Change OT to 3v3

[Hawksfan2828]

3 vs 3 would be a bizarre faceoff - the players would have to line up in a triangle.

 

[cujoflutie]

Bottom line; playing 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 is still playing hockey and encompassing all skills and elements of the sports.

Alternating shootouts are not.

The fact that shootout fans even argue any different further proves the fact that they are at best casual hockey fans.


If they don't want to extend OT the obvious solution is reducing shootout wins from 2 points to 1. Problem solved; shootouts don't distort the standings and shootout fans still get to see them.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Its getting good reviews in the AHL so hopefully it wont be long till the NHL has it.

 

[FLYLine27*]

And what happens when that penalty expires? A player from the team on the PP is supposed to run off the ice? Or the team on the PK gets another player back making it 4 on 4 again till the next whistle?

It's really not that simple.

Seems extremely simple to me...

 

[cujoflutie]

Seems extremely simple to me...

That's the way the current OT rules works any how;

if a team takes two penalties to go 2 men short in OT, the other team gets to put another player on (so assuming they are at full strength it is 5 on 3); the first stoppage of play after the expiration of the first penalty the teams revert to their normal strength.

So for instance team takes two penalties in OT to go 2 men short, they'd play 5 on 3. After the first penalty ends, they go up to 5 on 4. The next stoppage of play each team loses a player. So yes it is possible to still have 5 on 5 in OT if a team goes 2 men short and kills both penalties in the same shift.

 

[Jacob]

I'd expect 3-on-3 to be pretty boring.

Teams would be way, way too apprehensive to make a mistake, because it's almost a certainty that the counter-attack will result in a really good scoring chance. So I think you'd see the team with possession not do a whole lot, but also not want to give it up.

 

[cujoflutie]

I'd expect 3-on-3 to be pretty boring.

Teams would be way, way too apprehensive to make a mistake, because it's almost a certainty that the counter-attack will result in a really good scoring chance. So I think you'd see the team with possession not do a whole lot, but also not want to give it up.

It's not boring whenever it does happen and keep in mind the majority of time it does happen currently is in OT when each team takes a penalty at separate times.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

3 vs 3 against the Hawks would be unfair... Most teams have a difficult time 5 vs 5..

The problem with 3 vs 3 is that some teams would have an extreme advantage over others.

For example, what do you do when say the Hawks put Sharp, Toews and Kane on the ice? You have to roll defensive players in that situation rather than offensive players because you're gong to get smoked if you don't. However on the flip side of that coin your defensive players are hardly scorers...

 

[hotpaws]

all this talk about revamping o/t in hockey has made me think about what could be done in other sports

I think baseball should go with

8 fielders in the 10th inning
7 fielders in the 11th inning

and if the game still isn't decided in that time frame they should go with a home run contest and also switch to a points system

4pts for a regulation win
3pts for a extra inning win
2pts for a home run hitting contest win
1pt for a loss in extra innings or in the home run contest
0pts for reg inning loss

thoughts ?

 

[Frozen Fiend]

The 3 on 3 is showing to be very effective in the AHL... that's a fact.

Furthermore, 3 on 3 is much closer to "real hockey" than a shootout is. And yes, shootouts and penalty shots have many differences. Penalty shots come from an infraction that occurred in regulation play (5 on 5 or similar). A Penalty shot is one player vs one goalie, and it's worth either one goal, or zero goals. A shootout is a forced circumstance facing a minimum of four players from two teams against two goalies, and they're always worth one goal.

You can't logically say a shootout and a penalty shot are the same thing, because they just aren't.

 

[Roomtemperature]

The 3 on 3 is showing to be very effective in the AHL... that's a fact.

Furthermore, 3 on 3 is much closer to "real hockey" than a shootout is. And yes, shootouts and penalty shots have many differences. Penalty shots come from an infraction that occurred in regulation play (5 on 5 or similar). A Penalty shot is one player vs one goalie, and it's worth either one goal, or zero goals. A shootout is a forced circumstance facing a minimum of four players from two teams against two goalies, and they're always worth one goal.

You can't logically say a shootout and a penalty shot are the same thing, because they just aren't.

The penalty shot and the shootout are the same thing. Why? Because the mechanics are the same damned thing.

 

[The Noot]

Bottom line; playing 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 is still playing hockey and encompassing all skills and elements of the sports.

Alternating shootouts are not.

The fact that shootout fans even argue any different further proves the fact that they are at best casual hockey fans.


If they don't want to extend OT the obvious solution is reducing shootout wins from 2 points to 1. Problem solved; shootouts don't distort the standings and shootout fans still get to see them.

I'd be careful with throwing the words "casual hockey fans" around if you can't even grasp the simple concept of 3v3 hockey being more rare and therefore less defining for the game of hockey than penalty shots are.

Both are gimmicks and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Frozen Fiend]

The penalty shot and the shootout are the same thing. Why? Because the mechanics are the same damned thing.

You really put a lot of thought into that response. I'll be sure to reciprocate.

The mechanics are not the same damned thing.

