News Article: 3 on 3 OT?

[Latrappe]

Let's hope it will happen. Very exciting hockey who will 99% of the game going in OT.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-overtime-general-managers-meetings/24812537/

Click to read more...

 

[wintersej]

It's certainly going to happen, and I can't wait.

 

[talkinaway]

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I can deal with a 5% chance of a shootout - that's 4 games per year.

That said, can't the "real games don't end in ties" folks deal with a tie game four times per year? With only 4 games on average per team per year, there's no way to tell if a team in general, or an individual player, is good or bad at shootouts, and no reason to practice penalty shots other than the 1 or 2 times per year that you actually get a penalty shot. It's REALLY delving into coin flip territory.

 

[Artemis]

And they'll discuss video review to determine goalie interference? Yes please.

 

[Strange Universe]

I am glad to hear about the league looking at the possibility of 3 on 3 and the goalie interference review as well.
These are positive changes if they do come into fruition as quickly as next year.

 

[MAINE-IAC]

And they'll discuss video review to determine goalie interference? Yes please.

I'm with you. Goalies are treated too much like queens IMO. And bring on the 3 on 3

 

[EverettMike]

I hate it. Hate it hate it hate it.

Just expand the 4-4 to 8 minutes before the shootout.

 

[neelynugs]

I hate it. Hate it hate it hate it.

Just expand the 4-4 to 8 minutes before the shootout.

that's such a clode thing to say. 3 on 3 will be awesome. why do you not like awesome?

 

[EverettMike]

that's such a clode thing to say. 3 on 3 will be awesome. why do you not like awesome?

It just is too gimmicky. I don't think it is fun to watch. It isn't hockey to me, it is something else.

 

[22Brad Park]

I'm with you. Goalies are treated too much like queens IMO. And bring on the 3 on 3

Be easier get to Price hear the complaining from MTL already lol

 

[JoeIsAStud]

It just is too gimmicky. I don't think it is fun to watch. It isn't hockey to me, it is something else.

It's closer to hockey then the tiddlywinks match they use to decide games now.

Good grief watching them play rock-paper-scissor-lizard-spock out on the ice after overtime would be more exciting than the shootout is.

And the worst part is the rare penalty shot in games used to be a remarkably exciting event the couple times a year you saw one, now the thought of it at any time disgusts me

 

[ThomasJ13]

It's closer to hockey then the tiddlywinks match they use to decide games now.

Good grief watching them play rock-paper-scissor-lizard-spock out on the ice after overtime would be more exciting than the shootout is.

And the worst part is the rare penalty shot in games used to be a remarkably exciting event the couple times a year you saw one, now the thought of it at any time disgusts me

I agree. In fact in watching a couple of 3 on 3 OT's, it looks more like hockey than a gimmick to me. And even if it is a gimmick, it's infinitely more exciting and intriguing than the current gimmick is, or ever was.

 

[C77]

Or they could just make it possible to score more goals during the actual game itself which would lead to fewer tied scores heading into overtime.

I don't bother to watch most of the games these days because of the lack of scoring chances and monstrous goaltenders.

 

[wetcamelfood]

Bring it on. At least there is still responsibility to play the game 3 on 3 unlike the shootout where all of that disappears.

 

[EverettMike]

But why can't 4-4 be extended to 8 minutes? That's what I don't get about this proposal.

 

[ODAAT]

Let's hope it will happen. Very exciting hockey who will 99% of the game going in OT.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-overtime-general-managers-meetings/24812537/

at least it will be a hockey/team play that decides the winner and not a skills contest

Either way, I`m still old school, never had any issues with the ties but I`m with Mike, why not extend the 4 on 4?

 

[Bad Hat Harry]

It just is too gimmicky. I don't think it is fun to watch. It isn't hockey to me, it is something else.

Seems like another streethockey-like proposal that doesn't measure team the ability or strength of your whole team.

I don't really understand what was wrong with having one 5 v 5 overtime and then end in a tie.

 

[Kate08]

3 on 3 is just as much of a gimmick as the shootout. A better gimmick, but still a gimmick.

 

[EverettMike]

3 on 3 is just as much of a gimmick as the shootout. A better gimmick, but still a gimmick.

Yeah, and so is 4-4. Out of those 3 options, 4-4 is most like hockey.

So considering the shootout is going nowhere, why not just extend 4-4 instead of then doing a second but worse gimmick before the shootout?

 

[Scotto74]

Seems like another streethockey-like proposal that doesn't measure team the ability or strength of your whole team.

I don't really understand what was wrong with having one 5 v 5 overtime and then end in a tie.

That would be my answer as well. even if not a full period then make the 5 v 5 10 min and then call it a night. Why change the rules of the game in the regular season if it is not going to be the same in the playoffs.

NHL Hockey is 5 on 5 leave it that way unless someone is in the box.

 

[GordonHowe]

It's certainly going to happen, and I can't wait.

Yes please. Death to the shoot out!

 

[Therick67]

3 on 3 is just as much of a gimmick as the shootout. A better gimmick, but still a gimmick.

Agreed.

I'd play 5 on 5 for five minutes. The winner gets 2 points and if it ends in a tie I'd only give each team a 1/2 point instead of 1.

As mentioned, more scoring during the game might actually help also.

 

[Kate08]

Yeah, and so is 4-4. Out of those 3 options, 4-4 is most like hockey.

So considering the shootout is going nowhere, why not just extend 4-4 instead of then doing a second but worse gimmick before the shootout?

4 on 4 is my strong preference as well. I don't understand why they don't just extend the 4 on 4 time, either. Actually, yes I do..it's the NHL and they rarely make the right/easy decision.

My point is more around folks being excited for 3 on 3, but hating the shootout because it's gimmicky. They both are...just different flavors of gimmick. 4 on 4 is a gimmick, too, but occurs with some regularity over the course of a game.

 

[Trap Jesus]

There's just no winning with regular season OT. I'd just keep it as is, but maybe look into changing the points system to make shootouts even less important. Even without considering shootouts, 4-on-4 is a gimmick in itself. 3-on-3 would nearly be as big of a gimmick as the shootout.

 

[ThomasJ13]

Yeah, and so is 4-4. Out of those 3 options, 4-4 is most like hockey.

So considering the shootout is going nowhere, why not just extend 4-4 instead of then doing a second but worse gimmick before the shootout?

I suspect it may have to do with minimizing the number of games that go to a shootout, which is the primary point of the exercise. Unfortunately nobody has data on 4x4 for 8 minutes, but it would be good to see. Some preliminary AHL data on the 4x4 then 3x3 shows something like only 16% of games that went beyond regulation got to the shootuout (http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/new-overtime-rules-letting-hockey-not-shootouts-decide-games/). So we have:

Current NHL format: 57% of games beyond regulation go to shootout

Current AHL format: 16% of games beyond regulation go to shootout

8 minutes of 4x4: ???

If 8 minutes of 4x4 only drops the percentage to shootout to about 45%, then the additional 'gimmick' of 3x3 becomes more palatable. However, if the additional 4x4 time would drop the percentage to shootout to 25%, then I'd probably prefer the 8 minutes of 4x4.