Proposed new playoff OT rule

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,535
353
Don't say anything at all
I'm not sure if this is the right place but it seems like it.

Recently the NFL radically changed how OT could end, by saying that an opening drive field goal could no longer end OT.

I'm proposing something similar in the NHL, by stating that all NHL playoff games must play an OT period to its full 20 minutes, regardless of whether a team scores in the period or not. Similar to the NFL this would allow both teams to score in the OT period.

If a team is leading after the extra 20 minutes then the game would be considered over. If not then we play another OT as usual.

An example of a team that would have been saved by this rule would be the 2016 Capitals - instead of being immediately eliminated in OT of Game 6 against the Pens, they would have merely fallen behind by one goal, they would have had a chance to tie, then take the lead if they tied the game.

This new rule allows playoff OT to diverge further from regular season OT (which remains sudden-death and continues to have the possibility of a shootout)
 
Last edited:

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,250
3,971
hockeygoalies.org
Let me begin by saying that I'm sure that there are some people who don't like NHL playoff overtime.

With that said, playoff overtime is awesome and just about every person agrees with that - even people who don't like hockey like playoff overtime.

You jumped right in proposing a significant rule change. Why not start with the beginning of the conversation - why the change? What is this change supposed to solve?
 

hangman005

Face for Radio, Voice for Silent Movies
Apr 19, 2015
25,794
34,473
Cloud 9
First time posting on the numbers board.... and first time visiting.

This is a really really really bad idea to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the first place... no need to change Playoff OT rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BM14 and MikeyDee

BTV

Registered User
Oct 12, 2005
191
7
Lewiston, Maine
You can't make something harder for one team without inherently making it easier for the other team. By this same thought process, you are making it easier for the team that gets scored upon first in OT because now they have not been eliminated. Therefore...it is now easier for that team to clinch a series in OT because you've given them a second chance. That offsets your thought of making it harder and it becomes a wash.

That being said, playoff sudden death OT has to be at the top of the list of what people DO like about hockey and it seems counter productive to try to fix something that isn't broken. Just imagine a Game 7 playoff OT where one team scores 4 times and the two teams are just playing out the clock by the end. You've taken a Game 7 sudden death OT and turned it into watching the 3rd period of a lopsided game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeyDee

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,250
3,971
hockeygoalies.org
I disagree. Walk-off home runs in baseball, buzzer beaters in basketball, and game winning scores in college football OT are much better.

I find all of your examples - although exciting - to be less exciting than an overtime playoff game-winner.

Regardless, the person you responded to did say "possibly".
 

tmg

Registered User
Jul 10, 2003
2,734
1,250
Ottawa
Pro: It eliminates the "fluke bounce" end to a game/series with no chance to recover

Even that, only sometimes. If the fluke bounce happens at 19:55 of the overtime, there's really no chance to recover then either. If the ideal is to always give the other team a chance to recover, then the 'bad solution' that would address that is to do something silly like play until one team scores, THEN start a ten minute clock to give the other team a chance to tie it up.
 

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,250
3,971
hockeygoalies.org
Of course, if you're a truly better team, then it's on you to ensure that the game doesn't reach a point where it can hinge on a fluke bounce.

With Edmonton/Calgary game seven in 1986, the Steve Smith play only "lost" the Oilers the game because they let it be that close to begin with (alternatively, because the Flames deserved to be there, too).
 

James Gryphon

Registered User
May 12, 2014
35
1
Texas
I seemed to remember that a top hockey league actually did do this back in the day. I thought it was the NHL, but after some research it seems that the NHL has always done it the current way; you have to go back to the NHA period to hear anything different, and even then it's not easy to find anything about this online from a straight Google search (a wiki just mentioning in passing that it used to be non-sudden death, as proposed in the OP, but not providing any sources).

That said, it's hard to say it should be changed ("back"), when they changed it to the current format
presumably for a reason, without knowing what that reason was. And there's some compelling reasons not to: It's been this way ever since the NHL was created, and it doesn't seem there's ever been any significant conversation about it, which is interesting in a sport that has dramatically changed in every other way, from equipment to the forward pass to the number of men on the ice. One part or another of the playoff format has been changed many times, but sudden death seems to be taken for granted. I dare say that everyone, from executives to players to fans, likes it the way that it is.

In a 'pure hockey' sense I think it's an interesting idea and that it needn't be "terrible" to do it now, but there's no reason to suppose it'd be as good or better either. The current format is exciting, saves time, and has worked for everyone for a century.
 
Last edited:

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,833
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
As someone who has watched every single second of every single playoff game for the last several years (and still go to work in the morning...it's a grueling circuit haha), there were very few things that could tear me away from the game I love...changing playoff overtime rules would be one of them (perhaps the only one)...that's a fabric of the game thing.

I'm generally open to most ideas, but anyone suggesting tampering with NHL playoff overtimes should be hung, drawn and quartered...
 

MeHateHe

Registered User
Dec 24, 2006
2,405
2,729
I seemed to remember that a top hockey league actually did do this back in the day. I thought it was the NHL, but after some research it seems that the NHL has always done it the current way; you have to go back to the NHA period to hear anything different, and even then it's not easy to find anything about this online from a straight Google search (a wiki just mentioning in passing that it used to be non-sudden death, as proposed in the OP, but not providing any sources).

That said, it's hard to say it should be changed ("back"), when they changed it to the current format
presumably for a reason, without knowing what that reason was. And there's some compelling reasons not to: It's been this way ever since the NHL was created, and it doesn't seem there's ever been any significant conversation about it, which is interesting in a sport that has dramatically changed in every other way, from equipment to the forward pass to the number of men on the ice. One part or another of the playoff format has been changed many times, but sudden death seems to be taken for granted. I dare say that everyone, from executives to players to fans, likes it the way that it is.

In a 'pure hockey' sense I think it's an interesting idea and that it needn't be "terrible" to do it now, but there's no reason to suppose it'd be as good or better either. The current format is exciting, saves time, and has worked for everyone for a century.
Hockey Canada's rule used to be something similar: 10 minutes for the first OT period (with no ice clean and no change of ends) and no sudden victory goal. The change was within my lifetime, but I can't recall exactly when.

All that being said, I can't see a single problem that is fixed by this solution. OT works well for the NHL as it is. Why fix something that ain't broke?
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
Recently the NFL radically changed how OT could end, by saying that an opening drive field goal could no longer end OT.

This makes sense in NFL where it is relatively easy to get into FG range. Otherwise the coin toss has too much influence on the outcome.

Sudden death goal of NHL playoffs keeps you at the edge of the seat for the whole OT. Perfect the way it is.
 

blood gin

Registered User
Jan 17, 2017
4,174
2,203
I would actually be for this rule in the regular season.

Have a full 5 minute 3 on 3. If it's still tied them proceed to a shootout (though I'd eliminate the shootout altogether)

It makes sudden death more special since it will only happen in the playoffs.
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,535
353
Don't say anything at all
I would actually be for this rule in the regular season.

Have a full 5 minute 3 on 3. If it's still tied them proceed to a shootout (though I'd eliminate the shootout altogether)

It makes sudden death more special since it will only happen in the playoffs.

You're missing the point. I'm trying to make clinching a series in OT harder.
 

White Pine

Registered User
May 26, 2011
355
5
upper ottawa valley
The thing is, in Football, having the opening drive gives you a fairly high chance of getting a point right off the batt. In hockey, this situation isn't a problem as winning the faceoff isn't as big of an advantage unless you win the faceoff and score without the other team even touching the puck, which rarely ever happens. So there's really no need for a hockey rule change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cole von cole

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->