 

[Frozen Fiend]

I don't see what's wrong with the way the AHL is doing it (aside from how points are awarded).

They still use the shootout, only difference being fewer are required. No ties happen in either league.

 

[The Noot]

You really put a lot of thought into that response. I'll be sure to reciprocate.

The mechanics are not the same damned thing.

I'd be very interested in you enlightening us how a penalty shot and a shootout attempt are different in terms of mechanics.

 

[Frozen Fiend]

I'd be very interested in you enlightening us how a penalty shot and a shootout attempt are different in terms of mechanics.

We would probably wind up arguing over the meaning behind the word "mechanics", as I already pointed out the many differences between how the two work.

 

[Roomtemperature]

We would probably wind up arguing over the meaning behind the word "mechanics", as I already pointed out the many differences between how the two work.

Mechanics are the actual act and not how we got there

Refs puts puck in center ice and a skater takes the put and goes one on one with the goalie. Those are the mechanics of a penalty shot and the shootout.

 

[tsujimoto74]

Not sure how 3-on-3 hockey is any less gimmicky than a shootout.

 

[Frozen Fiend]

Mechanics are the actual act and not how we got there

Refs puts puck in center ice and a skater takes the put and goes one on one with the goalie. Those are the mechanics of a penalty shot and the shootout.

Going by your definition then I completely agree they are the same.

But your "mechanics" are not the only thing that needs to be considered here. And i'm not just talking about "how we got there", although that is very important. You also need to consider what they're worth, the amount of players being used, frequency in which they happen, etc.

3 on 3 is still gimmicky, but you have to agree it's less gimmicky than a shootout. There's passing, plays, player on player defense, hitting, and special teams.

The proposed change still has shootouts, just go through the 3 on 3 filter first. It's either the gimmicks or ties.

 

[The Noot]

We would probably wind up arguing over the meaning behind the word "mechanics", as I already pointed out the many differences between how the two work.

Player A takes a penalty shot against goalie X

I doesn't matter if this scenario is during the regular game time or a part of a shootout. It's the exact same rules which are getting applied until the shot is taken. It's the framework of those scenarios which is different.

But that's also the case for 3v3 OT vs a natural 3v3 situation. The players a coach can choose are limited during a natural 3v3 situation, as there will be people in the penalty box during said situation. Also, the 3v3 OT ends the entire game as soon as a goal is scored, which already makes it a lot different in comparison to a natural 3v3.

See? I can also move goal posts.

As I said, the action in itself is exactly the same. And as I said earlier, both are gimmicks.

 

[Frozen Fiend]

As I said, the action in itself is exactly the same. And as I said earlier, both are gimmicks.

How about this. Neither the shootout nor 3 on 3 are a fair representation of how well a team played that night. But, I would say 3 on 3 is a significantly better measure than the shootout. Agree?

 

[Roomtemperature]

How about this. Neither the shootout nor 3 on 3 are a fair representation of how well a team played that night. But, I would say 3 on 3 is a significantly better measure than the shootout. Agree?

Nope. Hell with games I've seen where a team gets 40 plus shots and can't score a goal and the other team gets a lucky one 5 on 5 isn't a great measure that night.

Shootout, 3 on 3, 4 on 4 and 5 on 5 all have a different skill set needed to succeed and win at as a team. The problem is to call any of those not hockey because you or I hate it is just not right. You can hate something but all these skills competition, not hockey and what ever just feel like talking points made up by some weird political mind that hates the shootout and wants to belittle it.

 

[Frozen Fiend]

Nope. Hell with games I've seen where a team gets 40 plus shots and can't score a goal and the other team gets a lucky one 5 on 5 isn't a great measure that night.

Shootout, 3 on 3, 4 on 4 and 5 on 5 all have a different skill set needed to succeed and win at as a team. The problem is to call any of those not hockey because you or I hate it is just not right. You can hate something but all these skills competition, not hockey and what ever just feel like talking points made up by some weird political mind that hates the shootout and wants to belittle it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't totally understand your last sentence... but there's no need to be condescending.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

The 3 on 3 is showing to be very effective in the AHL... that's a fact.

Furthermore, 3 on 3 is much closer to "real hockey" than a shootout is. And yes, shootouts and penalty shots have many differences. Penalty shots come from an infraction that occurred in regulation play (5 on 5 or similar). A Penalty shot is one player vs one goalie, and it's worth either one goal, or zero goals. A shootout is a forced circumstance facing a minimum of four players from two teams against two goalies, and they're always worth one goal.

You can't logically say a shootout and a penalty shot are the same thing, because they just aren't.

So why do you hate the SO?

Why not end a game in a SO?

IMO, the only thing it's done for me was dedramatize the penalty shot. I think the shootout is certainly an exciting way to end a game (mostly)...

I can understand how some may think differently if they don't have star players that can pull entertaining moves like Patrick Kane or Toews. I certainly wouldn't want to see the 2003 Blackhawks in a shootout either lol.

 

[starling]

4 min of 4-on-4, then 3 min of 3-on-3. It's pretty much done deal for next(or after next) season.