. You could have the same if no one scores, too.
One of the rule changes that the NHL was trying out at their "hockey school" was playing a ten min OT starting with a 5 on 5 and after every 2 mins. it drops to a 4 on 4, then 3 on 3 for the rest of the time. I think it would be pretty fun, rather than a shoot out. It would really open the ice and would cost a team not on top of their game. One bad change and it's a 2-1 break easy.
Hoss, we do that in our house league scrimmages....it's pretty fun for the kids, and yeah, it works pretty well. It's a little hard to get used to at first, but it's cool. The only thing hard would be scoring (I mean for the scorekeepers and coaches, like who's on first, what's on second, especially if there's a penalty!)....but I'm sure we'd all get used to that too.